Good Practice and Quality Standards

Ferri, Marica; Griffiths, Paul

doi:10.1007/978-88-470-5322-9_64

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Despite global initiatives to strengthen SUD treatment systems in LMICs (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 2016) and increasing interest in the use of performance measurement systems to monitor system strengthening efforts (Ferri & Griffiths, 2015), few LMICs have implemented systems to assess the quality of SUD treatment. This is partly because the system attributes and other factors required to ensure successful implementation of these systems in severely resource-constrained treatment systems are unknown.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A better understanding of the quality of South African SUD services is needed to inform interventions to optimize treatment outcomes. In high-income countries, performance measurement systems that collect data on a standardized set of treatment indicators guide the design and evaluation of quality improvement initiatives (Ferri & Griffiths, 2015; Garnick et al, 2012). Most of these systems use process data extracted from administrative databases for this purpose, with few collecting outcome data (Garnick et al, 2012; Harris et al, 2009).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Mixed-Methods Evaluation of the Implementation of a Performance Measurement System for South Africa’s Substance Use Treatment Services

Myers

Williams

Govender

et al. 2019

J. Stud. Alcohol Drugs Suppl.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective:Minimal knowledge exists on the factors that affect implementation of performance measurement systems, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). To address this, we describe the implementation of a performance measurement system for South Africa’s substance abuse treatment services known as the Service Quality Measures (SQM) initiative.Method:We conducted a mixed-methods evaluation of system implementation. We surveyed 81 providers about the extent of system implementation within their agencies and the factors that facilitated implementation. We conducted 26 in-depth interviews of providers’ perceived barriers and facilitators to implementation.Results:The overall penetration of this system was high. Almost all providers viewed the system as feasible to implement, acceptable, appropriate for use in their context, and useful for guiding service improvements. However, the extent of implementation varied significantly across sites (p < .05). Leadership support (p < .05) was associated with increased implementation in multivariable analyses. Providers reflected that high rates of patient attrition, variability in willingness to implement the system, and limited capacity for interpreting performance feedback affected the extent of system implementation.Conclusions:It is feasible to implement a performance measurement system in LMICs if the system is acceptable, appropriate, and useful to providers. To ensure the utility of this system for treatment service strengthening, system implementation must be optimized. Efforts to enhance target population coverage, strengthen leadership support for performance measurement, and build capacity for performance feedback utilization may enhance the implementation of this performance measurement system.Objectifs :Peu de connaissance existe sur les facteurs influençant l’implantation d’un système de mesure du rendement, particulièrement dans les pays à revenu faible et intermédiaire (PRFI). Pour aborder cette question, nous décrivons l’implantation d’un système de mesure du rendement des services de traitement en toxicomanie d’Afrique du Sud, connu sous le nom du projet de Mesures de la qualité du service (MQS).Méthode :Nous avons mené une évaluation d’implantation du système à l’aide d’une méthode mixte. Nous avons interrogé 81 pourvoyeurs de services sur l’ampleur de l’implantation du système dans leur agence et les facteurs qui ont facilité l’implantation. Nous avons mené 26 entrevues approfondies sur les perceptions des pourvoyeurs concernant les obstacles et les facilitateurs de l’implantation.Résultats :L’appropriation générale de ce système était élevée. Presque tous les pourvoyeurs voyaient la faisabilité d’implantation du système et le considéraient comme étant acceptable, approprié à leur contexte et utile pour guider l’amélioration des services. Cependant, l’ampleur de l’implantation variait de façon significative à travers les sites (p < ,05). Le soutien de la direction (p < ,05) était associé à une implantation plus importante dans les analyses ...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%