The current state of behavioral health quality measures

Where are the gaps?

Milesh M. Patel, Jonathan D. Brown, Sarah Croake, Rita Lewis, Junqing Liu, Lisa Patton, D. E B Potter, Sarah Hudson Scholle

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Objective: This review examined the extent to which existing behavioral health quality measures address the priority areas of the National Behavioral Health Quality Framework (NBHQF) as well as the extent to which the measures have received National Quality Forum endorsement and are used in major reporting programs. Methods: This review identified behavioral health quality measures in widely used measure inventories, including the National Quality Measures Clearinghouse, National Quality Forum, and the Center for Quality Assessment in Mental Health. Additional measures were identified through outreach to federal agencies. Measures were categorized by type, condition, target population, data source, reporting unit, endorsement status, and use in reporting programs. Results: The review identified 510 measures. Nearly onethird of these measures address broad mental health or substance use conditions rather than a specific condition or diagnosis. Seventy-two percent are process measures. The most common data source for measures is administrative claims, and very few measures rely on electronic health records or surveys. Fifty-three (10%) measures have received National Quality Forum (NQF) endorsement, and 28 (5%) unique measures are used in major quality reporting programs. Several subdomains of the NBHQF, such as treatment intensification, financial barriers to care, and continuity of care, lack measures that are NQF endorsed. Conclusions: Despite the wide array of behavioral health quality measures, relatively few have received endorsement or are used in reporting programs. Future efforts should seek to fill gaps in measurement and to identify the most salient and strongest measures in each priority area.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)865-871
Number of pages7
JournalPsychiatric Services
Volume66
Issue number8
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 1 2015
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Health
Information Storage and Retrieval
Mental Health
Process Assessment (Health Care)
Continuity of Patient Care
Electronic Health Records
Health Services Needs and Demand
Research Design
Equipment and Supplies
Therapeutics
Surveys and Questionnaires

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Psychiatry and Mental health

Cite this

Patel, M. M., Brown, J. D., Croake, S., Lewis, R., Liu, J., Patton, L., ... Scholle, S. H. (2015). The current state of behavioral health quality measures: Where are the gaps? Psychiatric Services, 66(8), 865-871. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.201400589

The current state of behavioral health quality measures : Where are the gaps? / Patel, Milesh M.; Brown, Jonathan D.; Croake, Sarah; Lewis, Rita; Liu, Junqing; Patton, Lisa; Potter, D. E B; Scholle, Sarah Hudson.

In: Psychiatric Services, Vol. 66, No. 8, 01.08.2015, p. 865-871.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Patel, MM, Brown, JD, Croake, S, Lewis, R, Liu, J, Patton, L, Potter, DEB & Scholle, SH 2015, 'The current state of behavioral health quality measures: Where are the gaps?', Psychiatric Services, vol. 66, no. 8, pp. 865-871. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.201400589
Patel, Milesh M. ; Brown, Jonathan D. ; Croake, Sarah ; Lewis, Rita ; Liu, Junqing ; Patton, Lisa ; Potter, D. E B ; Scholle, Sarah Hudson. / The current state of behavioral health quality measures : Where are the gaps?. In: Psychiatric Services. 2015 ; Vol. 66, No. 8. pp. 865-871.
@article{3864086b9956415b9142bfc2fa5c19fb,
title = "The current state of behavioral health quality measures: Where are the gaps?",
abstract = "Objective: This review examined the extent to which existing behavioral health quality measures address the priority areas of the National Behavioral Health Quality Framework (NBHQF) as well as the extent to which the measures have received National Quality Forum endorsement and are used in major reporting programs. Methods: This review identified behavioral health quality measures in widely used measure inventories, including the National Quality Measures Clearinghouse, National Quality Forum, and the Center for Quality Assessment in Mental Health. Additional measures were identified through outreach to federal agencies. Measures were categorized by type, condition, target population, data source, reporting unit, endorsement status, and use in reporting programs. Results: The review identified 510 measures. Nearly onethird of these measures address broad mental health or substance use conditions rather than a specific condition or diagnosis. Seventy-two percent are process measures. The most common data source for measures is administrative claims, and very few measures rely on electronic health records or surveys. Fifty-three (10{\%}) measures have received National Quality Forum (NQF) endorsement, and 28 (5{\%}) unique measures are used in major quality reporting programs. Several subdomains of the NBHQF, such as treatment intensification, financial barriers to care, and continuity of care, lack measures that are NQF endorsed. Conclusions: Despite the wide array of behavioral health quality measures, relatively few have received endorsement or are used in reporting programs. Future efforts should seek to fill gaps in measurement and to identify the most salient and strongest measures in each priority area.",
author = "Patel, {Milesh M.} and Brown, {Jonathan D.} and Sarah Croake and Rita Lewis and Junqing Liu and Lisa Patton and Potter, {D. E B} and Scholle, {Sarah Hudson}",
year = "2015",
month = "8",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1176/appi.ps.201400589",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "66",
pages = "865--871",
journal = "Psychiatric Services",
issn = "1075-2730",
publisher = "American Psychiatric Association",
number = "8",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The current state of behavioral health quality measures

