The term mental health refers to the components that contribute to the social, psychological, and emotional well-being of an individual, allowing them to exhibit the capability to make decisions and handle stress effectively. Among the characteristics that evidence mental health issues are guilt, withdrawal from routine activities, and fear (Oates, Drey & Jones, 2017) . Mental health issues are prevalent in different parts of the world, and they are associated with causing 32% of years of disability within the global population (Vigo, Thornicroft & Atun, 2016). Additionally, people that are predisposed to mental health disorders face heightened mortality risks as a result of their medical conditions as well as the increased probability of premature death (Walker, McGee & Druss, 2015). Furthermore, the well-being of individuals with mental health disorders is affected by the differences of the quality of care that they receive depending on their ethnic affiliations and socioeconomic status (Coleman et al., 2016). However, despite the high prevalence rates of mental health issues on a global scale, the quality of care that mentally ill patients are offered remains substandard with research evidence showing the existence of healthcare gaps associated with access and care reception.
The prevalence rate of mental health issues in the organization appears to represent the persistent rate in the United States. Statistics collected from patient records at the healthcare facility indicate that one in every five patients experiences issues with their mental health annually. Also, among every 25 mentally ill patients, one suffers from severe mental illness that affects their ability to function normally within the society yearly. Additionally, in terms of their social status, 26% of the individuals with mental disorders that are treated in the facility live in shelters, whereas about 20% are inmates in local or state prisons.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Healthcare teams all over the world are working to standardize the quality of care that mental health patients receive within healthcare institutions. According to Kilbourne et al. (2018), among the strategies that have been implemented to facilitate the realization of the mentioned goal is the routine quantification and reporting of the quality of care, a factor that enables consistent monitoring of the procedures in place and increases practitioner accountability in the delivery of quality care services to mental health patients. However, measuring the quality of mental health care presents unique challenges. On a global level and in the US, the infrastructure used to determine the quality of care that mental health patients receive is weak. The latter results from the presence of various barriers presented by limiting policies and technologies as well as minimal scientific research determining the appropriate quality measures.
Studies show that in order to deal with the issue of measuring the quality of care that mental health patients receive, innovative solutions have been created characterized by the combination of technological advancements with the need for continuous quality improvement and measurement among healthcare providers (Kilbourne et al., 2018). Such innovations have already been implemented in Netherlands, allowing the routine monitoring of outcomes to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of care as well as client satisfaction. Similarly, in Australia, all states submit collected case data and results since 2000 with the principle measures being the quality of life and the Health of the Nation Outcome Scales (HoNOS).
The accessibility of mental health care is associated with the presence of inequalities that put others in advantageous positions compared to their counterparts. According to Alegría, Nakash, and NeMoyer (2018), some of the reasons behind the accessibility differences include the eligibility criteria that is used to allow patients entry into specific care programs perhaps depending on the diagnosis issued. Also, some of the policies that govern the treatment of mental health discriminate based on an individual’s legal status depending on their belonging to immigrant or refugee groups as well as racial minorities. Additionally, the access to mental health care is also impacted by the lack of information on the appropriate channels to obtain care as well as the present economic, logistical and psychological barriers like stigma, transportation, and concerns about privacy. However, the researchers indicate that to fully understand the scope of the inaccessibility issue that is associated with mental healthcare, the inequalities relating to patient care in the said field must be recorded and quantified to facilitate the evaluation of access based on consistent measures across the globe.
Therefore, the researchers suggest the introduction of national household and institutional surveys conducted periodically, to create a benchmark that informs those that require care depending on their location. The results obtained from the data collected can lead to the creation of a testable hypothesis to determine the reason (s) behind the lack of reception of mental healthcare services as well as offer insight into care preferences. Moreover, Alegría, Nakash and NeMoyer (2018) insist on the necessity of determining both the facilitators and barriers of treatment access among individuals that are dealing with mental health issues by the application of geographic mapping tools to offer an intricate understanding of the specific regions that require the implementation of immediate interventions to deal with the accessibility issues. Regardless of having different methods that can be used to determine access to mental health care, the systems in place tend to misuse the opportunity to exploit them meaningfully unless there are incentives in place. Nonetheless, the reporting requirements that are currently in place focus more on service outcomes rather than the eligibility of individuals for services.
One of the strategies that are suggested to deal with the issues surrounding the quality of care that mental health patients receive is the implementation of the Donabedian framework in offering care services. The mentioned framework covers the assessment of the quality of care that patients receive based on the structure of the organization, the processes involved in care delivery and the outcome of the treatment process (Kilbourne et al., 2018) . Applying the Donabedian framework to assess the care quality that mental health patients receive within our organization would have positive implications including emphasize on adequate staffing to offer treatment, the implementation of technologies and policies that support the initiative to provide appropriate care as well as the incorporation of the necessary infrastructure to enhance the quality of care offered. Additionally, the mentioned framework would heighten practitioners’ reliance on evidence-based practice and increase focus on the improvement of treatment outcomes. On the downside, it would necessitate the incorporation of new technologies and training programs to facilitate the development of the quality of mental healthcare delivered, both of which would be associated with high-cost investments whose returns can only be realized in the long run.
Similarly, to increase the mental healthcare quality by enhancing access may require the determination of the measures that policymakers and administrators can take to mitigate accessibility disparities. This can be realized by implementing plans that maximize resource utilization and advocate for prompt treatment action ( Alegría, Nakash & NeMoyer, 2018) . Applying such a strategy in our organization would mean that the care services offered would require to maximize patient value rather than the rate of service profitability. The latter would result in a shift of organizational operations to a more value-based system resulting in positive outcomes like enhanced treatment and improved quality of care. However, the change process would also be associated with cost implications, shift resistance that may result in poor service delivery, and reduced profitability.
Despite the negative repercussions associated with the incorporation of the suggested strategies to enhance the quality of mental healthcare, the organization should consider their implementation because the primary duty of healthcare practitioners is to “do no harm.” Offering substandard mental healthcare is “doing harm!” Thus, measures should be taken to mitigate the adverse outcomes to facilitate the maximization of the positive results associated with implementing the strategies to enhance mental healthcare.
References
Alegría, M., Nakash, O., & NeMoyer, A. (2018). Increasing equity in access to mental health care: a critical first step in improving service quality. World Psychiatry , 17 (1), 43.
Coleman, K. J., Stewart, C., Waitzfelder, B. E., Zeber, J. E., Morales, L. S., Ahmed, A. T., ... & Hunkeler, E. M. (2016). Racial-ethnic differences in psychiatric diagnoses and treatment across 11 health care systems in the Mental Health Research Network. Psychiatric Services , 67 (7), 749-757.
Kilbourne, A. M., Beck, K., Spaeth‐Rublee, B., Ramanuj, P., O'Brien, R. W., Tomoyasu, N., & Pincus, H. A. (2018). Measuring and improving the quality of mental health care: a global perspective. World Psychiatry , 17 (1), 30-38.
Oates, J., Drey, N., & Jones, J. (2017). ‘Your experiences were your tools.’ How personal experience of mental health problems informs mental health nursing practice. Journal of psychiatric and mental health nursing , 24 (7), 471-479.
Vigo, D., Thornicroft, G., & Atun, R. (2016). Estimating the true global burden of mental illness. The Lancet Psychiatry , 3 (2), 171-178.
Walker, E. R., McGee, R. E., & Druss, B. G. (2015). Mortality in mental disorders and global disease burden implications: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA psychiatry , 72 (4), 334-341.
