Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T13:40:24.608Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Quality of care indicators for schizophrenia: determinants of observed variations among Italian Departments of Mental Health. Results from the ETAS DSM study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2016

G. Fantini ,
G. Tibaldi ,
P. Rucci ,
D. Gibertoni ,
M. Vezzoli ,
L. Cifarelli ,
R. Tiraferri  and
C. Munizza
G. Fantini
Affiliation:
Centro Studi e Ricerche in Psichiatria, Torino, Italy
G. Tibaldi
Affiliation:
Centro Studi e Ricerche in Psichiatria, Torino, Italy
P. Rucci
Affiliation:
Department of Biomedical and Neuromotor Sciences, Unit of Hygiene and Biostatistics, Alma Mater Studiorum University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
D. Gibertoni
Affiliation:
Department of Biomedical and Neuromotor Sciences, Unit of Hygiene and Biostatistics, Alma Mater Studiorum University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
M. Vezzoli
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, Local Health Authority, Trento, Italy
L. Cifarelli
Affiliation:
Department of Mental Health, Matera, Italy
R. Tiraferri
Affiliation:
Department of Mental Health, Local Health Authority Torino 4, Torino, Italy
C. Munizza*
Affiliation:
Centro Studi e Ricerche in Psichiatria, Torino, Italy
*
*Address for correspondence: Dr C. Munizza, Centro Studi e Ricerche in Psichiatria, Via degli Abeti 16, 10156 Torino, Italy. (Email: [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Aims.

The primary aim of this study is to analyse the conformance of usual care patterns for persons with schizophrenia to treatment guidelines in three Italian Departments of Mental Health (DMHs). The secondary aim is to examine possible organisational and structural reasons accounting for variations among DMHs.

Methods.

Within the framework of the Evaluation of Treatment Appropriateness in Schizophrenia (ETAS) project, 20 consensus quality of care indicators were developed. Ten concerned pharmacological treatment and ten encompassed general care and psychosocial rehabilitation interventions. Indicators were calculated using data from a stratified random sample of 458 patients treated at three DMHs located in North-Eastern, North-Western and Southern Italy. Patients’ data were collected by combining information from medical charts and from a survey carried out by the health care professionals in charge of the patients. Data on the structural and organisational characteristics of the DMHs were retrieved from administrative databases. For each indicator, the number and percentage of appropriate interventions with and without moderators were calculated. Appropriateness was defined as the percentage of eligible patients receiving an intervention conformant with guidelines. Moderators, i.e., reasons justifying a discrepancy between the interventions actually provided and that recommended by guidelines were recorded. Indicators based on a sufficient number of eligible patients were further explored in a statistical analysis to compare the performance of the DMHs.

Results.

In the overall sample, the percentage of inappropriate interventions ranged from 11.1 to 59.3% for non-pharmacological interventions and from 5.9 to 66.8% for pharmacological interventions. Comparisons among DMHs revealed significant variability in appropriateness for the indicators ‘prevention and monitoring of metabolic effects’, ‘psychiatric visits’, ‘psychosocial rehabilitation’, ‘family involvement’ and ‘work’. After adjusting the patient's gender, age and functioning, only the indicators ‘Prevention and monitoring of metabolic effects’, ‘psychiatric visits’ and ‘work’ continued to differ significantly among DMHs. The percentage of patients receiving appropriate integrated care (at least one appropriate non-pharmacological intervention and one pharmacological intervention) was significantly different among the three DMHs and lower than expected.

Conclusions.

Our results underscore discrepancies among Italian DMHs in indicators that explore key aspects of care of patients with schizophrenia. The use of quality indicators and improved guideline adherence can address suboptimal clinical outcomes, and has the potential to reduce practice variations and narrow the gap between optimal and routine care.

Keywords

Antipsychoticshealth service researchquality indicatorsquality of care schizophrenia
Type
Original Articles
Information
Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences , Volume 26 , Issue 3 , June 2017 , pp. 299 - 313
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

