QUALITY ASSURANCE IN HUMAN SERVICE PROGRAM EVALUATION (FROM EVALUATION OF HUMAN SERVICE PROGRAMS, 1978, BY C CLIFFORD ATTKISSON ET AL - SEE NCJ-51554)

• NCJ Number: 51568
• Author(s): J R WOY; D A LUND; C C ATTKISSON
• Date Published: 1978
• Length: 33 pages
• Corporate Author: Academic Press, Inc
• Publication Format: Document
• Publication Type: Program/Project Evaluation
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

QUALITY ASSURANCE AND PROGRAM EVALUATION ARE COMPARED AND CONTRASTED, AND TRENDS AND ISSUES IN QUALITY ASSURANCE, PARTICULARLY IN MENTAL HEALTH PROGRAMS, ARE REVIEWED.

Abstract

QUALITY ASSURANCE IS A PROCESS DESIGNED TO IDENTIFY AND CORRECT DEFICIENCIES IN SERVICE PROVIDED TO CLIENTS. QUALITY REVIEW TYPICALLY IS ACCOMPLISHED BY COMPARING CARE PROVIDED WITH PROFESSIONALLY DEVELOPED CRITERIA THAT SPECIFY APPROPRIATE TREATMENT FOR A GIVEN CONDITION. CARE THAT DOES NOT CONFORM TO THE CRITERIA IS BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF A COMMITTEE OF PROVIDER PEERS FOR REVIEW AND INTERVENTION. QUALITY ASSURANCE AND PROGRAM EVALUATION ARE COMPARED IN TERMS OF THEIR RESPECTIVE GOALS AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORIES, DEGREE OF RELIANCE ON PEER REVIEW, LEVEL OF ANALYSIS, OBJECTIVES, AND METHODS. THE TRIPARTITE FRAMEWORK FOR QUALITY OF CARE ASSESSMENT INCLUDES STRUCTURE, PROCESS, AND OUTCOME. LEGISLATIVE BENCHMARKS, GOVERNMENTAL REGULATIONS, AND ACCREDITATION STANDARDS RELATED TO QUALITY ASSURANCE ARE DISCUSSED. A TABLE SUMMARIZES FOUR DIFFERENT TYPES OF QUALITY REVIEW ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED IN HEALTH FACILITIES. EXAMPLES OF QUALITY ASSURANCE IN PSYCHIATRIC INPATIENT SETTINGS AND IN COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH CENTERS ARE CITED. TRENDS AND ISSUES IN QUALITY ASSURANCE ARE IDENTIFIED RELATIVE TO USE OF EXPLICIT CRITERIA, RELIANCE ON CLINICAL RECORDS FOR DATA, CONFIDENTIALITY, USE OF NONCLINICAL PERSONNEL IN THE REVIEW PROCESS, COST CONTROL, EDUCATION VERSUS ENFORCEMENT AS THE PRIMARY EMPHASIS OF PEER REVIEW, THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CLINICIAN IN THE QUALITY ASSURANCE SYSTEM, REVIEW OF OUTPATIENT AND PARTIAL CARE, AND ASSIGNMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR CONDUCTING QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEWS. THE MAJOR DIFFERENCES BETWEEN QUALITY ASSURANCE AND PROGRAM EVALUATION TEND TO REFLECT SEPARATE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENTS, AND THERE IS A DEFINITE TREND TOWARD CONVERGENCE OF OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGIES. PROGRAM EVALUATION AND QUALITY ASSURANCE SPECIALISTS SHARE MANY COMMON INFORMATION NEEDS, AND THIS COMMONALITY OF INTERESTS APPARENTLY IS STIMULATING COOPERATIVE EFFORTS. DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN PROGRAM EVALUATION AND QUALITY ASSURANCE ARE PREDICTED TO BECOME LESS SHARP, THE RESULT BEING A BLENDED APPROACH THAT WILL PROVIDE HUMAN SERVICE AGENCIES WITH AN INTERNAL SELF-EVALUATION PROCESS WITH POTENTIAL FOR IMPROVING SERVICE DELIVERY, ENHANCING MANAGEMENT DECISIONMAKING, AND RATIONALIZING PROGRAM-WIDE PLANNING, RESOURCE ALLOCATION, AND BUDGETING. A LIST OF REFERENCES IS PROVIDED. (LKM)