Exploring the Potential of Quality Improvement in Mental Health (King’s Fund / BJGP)

Summary

A recent King’s Fund report explores the application of quality improvement approaches to improving the quality of mental health care. It is asserted that continuing improvements are best achieved by “empowering frontline teams, service users and carers to design, implement and test changes to services”.

Case studies cover:

  1. Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust.
  2. East London NHS Foundation Trust.
  3. Institute of Mental Health, Singapore.

Section headings in this report include:

  • Quality improvement in mental health: Introduction.
  • Case studies.
  • Why does quality improvement matter?
  • Leading quality improvement.
    • Building board-level support for quality improvement.
    • Quality improvement means leading in a different way.
  • Sustaining quality improvement.
    • Building an infrastructure for quality improvement.
    • Building capability and capacity in the workforce.
    • Partnering for quality improvement in mental health.
  • Challenges and opportunities.
  • Reframing relationships with regulators.
  • Key lessons.
    • Quality improvement can make a difference.
    • Quality improvement takes time.
    • Quality improvement means leading in a different way.
    • Quality improvement requires fidelity to the chosen method.
    • Quality improvement in mental health is broadly similar to quality improvement in other health care settings.
  • Appendix 1: Quality improvement methods.
  • Appendix 2: Quality improvement resources.
  • References.

Full Text Link

Reference

Ross, S. [and] Naylor, C. (2017). Quality improvement in mental health. London: The King’s Fund, July 2017.

Quality Indicators For People With Serious Mental Illness: the Primary Care Dimension (BJGP)

Possibly of interest, regarding primary care, a recent review in the British Journal of General Practice identified 59 quality indicators. It found that the evidence-base for these indicators is relatively weak, as they are based mostly on expert opinion rather than trial evidence. More robust evidence may be needed, to be able to monitor and improve patient outcomes.

Full Text Link

Reference

Kronenberg, C. Doran, T. [and] Goddard, M, [et al] (2017). Identifying primary care quality indicators for people with serious mental illness: a systematic review. British Journal of General Practice. August 2017; 67(661): e519-e530.

Advertisements

About Dementia and Elderly Care News

Dementia and Elderly Care News. Wolverhampton Medical Institute: WMI. (jh)
This entry was posted in Acute Hospitals, Charitable Bodies, Commissioning, For Doctors (mostly), For Nurses and Therapists (mostly), For Researchers (mostly), For Social Workers (mostly), Integrated Care, International, King's Fund, Management of Condition, Mental Health, National, NHS, Person-Centred Care, Quick Insights, Standards, UK, Universal Interest and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s