The SIEP-DIRECT's Project on the discrepancy between routine practice and evidence in the treatment of schizophrenia. The design, the indicators, and the methodology of the study

2008 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 278-290 ◽  
Author(s):  
Domenico Semisa ◽  
Antonio Lora ◽  
Pierluigi Morosini ◽  
Mirella Ruggeri

SUMMARYAims– The aims of the SIEP-DIRECT'S Project (DIscrepancy betweenRoutine practice andEvidence in psychiatricCommunityTreatments onSchizophrenia) are: 1) To evaluate the appropriateness of the NICE guidelines for schizophrenia in Italian Departments of Mental Health; 2) to develop and to test a set of SIEP indicators, based on the NICE recommendations, useful to evaluate their real application in mental health services.Methods– Based on the NICE recommendations, 103 indicators have been developed, some of them qualitative and the rest quantitative. These indicators investigate five different areas: 14 indicators concern the common elements in all phases of mental health care; 11 the treatment of first episode; 24 the crisis treatment; 41 the recovery promotion; 13 the urgency, including management of violent behaviours and fast soothing. After a pilot study conducted in 2 community mental health services, the indicators were tested in 19 Italian Departments of Mental Health, to obtain a self-evaluation of the quality of care and to verify the application of NICE recommendations in the clinical routine of these Services. Data for the self-evaluation have been obtained from the DSM'ls psychiatric informative system and from the Direction of the local health authorities or of the DSM. Moreover, for some indicators, information has been gathered from the clinical records, and by means of questionnaires administered to a sample of patients and relatives. Finally, “multidisciplinary” (i.e. involving different types of professionals) or “specialized” (i.e. involving only psychiatrists) focus groups have assessed the degree of similarity between practice and recommendation for 33 indicators. Finally, the focus group methodology has been applied in all services with the aim to judge the appropriateness of each NICE recommendation in the context of the Italian Departments of Mental Health.Results and Conclusions– Most NICE recommendations have been considered useful and appropriated to measure quality of care in the context of the Italian services. The SIEP indicators have been easily used by the services participating in the DIRECT's Project. The self-evaluation process has provided several data of great relevance to improve the quality of care for schizophrenia and implement clinical guidelines in Italy.Declaration of Interest: None.

2014 ◽  
Vol 36 (3) ◽  
pp. 175-182 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. D. Santiago ◽  
S. H. Kataoka ◽  
S. R. Forness ◽  
J. Miranda

2015 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 284-290 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lorraine Hester ◽  
Lorna Jane O’ Doherty ◽  
Rebecca Schnittger ◽  
Niamh Skelly ◽  
Muireann O’ Donnell ◽  
...  

2008 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 331-348 ◽  
Author(s):  
Domenico Semisa ◽  
Massimo Casacchia ◽  
Walter Di Munzio ◽  
Giovanni Neri ◽  
Giacinto Buscaglia ◽  
...  

SUMMARYAims– The aim of this work is to present the main discrepancies, as evidenced by the SIEP-DIRECT's Project, between the evidence-based NICE guidelines for schizophrenia and the usual practices of the Italian mental health services in order to promote the recovery of patients with schizophrenia.Methods– Starting from the main NICE recommendations on recovery promotion, 41 indicators were developed. These were experimented in 19 participating Italian Mental Health Departments (MHD) or Psychiatric Services through self-evaluation of the activities carried out to promote patient recovery with the aim of assessing the level of adherence to the recommendations. The data required by most of the indicators were obtained from the psychiatric informative system or from the Direction of the MHD. Moreover, specific research was carried out on the clinical records and on representative patient samples. Furthermore, for 14 indicators, there was requested an assessment by the part of “multidisciplinary” or “specialistic” focus groups who then attributed a score according to a defined “ad hoc” scale.Results– According to the data obtained, although the mental health services seem to care about the physical condition of their patients, they do not routinely examine principle parameters such as blood pressure, glycaemia etc., and collaboration with general practitioners is often complex or not uniformly practiced. Most psychiatrists and psychologists possess the basic communication skills but not enough competences in cognitive-behavioural treatments; such treatments, and every other form of structured individual psychotherapy, are seldom carried out and seem to have become marginal activities within the Services. Also family psycho-educational interventions are under-used. The Services are very active in the care of multi-problem schizophrenia patients, who make up a large percentage (almost a quarter, on average) of the patients in their care. These patients are offered specific and integrated treatment plans with the involvement of other health services and social agencies operating in the territory. The strategies adopted by the services for the pharmacological treatment in the prevention of relapses and for patients with frequent crises or with treatment-resistant schizophrenia are all in line with the NICE recommendations. Finally, the Services promote activities of vocational training and supported employment, but the outcomes of these are often unsatisfactory.Conclusions– The results of the study show a picture of the Italian mental health services with bright yet also dark areas as regards recovery promotion activities. The Services seem to guarantee adequate pharmacological evidence-based treatments, an integrated assistance and good management of multi-problem patients. They have difficulty, however, with respect to the monitoring of the physical health of the patients, psychotherapeutic activities, including those for families, and the promotion of supported employment. Moreover, they still show problems regarding the structuring and formalizing of care processes. To improve this situation, they should make greater use of professional guidelines, protocols and written procedures.Declaration of Interest:None.


