Table 2.

Quality of evidence of studies identifying quality of care indicators for people with serious mental illness

StudyDescription of studyStrength of evidencea
Parameswaran, Spaeth-Rublee, Pincus23656 measures of quality of mental health care identified in earlier work are rated in importance, validity, and feasibility, using a modified Delphi process3
NICE37NICE treatment guidelines for bipolar disorder4
NICE30NICE treatment guidelines for schizophrenia4
AHRQ25AHRQ provides a database of quality indicators that was used during the grey literature search4
Lester, Tritter, Sorohan32Focus groups with patients, GPs, and nurses were conducted to explore how to improve care in cases of acute mental health crises3
Sweeney, Rose, Clement, et al27Structured interviews were conducted with 167 individuals suffering from psychoses to establish a concept of service user-defined continuity of care3
Ware, Dickey, Tugenberg, McHorney28This study reports on the field testing of an interview-based measure of continuity of care3
Cerimele, Chan, Chwastiak, et al 29Narrative description of 740 primary care patients with bipolar who participated in an MHIP. Quality of care outcomes were derived from patient disease registry3
Pincus, Spaeth-Rublee, Watkins44Discussion on the barriers to measuring quality of care in the mental health arena, combined with a short list of potential quality measures3
Holden26This study audited 16 GPs on their care for 266 patients with schizophrenia and observed that the audit led to improved recording of a range of quality indicators3
Swartz, MacGregor31The authors of this paper argue that in South Africa the role of mental health nurses has been altered to focus on violence, substance misuse, and HIV/AIDS, and should be refocused on psychiatry care in the primary care setting3
Ruud34The author summarises the literature on quality of care in mental health services in Norway in 2008–20093
Highet, McNair, Thompson, et al 45Interviews with 49 patients with bipolar to describe experience in primary care in Australia. Eight themes for improvement of the primary care experience are outlined3
Lader35Expert review of the standards of care in schizophrenia to reduce side effects while achieving best treatment outcomes3
Haro, Salvador-Carulla36Observational study following 11 000 patients who were on or changing antipsychotic medication to determine the best course of treatment with respect to symptoms, quality of life, social functioning, and other outcomes2
Caughey, Kalish Ellett, Wong38Development, expert review, and assessment of the evidence base for, and validity of, medication-related indicators of potentially preventable hospitalisations3
Busch, Lehman, Goldman, Frank39Observational study examining trends in four measures of quality over time in the US2
Young, Sullivan, Burnam, Brook40Uncontrolled study looking at differences in quality of care as variations from national guidelines3
Nayrouz, Ploumaki, Farooq, et al 41Evaluation of an integrated care approach between primary care and community care, focused on patients with SMI3
McCullagh, Morley, Dodwell33This observational study looks at urban versus rural differences in quality of care for psychoses, as well as the difference in quality of care conditional on contacts with secondary care3
Rodgers, Black, Stobbart, Foster43Audit of quality of care in 822 Scottish patients with schizophrenia3
Osborn, Nazareth, Wright, King46Randomised trial to evaluate the impact of a nurse-led treatment to improve screening for CVD in the SMI population1
Yeomans, Dale, Beedle47Evaluation of a computer-based physical health screening template versus NICE guidelines for the SMI population3
Mitchell, Delaffon, Lord48A systematic review and meta-analysis of screening practices with respect to metabolic risks for patients with psychosis1
Roberts, Roalfe, Wilson, Lester49A retrospective view of case notes in 22 GP practices to determine whether patients with schizophrenia receive equitable physical health care3
Mainz, Hansen, Palshof, Bartels42Description of the Danish National Indicator Project, which intends to document and advance quality of care3
Druss, Zhao, Cummings, et al 51The study compared diabetes performance measures in US Medicaid enrolees with and without mental comorbidity2
  • a Quality of evidence51 is categorised as: 1. High — Cochrane or systematic review, randomised control trial. 2. Moderate — non-randomised control study or unsystematic review. 3. Low — expert opinion, uncontrolled studies. 4. Not applicable — measure was extracted from grey literature, for example, (non-)government organisations’ documents or databases. AHRQ = Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. CVD = cardiovascular disease. MHIP = mental health integration programme. NICE = National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. SMI = Serious mental illness.