Measurement of Perceived and Technical Quality of Care for Depression in Racially and Ethnically Diverse Groups.

Measurement of patient satisfaction is now considered essential for providing patient centered care and is an important tool for addressing health care disparities. However, little is known about how ethnically and racially diverse (ERD) groups differ in how they perceive quality, and widely used instruments for measuring perceived quality give little attention to cultural elements of care. This study examined the relationship between the culturally determined beliefs and expectations of four ERD groups (African Americans, Latinos, Portuguese-speakers, and Haitians, total N = 160) and the technical quality of treatment for depression provided in four "culturally-specific" primary care clinics. Using data from the Experiences of Care and Health Outcomes survey, chart reviews and focus groups, the study addressed a set of questions related to the psychometric properties of perceived care measures and the technical quality of care. The groups differed in preferred cultural elements except all preferred inclusion of religion. They did not differ in overall perceived quality. Technical quality was higher for Portuguese and Haitians than for African Americans and Latinos. Implications of group differences for measuring quality are discussed.

Multisite study of an evidence-based practice to reduce seclusion and restraint in psychiatric inpatient facilities.

OBJECTIVE: This federally funded study examined implementation and outcomes of the Six Core Strategies for Reduction of Seclusion and Restraint (6CS) in 43 inpatient psychiatric facilities. METHODS: A prototype Inventory of Seclusion and Restraint Reduction Interventions (ISRRI) tracked fidelity over time. Outcome measures--seclusion and restraint events as percentages of total inpatient population and seclusion and restraint hours as percentages of total inpatient hours--conformed to licensed Behavioral Health Performance Measurement System specifications. Independent variables were facility and patient characteristics. Facilities were classified into five implementation types based on ISRRI scores: stabilized (N=28), continued (N=7), decreased (N=5), discontinued (N=1), or never implemented (N=2). For the stabilized group, linear modeling and random-effects meta-analysis compared the contribution of individual facilities to an overall effect. Subgroup analyses explored relationships between facility characteristics and outcomes. Dose-effect analysis tested the hypothesis that the stabilized group would have more positive outcomes. RESULTS: Overall, the stabilized group reduced the percentage secluded by 17% (p=.002), seclusion hours by 19% (p=.001), and proportion restrained by 30% (p=.03). The reduction in restraint hours was 55% but nonsignificant (p=.08). Individual facility effect sizes varied; some rates increased for some facilities. The dose-effect hypothesis was supported for two outcomes, seclusion hours and percentage restrained. The order of implementation group effects in relation to each outcome varied unpredictably. CONCLUSIONS: The 6CS was feasible to implement and effective in diverse facility types. Fidelity over time was nonlinear and varied among facilities. Further research on relationships between facility characteristics, fidelity patterns, and outcomes is needed.

Assessment of Medicaid managed behavioral health care for persons with serious mental illness.

OBJECTIVES: This five-site study compared Medicaid managed behavioral health programs and fee-for-service programs on use and quality of services, satisfaction, and symptoms and functioning of adults with serious mental illness. METHODS: Adults with serious mental illness in managed care programs (N=958) and fee-for-service programs (N=1,011) in five states were interviewed after the implementation of managed care and six months later. After a multiple regression to standardize the groups for case mix differences, a meta-analysis using a random-effects model was conducted, and bioequivalence methods were used to determine whether differences were significant for clinical or policy purposes. RESULTS: A significantly smaller proportion of the managed care group received inpatient care (5.7 percent compared with 11.5 percent). The managed care group received significantly more hours of primary care (4.9 compared with 4.5 hours) and was significantly less healthy. However, none of these differences exceed the bioequivalence criterion of 5 percent. Managed care and fee for service were "not different but not equivalent" on 20 of 34 dependent variables. Cochrane's Q statistic, which measured intersite consistency, was significant for 20 variables. CONCLUSIONS: Managed care and fee-for-service Medicaid programs did not differ on most measures; however, a lack of sufficient power was evident for many measures. Full endorsement of managed care for vulnerable populations will require further research that assumes low penetration rates and intersite variability.