1997 ◽  
Vol 6 (S1) ◽  
pp. 211-215
Author(s):  
José G. Sampaio Faria

In 1984 all Member States of the European Region agreed on a Pan European Health Policy, popularly known as Targets for Health for All (Health for all targets, 1991).Among the 38 targets agreed, Target 31 states (table I).More recently the first meeting of national directors/officials of mental health services in the European Member States stated that “there should be greater concern about the quality of mental health care in each Member State, and mechanisms must be established to guarantee a quality service. These include: a.encouraging mental health care professionals to develop systems to monitor the quality of care;b.independent inspection of services;c.the participation of consumers and relatives;d.improving the basic and continuing training of mental health professionals as well as their working conditions;Special attention should be paid to the quality of care provided to those with severe long-term mental disorder, the elderly, children and adolescents. Barriers to care should be avoided, particularly for people with long-term mental disabilities.”The need for quality development and evaluation differ quite significantly across the European Region as a result of the existing differences in the pattern of mental health services and priority policies to be implemented.


2017 ◽  
Vol 41 (3) ◽  
pp. 172-176 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mike J. Crawford ◽  
Mo Zoha ◽  
Alastair J. D. Macdonald ◽  
David Kingdon

SummaryEfforts to assess and improve the quality of mental health services are often hampered by a lack of information on patient outcomes. Most mental health services in England have been routinely collecting Health of the Nation Outcome Scales (HoNOS) data for some time. In this article we illustrate how clinical teams have used HoNOS data to identify areas where performance could be improved. HoNOS data have the potential to give clinical teams the information they need to assess the quality of care they deliver, as well as develop and test initiatives aimed at improving the services they provide.


2016 ◽  
Vol 13 (01) ◽  
pp. 15-24
Author(s):  
M. Ruggeri ◽  
L. Iozzino

Summary Background: After the Psychiatric Reform in 1978 and the closure of large mental hospitals, a nation-wide network of Departments of Mental Health (DMH) has been developed in Italy and now delivers routinely outpatient and inpatient care, and runs semi-residential and residential facilities. Intensive effort has been promoted: inpatient care is provided all over Italy by General Hospital Psychiatric Units (GHPUs) with a maximum of 15 beds, and only a very low proportion of inpatient admissions are compulsory. Community Mental Health Centres are central to mental health services operating between 5 days per week for 12 hours a day in most Regions offering daytime and domiciliary care for those with severe and enduring mental illness; other community mental health services include residential facilities for long-term psychiatric care and day hospital/centres. However, there is still marked quantitative and qualitative variation in the provision of out- and inpatient care throughout the country, and service utilization patterns are uneven. Aim: Further efforts are required to improve quality of care and to develop a more effectively integrated system. Greater attention must be paid to topics such as quality of care and outcomes, and continuous monitoring that orient the overall process of care and particularly psychosocial interventions. Prevention and promotion of mental health, particularly in the early stages of illness, and in adolescence disorders and depression, should be promoted; outcome and quality of care in residential facilities should be targeted to prevent avoidable chronicization.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document