[DGPPN recommendations on quality indicators for schizophrenia]. / Aktuelle Empfehlungen der DGPPN für Schizophrenie-Qualitätsindikatoren.

BACKGROUND: In Germany, several quality indicators have been proposed for the measurement of quality of mental healthcare. Some of these quality indicators have been tested in feasibility studies. The German Association for Psychiatry and Psychotherapy (DGPPN) established the "Task Force Quality Indicators (QI)" that, based on previous experience in the development and pilot testing of indicators, considered the further development and practical realization of QI for schizophrenia. AIM: The aim was to select a set of QI for schizophrenia that can also be applied to other diagnoses or used in generic measurements. Another goal was to focus on high feasibility of indicators. METHODS: In a multistage selection process, the DGPPN Task Force selected QI that focus on essential quality aspects from an inventory of 161 existing QI developed by national and international research groups. Indicators were adapted in consultation with the "trialogic forum" of the DGPPN. RESULTS: The DGPPN proposes the following ten indicators for quality measurement in mental healthcare for schizophrenia: QI1 Long-term treatment/Monitoring of side effects, QI2 Seclusion and restraint, QI3 Number of suicides, QI4 Psychoeducational-oriented intervention for significant others, QI5 Timely beginning of outpatient treatment after discharge from inpatient treatment, QI6 Aggression management - inpatient treatment, QI7 Diagnostic procedures/Physical examination, QI8 Antipsychotic polypharmacy, QI9 Rehabilitation/Vocational rehabilitation, QI10 Diagnostic procedures/Psychosocial functioning. DISCUSSION: Most of our proposed QI have to be measured by means of additional data documentation. Based on prior experience in the pilot testing of QI, the DGPPN estimates that the additional efforts in data documentation would be manageable, but have to be refinanced. The indicators will be tested in feasibility studies in different mental healthcare hospitals in Germany.

[Assessment of quality indicators with routine data: Presentation of a feasibility test in ten specialist clinics for psychiatry and psychotherapy]. / Erhebung von Qualitätsindikatoren anhand von Routinedaten : Darstellung eines Machbarkeitstests in 10 Fachkliniken für Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie.

BACKGROUND: Prior to nationwide implementation, the feasibility of newly developed quality indicators must be assessed. The aim of this multicenter feasibility test was an evaluation of the measurability of cross-sectoral quality indicators for depression and schizophrenia by means of routine data. METHODS: The feasibility of the quality indicators was assessed in ten specialist clinics for psychiatry and psychotherapy by means of retrospective analyses of anonymous routine data. The data were extracted from the routine clinical documentation of the hospital information systems and the data from the admission and discharge sheets of the basic documentation in psychiatry (BADO) were additionally used for some clinics. Analyses were conducted for all cases of adults diagnosed with depression or schizophrenia within predefined assessment periods. RESULTS: In total five indicators for depression and nine indicators for schizophrenia were assessed and evaluated as measurable or measurable to a limited extent, sometimes with slight adaptations in the operationalization of the indicator. Due to variations in documentation, some indicators could not be calculated for all clinics. Most indicators could be collated with the data from the BADO. CONCLUSION: An assessment of indicators that measure quality-relevant aspects of care in depression and schizophrenia, is partially feasible by means of current routine data documentation analysis from the participating clinics. However, differing documentation methodologies in the participating clinics impeded a uniform assessment; therefore, for the implementation of nationwide minimum standards for the quality assurance of mental healthcare, a uniform cross-sectoral documentation methodology should be adapted to consensus and relevant quality indicators. The BADO appears to be a suitable instrument for this purpose.

[Developmental process of DGPPN quality indicators]. / Entwicklungsprozess der DGPPN-Qualitätsindikatoren.

BACKGROUND: Valid and feasible quality indicators can measure healthcare quality and show potential for improvement in care. The German Association for Psychiatry and Psychotherapy (DGPPN) has developed trans-sectoral quality indicator sets for four mental disorders with high prevalence (alcohol dependence, dementia, depression and schizophrenia). MATERIAL AND METHOD: The DGPPN followed a structured multistage process and used guideline recommendations and the results of systematic evidence searches as the basis for the development of these quality indicators. This was followed by a structured consensus process for all quality indicators. RESULTS: Four evidence and consensus-based, diagnosis-specific and trans-sectoral quality indicator sets have been developed. CONCLUSION: It is possible to develop quality indicators on the basis of guideline recommendations. The implementation of the DGPPN quality indicators will play a crucial role in order to evaluate their utility and feasibility as quality measures for German mental healthcare.

EPA guidance on eMental health interventions in the treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

The aim of this EPA guidance was to develop recommendations on eMental health interventions in the treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). A systematic literature search was performed and 40 articles were retrieved and assessed with regard to study characteristics, applied technologies, therapeutic approaches, diagnostic ascertainment, efficacy, sustainability of clinical effects, practicability and acceptance, attrition rates, safety, clinician-supported vs. non-supported interventions and active vs. waiting-list controls. The reviewed studies showed a great heterogeneity concerning study type, study samples, interventions and outcome measures. Based on these findings, five graded recommendations dealing with symptom reduction, acceptability, type of administration, clinician support, self-efficacy and coping were developed.

European Psychiatric Association (EPA) guidance on quality assurance in mental healthcare.

PURPOSE: To advance the quality of mental healthcare in Europe by developing guidance on implementing quality assurance. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature search on quality assurance in mental healthcare and the 522 retrieved documents were evaluated by two independent reviewers (B.J. and J.Z.). Based on these evaluations, evidence tables were generated. As it was found that these did not cover all areas of mental healthcare, supplementary hand searches were performed for selected additional areas. Based on these findings, fifteen graded recommendations were developed and consented by the authors. Review by the EPA Guidance Committee and EPA Board led to two additional recommendations (on immigrant mental healthcare and parity of mental and physical healthcare funding). RESULTS: Although quality assurance (measures to keep a certain degree of quality), quality control and monitoring (applying quality indicators to the current degree of quality), and quality management (coordinated measures and activities with regard to quality) are conceptually distinct, in practice they are frequently used as if identical and hardly separable. There is a dearth of controlled trials addressing ways to optimize quality assurance in mental healthcare. Altogether, seventeen recommendations were developed addressing a range of aspects of quality assurance in mental healthcare, which appear usable across Europe. These were divided into recommendations about structures, processes and outcomes. Each recommendation was assigned to a hierarchical level of analysis (macro-, meso- and micro-level). DISCUSSION: There was a lack of evidence retrievable by a systematic literature search about quality assurance of mental healthcare. Therefore, only after further topics and search had been added it was possible to develop recommendations with mostly medium evidence levels. CONCLUSION: Evidence-based graded recommendations for quality assurance in mental healthcare were developed which should next be implemented and evaluated for feasibility and validity in some European countries. Due to the small evidence base identified corresponding to the practical obscurity of the concept and methods, a European research initiative is called for by the stakeholders represented in this Guidance to improve the educational, methodological and empirical basis for a future broad implementation of measures for quality assurance in European mental healthcare.