American Diabetes Association, American Psychiatric Association, American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, North American Association for the Study of Obesity (2004). Consensus development conference on antipsychotic drugs and obesity. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 65, 267–272.Google Scholar
Bollini, P, Pampallona, S, Nieddu, S, Bianco, M, Tibaldi, G, Munizza, C (2008 a). Indicators of conformance with guidelines of schizophrenia treatment in mental health services. Psychiatric Services 59, 782–791.Google Scholar
Bollini, P, Pampallona, S, Tibaldi, G, Bianco, M, Nieddu, S, Munizza, C (2008 b). Structural and organizational determinants of quality of care in patients with schizophrenia in Italy. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 196, 923–926.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Canadian Psychiatric Association (2005). Clinical practice guidelines: treatment of schizophrenia. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry 50, 1–57.Google Scholar
Chou, AF, Vaughn, TE, McCoy, KD, Doebbeling, BN (2011). Implementation of evidence-based practices. Health Care Management Review 36, 4–17.Google Scholar
Ferrannini, L, Ghio, L, Gibertoni, D, Lora, A, Tibaldi, G, Neri, G, Piazza, A (2014). Thirty-five years of community psychiatry in Italy. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 202, 432–439.Google Scholar
Kilbourne, AM, Keyser, D, Pincus, HA (2010). Challenges and opportunities in measuring the quality of mental health care. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry 55, 549–557.Google Scholar
Lehman, AF, Kreyenbuhl, J, Buchanan, RW, Dickerson, FB, Dixon, LB, Goldberg, R, Green-Paden, LD, Tenhula, WN, Boerescu, D, Tek, C, Sandson, N, Steinwachs, DM (2004). The Schizophrenia Patient Outcomes Research Team (PORT): updated treatment recommendations 2003. Schizophrenia Bulletin 30, 193–217.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lehman, AF, Steinwachs, DM, Co-Investigators of the PORT Project (1998). Translating research into practice: The Schizophrenia Patient Outcomes Research Team (PORT) treatment recommendations. Schizophrenia Bulletin 24, 1–10.Google Scholar
Lenroot, R, Bustillo, J, Lauriello, J, Keith, S (2003). Integrated treatment of schizophrenia. Psychiatric Services 54, 1499–1507.Google Scholar
Marder, SR, Essock, SM, Miller, AL, Buchanan, RW, Casey, DE, Davis, JM, Kane, JM, Lieberman, JA, Schooler, NR, Covell, N, Stroup, S, Weissman, EM, Wirshing, DA, Hall, CS, Pogach, L, Pi-Sunyer, X, Bigger, JT, Friedman, A, Kleinberg, D, Yevich, SJ, Davis, B, Shon, S (2004). Physical health monitoring of patients with schizophrenia. The American Journal of Psychiatry 161, 1334–1349.Google Scholar
McEvoy, JP, Scheifler, PL, Frances, A (1999). Treatment of Schizophrenia 1999. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 60, 1–83.Google Scholar
McGorry, P (2005). Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of schizophrenia and related disorders. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 39, 1–30.Google Scholar
Morosini, PL, Magliano, L, Brambilla, L, Ugolini, S, Pioli, R (2000). Development, reliability and acceptability of a new version of the DSM-IV Social and Occupational Functioning Assessment Scale (SOFAS) to assess routine social functioning. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 101, 323–329.Google ScholarPubMed
Munizza, C, Gonella, R, Pinciaroli, L, Rucci, P, Picci, RL, Tibaldi, G (2011). CMHC adherence to national mental health plan standards Italy: a survey 30 years after national reform law. Psychiatric Services 62, 1090–1093.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health Commissioned by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (2002). Schizophrenia. Core interventions in the treatment and management of schizophrenia in primary and secondary care. National Clinical Practice Guideline Number 1. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence: London.Google Scholar
National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health Commissioned by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (2009). Schizophrenia. Core Interventions in the Treatment and Management of Schizophrenia in Primary and Secondary Care (update). National Clinical Practice Guideline Number 82. British Psychological Society: Leicester, UK.Google Scholar
Nuti, S, Fantini, MP, Murante, AM eds. (2014). Valutare i percorsi in sanità. I percorsi della salute mentale e il percorso oncologico. Un progetto della Commissione parlamentare d'inchiesta del Senato sull'efficienza e l'efficacia del SSN. Il Mulino: Bologna.Google Scholar
Nuti, S, Vola, F, Bonini, A, Vainieri, M (2016). Making governance work in the health care sector: evidence from a “natural experiment” in Italy. Health Economics, Policy and Law 11, 17–38.Google Scholar
Rossi, G, Agnetti, G, Bosio, R, De Luca, P, Erlicher, A, Morganti, C, Neri, G, Re, E, Semisa, D, Fioritti, A (2014). Italian quality assurance in mental health. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 202, 469–472.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Santone, G, Bellantuono, C, Rucci, P, Picardi, A, Preti, A, de Girolamo, G (2011). Patient characteristics and process factors associated with antipsychotic polypharmacy in a nationwide sample of psychiatric inpatients in Italy. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety 20, 441–449.Google Scholar
Semisa, D, Casacchia, M, Di Munzio, W, Neri, G, Buscaglia, G, Burti, L, Pucci, C, Corlito, G, Bacigalupi, M, Parravani, R, Roncone, R, Cristofalo, D, Lora, A, Ruggeri, M (2008). Promoting recovery of schizophrenic patients: discrepancy between routine practice and evidence. The SIEP-DIRECT'S Project. Epidemiologia e Psichiatria Sociale 17, 331–348.Google Scholar
Tiihonen, J, Lönnqvist, J, Wahlbeck, K, Klaukka, T, Niskanen, L, Tanskanen, A, Haukka, J (2011). No mental health without physical health. Lancet 377, 611.Google Scholar
van Os, J, Kapur, S (2009). Schizophrenia. Lancet 374, 635–645.Google Scholar
Weinmann, S, Koesters, M, Becker, T (2007). Effects of implementation of psychiatric guidelines on provider performance and patient outcome: systematic review. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 115, 420–433.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weinmann, S, Roick, C, Martin, L, Willich, S, Becker, T (2010). Development of a set of schizophrenia quality indicators for integrated care. Epidemiologia e Psichiatria Sociale 19, 52–62.Google Scholar