Treatment Outcome, Duration, and Costs: A Comparison of Performance Indicators Using Data from Eight Mental Health Care Providers in The Netherlands

Abstract

Assessing performance of mental health services (MHS) providers merely by their outcomes is insufficient. Process factors, such as treatment cost or duration, should also be considered in a meaningful and thorough analysis of quality of care. The present study aims to examine various performance indicators based on treatment outcome and two process factors: duration and cost of treatment. Data of patients with depression or anxiety from eight Dutch MHS providers were used. Treatment outcome was operationalized as case mix corrected pre-to-posttreatment change scores and as reliable change (improved) and clinical significant change (recovered). Duration and cost were corrected for case mix differences as well. Three performance indicators were calculated and compared: outcome as such, duration per outcome, and cost per outcome. The results showed that performance indicators, which also take process variability into account, reveal larger differences between MHS providers than mere outcome. We recommend to use the three performance indicators in a complementary way. Average pre-to-posttreatment change allows for a simple and straightforward ranking of MHS providers. Duration per outcome informs patients on how MHS providers compare in how quickly symptomatic relief is achieved. Cost per outcome informs MHS providers on how they compare regarding the efficiency of their care. The substantial variation among MHS providers in outcome, treatment duration and cost calls for further exploration of its causes, dissemination of best practices, and continuous quality improvement.

Bias through selective inclusion and attrition: Representativeness when comparing provider performance with routine outcome monitoring data

“…There are other reasons to strive for optimum implementation of ROM beyond the 50% mark and to encourage providers to improve data collection. First of all, ROM was not primarily implemented for accountability but predominantly intended as a beneficial adjunct to treatment (de Beurs, Barendregt, & Warmerdam, 2017). Research has shown that ROM by itself can lead to better results (Boswell, Kraus, Miller, & Lambert, 2013), especially for patients at risk for treatment failure (Lambert, 2010).…”

Does the mental health system provide effective coverage to people with schizophrenic disorder? A self-controlled case series study in Italy

“…Performance indicators are measurable elements of practice for which there is evidence for, or consensus on, their usefulness in assessing healthcare quality [4]. However, despite their widespread use [5][6][7][8], their validity (i.e., the ability of a process indicator to identify components of healthcare quality casually associated with clinical outcomes) is largely untested by randomized clinical trials [9], thus making their real-world evaluation essential.…”

Perceived compassionate care and associated factors among patients with mental illness at Tibebe Ghion specialized and Felege Hiwot comprehensive specialized hospital, Northwest Ethiopia

“…This study indicates that patients with mental illness with a duration of illness of less than 24 months were 2.7 times (AOR = 2.68, 95% CI 1.27–5.65) more likely to get good compassionate care than those patients with a duration of illness greater than 36 months. This finding might be due to how the duration of illness affects the quality of care; if patients come early to clinic, mental health workers might be more satisfied and empathic to those patients than who came to clinic so late [ 27 , 29 ].…”

“…Summing up all items leads to a total score of 4 to 20. The mean score above 10.89 was regarded as high patient anticipated stigma to health workers, while the score below 10.89 was regarded as low patient anticipated stigma to health workers [ 27 ].…”