Contracting treatment services in Australia: Do measures adhere to best practice?

Stirling, Robert; Ritter, Alison; Rawstorne, Patrick; Nathan, Sally

doi:10.1016/j.drugpo.2020.102947

Cited by 2 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While measures were not categorized by measurement type as part of the Delphi rounds, the final set of measures have subsequently been categorized by measurement based on earlier work [ 10 ]. The measurement types are outlined in Supporting information, Table S2 .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The study has been completed as part of the work of a peak treatment provider representative body in Australia with the intent of operationalizing the final set of measures for use in future funding contracts. Furthermore, the final set of measures will need to be assessed to ensure that they are compliant with the overarching health performance framework in Australia [ 10 , 21 ]. This may require adjustment to the measures in order to meet established criteria (e.g.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While treatment is provided by both public and non‐government organizations (NGOs), NGOs often manage funding contracts with multiple sources from two levels of government as their primary source of income [ 8 , 9 ]. Without standardization and agreement among funders, contractual arrangements including the performance measures employed vary by funder, creating an unnecessary reporting burden on providers [ 10 ]. An assessment of measures currently used in contracts found more than 500 performance measures in use in Australia and that the measures are heavily focused upon output and process measurement [ 10 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Without standardization and agreement among funders, contractual arrangements including the performance measures employed vary by funder, creating an unnecessary reporting burden on providers [ 10 ]. An assessment of measures currently used in contracts found more than 500 performance measures in use in Australia and that the measures are heavily focused upon output and process measurement [ 10 ]. Further, focus groups with funders, treatment providers and service‐users found that measures of access, outcomes and experience were most important but did not prioritize specific measures to use in contracts (Stirling R, unpublished DrPH thesis, 2022).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Prioritizing measures to assess performance of drug treatment services: a Delphi process with funders, treatment providers and service‐users

2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and aim While many studies have examined outcome measurement as part of clinical trials and routine outcome collection at the person‐level in alcohol and other drug (AOD) treatment services, there has been limited attention to measures required to assess performance at the service‐level. In Australia, non‐government services are primarily funded by government using public funds; however, there is no standardized approach to performance measurement. This study sought to establish a finite list of performance measures that represented consensus between funders, treatment providers and service‐users. Method A three‐round Delphi process was undertaken with (i) funders of treatment (n = 10), (ii) treatment providers (n = 10) and (iii) treatment service‐users (n = 10). Participants were asked to rate a range of measures on a 10‐point Likert scale on how important they were to be included in contracts with funders. Measures with a median score > 7 and agreement among participants above 70% were the criteria for inclusion in the final set of measures. Qualitative data in the form of text responses provided by participants for their ratings in rounds 1 and 2 were also analysed. Results Participants rated 93 measures in round 1, which reduced to 78 measures in round 2 and 32 measures in round 3. Fifteen service‐level measures and two system‐level measures met criteria for inclusion in the final set of performance measures. The final set of measures cover a range of measurement types: outcomes (n = 5), access (n = 3), structural (n = 3), experience (n = 2), input (n = 2), process (n = 1) and output (n = 1). Conclusion In Australia, performance measures for alcohol and other drug treatment services that represent a consensus among service‐users, providers and funders focus upon demonstrating accountability for public funds, improving services and communicating key measures of success to future service‐users and the broader community.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Prioritizing measures to assess performance of drug treatment services: a Delphi process with funders, treatment providers and service‐users

2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Across Australia, there is evidence of limited access to individual, external clinical supervision among the AOD workforce [16], and the sector is over‐stretched and under‐funded across states and territories [53]. Non‐government AOD treatment services in Australia are also purchased largely through competitive tendering processes across states and territories [56]. Future research examining barriers and facilitators to accessing effective clinical supervision among AOD workers in regional, rural and remote areas would be valuable.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Barriers and facilitators to accessing effective clinical supervision and the implementation of a clinical supervision exchange model in the Australian alcohol and other drugs sector

O'Donnell

Popovich

Lee

et al. 2022

Drug and Alcohol Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Internationally, clinical/practice supervision is considered essential in the development and maintenance of professional proficiency across health disciplines. Among alcohol and other drug (AOD) workers, however, access to effective clinical supervision is limited. This study examined perceived barriers and facilitators to: (i) AOD workers accessing effective clinical supervision; and (ii) effective implementation of a clinical supervision exchange model in the AOD sector. Methods Qualitative interviews with frontline workers (n = 10) and managers (n = 11) employed by eight government and non‐government AOD treatment services in Brisbane, Australia were undertaken. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed and data were thematically analysed. Results Frontline workers and managers shared similar views. Reported barriers and facilitators to accessing effective clinical supervision included limited time, the high cost of providers, availability of skilled clinical supervisors, supervisor–supervisee matching and supervision modality. Participants considered the implementation of a clinical supervision exchange model to be a resource‐effective strategy to increase access to external, individual clinical supervision while also exposing workers to a greater diversity of perspectives, increasing sector collaboration and improving the perceived value of clinical supervision among the workforce. Discussion and Conclusions The findings of this study suggest that limited time, cost and availability of skilled supervisors are primary barriers to AOD workers accessing high‐quality clinical supervision. Implementation of a clinical supervision exchange model is perceived by frontline workers and service delivery managers to be a resource‐effective strategy for increasing access to high‐quality clinical supervision among workers.

show abstract

Contracting treatment services in Australia: Do measures adhere to best practice?

Cited by 2 publications

References 15 publications

Prioritizing measures to assess performance of drug treatment services: a Delphi process with funders, treatment providers and service‐users

Prioritizing measures to assess performance of drug treatment services: a Delphi process with funders, treatment providers and service‐users

Barriers and facilitators to accessing effective clinical supervision and the implementation of a clinical supervision exchange model in the Australian alcohol and other drugs sector

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About