Case studying: Key performance indicators in

public sector

By: Tatiana Yadykina

Key Performance Indicatorsfor Australian PublicMental Health Services

effectiveappropriateefficientresponsiveaccessiblesafecontinuouscapablesustainable

REPORT OF PERFORMANCE INDICATORDRAFTING GROUPINFORMATION STRATEGY COMMITTEEAHMAC NATIONAL MENTAL HEALTH WORKING GROUP

Structure of presentation

Introduction of the problem The National Mental Health Plan 2003-

2008 Developments in performance

indicators for mental health servicesin Australia

Criteria used to evaluate candidate indicators

Summary of performance framework and proposed indicators

Introduction (1)

Key performance indicators are essential tools for both monitoring and improving the quality of health services.

Mental health services have lagged behind developments of introducing performance indicators.

Introduction (2)

The reasons: unavailability of suitable data lack of consensus about how

fundamental performance measurement concepts should be applied to mental health care

The National Mental Health Plan 2003-2008

Phase 1 – indicators for initial trial

Phase 2 – indicators for development

National Mental Health Report

Developments in performanceindicators for mental health servicesin Australia

Independent approaches of States and Territories

Difficulties for the design of performance indicators

The difference between definitions and specifications of existing State and Territory performance indicators

Performance indicators may be based on: Inputs – the resources used in producing a

product or service Processes – actions or processes applied

to convert resources into a product or

service Outputs – products or services delivered Outcomes – the outcomes of delivering the

product or service. Outcomes may be short, intermediate, or long term.

Criteria used to evaluate candidate indicators (1) Be worth measuring. Be measurable for diverse

populations. Be understood by people who need

to act. Be relevant to policy and practice. Measurement over time will reflect

results of actions. Be feasible to collect and report. Comply with national processes

Criteria used to evaluate candidate indicators (2) Reliability. Validity. Cover the spectrum of the health issue. Reflect a balance of indicators for all

appropriate parts of the framework. Identify and respond to new and emerging

issues. Be capable of leading change. Provide feedback on where the system is

working well, as well as areas for improvement.

Summary of performance framework and proposed indicators (1)Domain – effective Consumer outcomes Carer outcomes Community tenure

Domain – appropriate Compliance with standards Relevance to client needs

Summary of performance framework and proposed indicators (2)Domain – efficient Inpatient care Community care

Domain – accessible Access for those in need Local access Emergency response

Summary of performance framework and proposed indicators (3)Domain – continuous Continuity between providers Cross-setting continuity Continuity over time

Domain – responsive Client perceptions of care Consumer & carer participation

Summary of performance framework and proposed indicators (4)Domain – capable Provider knowledge and skill Outcomes orientationDomain – safeDomain – sustainable Workforce planning Training investment Research investment

Balanced emphasis on inputs, processes, outputs and outcomes (1) Measures of input are necessary to

understand the capabilities and structural characteristics of the organization.

Measures of process are needed to determine whether people receive care that is evidenced-based or conforms with consensus expectations about quality.

Balanced emphasis on inputs, processes, outputs and outcomes (2) Output measures are needed to

understand the quantities of services provided and develop efficiency indicators.

Outcome measures are the basis for understanding whether consumers are improving in their clinical status and well being.

Thank you for your attention!!!!!!!

You are free to ask any questions!!!!!