Egyszerű nézet

dc.contributor.author Lehmann I
dc.contributor.author Chisholm D
dc.contributor.author Hinkov H
dc.contributor.author Hoschl C
dc.contributor.author Kapocs G
dc.contributor.author Kurimay T
dc.contributor.author Lecic-Tosevski D
dc.contributor.author Nakov V
dc.contributor.author Réthelyi, János
dc.contributor.author Winkler P
dc.contributor.author Zielasek J
dc.contributor.author Gaebel W
dc.date.accessioned 2018-10-05T07:54:43Z
dc.date.available 2018-10-05T07:54:43Z
dc.date.issued 2018
dc.identifier.citation pagination=197-206; journalVolume=30; journalIssueNumber=2; journalTitle=PSYCHIATRIA DANUBINA;
dc.identifier.uri http://repo.lib.semmelweis.hu//handle/123456789/6054
dc.identifier.uri doi:10.24869/psyd.2018.197
dc.description.abstract BACKGROUND: Quality indicators are quality assurance instruments for the evaluation of mental healthcare systems. Quality indicators can be used to measure the effectiveness of mental healthcare structure and process reforms. This project aims to develop quality indicators for mental healthcare systems in Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Serbia to provide monitoring instruments for the transformation of mental healthcare systems in these countries. METHODS: Quality indicators for mental healthcare systems were developed in a systematic, multidisciplinary approach. A systematic literature study was conducted to identify quality indicators that are used internationally in mental healthcare. Retrieved quality indicators were systematically selected by means of defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Quality indicators were subsequently rated in a two-stage Delphi study for relevance, validity and feasibility (data availability and data collection effort). The Delphi panel included 22 individuals in the first round, and 18 individuals in the second and final round. RESULTS: Overall, mental healthcare quality indicators were rated higher in relevance than in validity (Mean relevance=7.6, SD=0.8; Mean validity=7.1, SD=0.7). There was no statistically significant difference in scores between the four countries for relevance (X(2) (3)=3.581, p=0.310) and validity (X(2) (3)=1.145, p=0.766). For data availability, the appraisal of "YES" (data are available) ranged from 6% for "assisted housing" to 94% for "total beds for mental healthcare per 100,000 population" and "availability of mental health service facilities". CONCLUSION: Quality indicators were developed in a systematic and multidisciplinary development process. There was a broad consensus among mental healthcare experts from the participating countries in terms of relevance and validity of the proposed quality indicators. In a next step, the feasibility of these twenty-two indicators will be evaluated in a pilot study in the participating countries.
dc.relation.ispartof urn:issn:0353-5053
dc.title Development of quality indicators for mental healthcare in the Danube region.
dc.type Journal Article
dc.date.updated 2018-08-08T12:17:16Z
dc.language.rfc3066 en
dc.identifier.mtmt 3401868
dc.identifier.pubmed 29930230
dc.contributor.department SE/AOK/K/Pszichiátriai és Pszichoterápiás Klinika
dc.contributor.institution Semmelweis Egyetem


Kapcsolódó fájlok:

A fájl jelenleg csak egyetemi IP címről érhető el.

Megtekintés/Megnyitás

Ez a rekord az alábbi gyűjteményekben szerepel:

Egyszerű nézet