T2 - Where are the gaps?

AU - Patel, Milesh M.

AU - Brown, Jonathan D.

AU - Croake, Sarah

AU - Lewis, Rita

AU - Liu, Junqing

AU - Patton, Lisa

AU - Potter, D. E B

AU - Scholle, Sarah Hudson

PY - 2015/8/1

Y1 - 2015/8/1

N2 - Objective: This review examined the extent to which existing behavioral health quality measures address the priority areas of the National Behavioral Health Quality Framework (NBHQF) as well as the extent to which the measures have received National Quality Forum endorsement and are used in major reporting programs. Methods: This review identified behavioral health quality measures in widely used measure inventories, including the National Quality Measures Clearinghouse, National Quality Forum, and the Center for Quality Assessment in Mental Health. Additional measures were identified through outreach to federal agencies. Measures were categorized by type, condition, target population, data source, reporting unit, endorsement status, and use in reporting programs. Results: The review identified 510 measures. Nearly onethird of these measures address broad mental health or substance use conditions rather than a specific condition or diagnosis. Seventy-two percent are process measures. The most common data source for measures is administrative claims, and very few measures rely on electronic health records or surveys. Fifty-three (10%) measures have received National Quality Forum (NQF) endorsement, and 28 (5%) unique measures are used in major quality reporting programs. Several subdomains of the NBHQF, such as treatment intensification, financial barriers to care, and continuity of care, lack measures that are NQF endorsed. Conclusions: Despite the wide array of behavioral health quality measures, relatively few have received endorsement or are used in reporting programs. Future efforts should seek to fill gaps in measurement and to identify the most salient and strongest measures in each priority area.

AB - Objective: This review examined the extent to which existing behavioral health quality measures address the priority areas of the National Behavioral Health Quality Framework (NBHQF) as well as the extent to which the measures have received National Quality Forum endorsement and are used in major reporting programs. Methods: This review identified behavioral health quality measures in widely used measure inventories, including the National Quality Measures Clearinghouse, National Quality Forum, and the Center for Quality Assessment in Mental Health. Additional measures were identified through outreach to federal agencies. Measures were categorized by type, condition, target population, data source, reporting unit, endorsement status, and use in reporting programs. Results: The review identified 510 measures. Nearly onethird of these measures address broad mental health or substance use conditions rather than a specific condition or diagnosis. Seventy-two percent are process measures. The most common data source for measures is administrative claims, and very few measures rely on electronic health records or surveys. Fifty-three (10%) measures have received National Quality Forum (NQF) endorsement, and 28 (5%) unique measures are used in major quality reporting programs. Several subdomains of the NBHQF, such as treatment intensification, financial barriers to care, and continuity of care, lack measures that are NQF endorsed. Conclusions: Despite the wide array of behavioral health quality measures, relatively few have received endorsement or are used in reporting programs. Future efforts should seek to fill gaps in measurement and to identify the most salient and strongest measures in each priority area.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84938613262&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84938613262&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1176/appi.ps.201400589

DO - 10.1176/appi.ps.201400589

M3 - Article

VL - 66

SP - 865

EP - 871

JO - Psychiatric Services

JF - Psychiatric Services

SN - 1075-2730

IS - 8

ER -