Reports From the Field

Implementing the Quadruple Aim in Behavioral Health Care


 

References

During the focus groups, we asked participants which domains they believed were most important (were “core”) when operationalizing the Quadruple Aim. The focus groups provided feedback on the domain definitions, feedback that was used to develop uniform, mutually agreed upon definitions for the CDs that were generalizable to all departments at BHD, regardless of the focus of their services within the continuum of care or the continuum of age. This was a crucial step, as it will eventually enable BHD to aggregate data across departments, even if there are minor discrepancies in the specific items they use to assess the CDs. Comments from the focus groups ultimately resulted in a truncated list of domains and definitions, which, coupled with the literature review, resulted in our final set of CDs.

During our review of the literature, we also looked for items that we felt could best represent each CD in the briefest, most meaningful way. (These items were not meant to supersede existing data, but to provide examples that could be implemented with existing data or recommendations that could be utilized in the absence of existing data.) During this process, we made every effort to make use of existing data-reporting requirements. For example, if we had a state mandate to collect data on housing status, we attempted to leverage this required data point to represent the CD related to housing. In other cases, we attempted to utilize claims or other administrative data to operationalize the CD, such as in the cost-of-care metric articulated in the section the Third Aim. For CDs for which no data existed or were insufficient, we emphasized the use of single- versus multi-item scales. For example, if we found a single-item global assessment of quality of life that had good psychometric properties relative to its longer parent scale, we selected the single item. This approach to item selection allowed us to create the most efficient, parsimonious set of measures possible, which we believed would enable us to comprehensively assess all the CDs with the least amount of burden to staff and clients. These items were presented at stakeholder focus groups, during which we asked for comments on the existing measures in their program or department and gave them the opportunity to comment on the new recommended measures.

A working definition is provided for each CD, followed by a brief review of the research base supporting its inclusion in the final list. The item(s) selected by BHD to represent each CD and the source of the item(s) are then supplied. These items were based either on measures currently collected because of existing reporting mandates or, in the case where extant measures were not available, on new items that demonstrated acceptable psychometric properties in the research literature. The CDs and items are organized by the Aim they best represent. A full list of the CDs by Quadruple Aim and items by CD is provided in the Appendix of the online version of this article. This article concludes with a brief summary of this effort and a discussion of how staff will utilize these items at different levels throughout the BHD system.

The First Aim: Population Health

Health Outcomes

Deaths. This can be defined as the cause of death, as determined by the medical examiner’s office (where appropriate) or as the age at time of death. This CD can also be reported as proportion of deaths considered premature (eg, before age 75) or calculated as total years of potential life lost.

Brief review and suggested item(s). Rates and causes of premature mortality are critical foci for the County Health Rankings & Roadmaps,13 the Institute for Healthcare Improvement’s “Guide to Measuring the Triple Aim,”6 the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s “Community Health Assessment for Population Health Improvement,”14 and the Institute of Medicine’s (IOM) “Vital Signs: Core Metrics for Health and Health Care Progress.”11 There is ample evidence that individuals with serious mental illness are at increased risk of early mortality relative to the general population,15-18 and this risk applies to those with substance use disorders as well.15,19-20 BHD tracks all deaths that occur while patients are receiving BHD-funded, community-based services.

Pages

Recommended Reading

Shared medical appointments may bridge the opioid treatment gap
Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management
Intense intervention may boost addiction program retention
Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management
New resilience center targets traumatized health care workers
Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management
Children’s hospitals grapple with wave of mental illness
Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management
AAP issues new guidelines for diagnosing, managing eating disorders
Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management
Heavy drinking by teens may affect white-matter integrity
Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management
Childhood smoking and depression contribute to young adult opioid use
Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management
HHS will drop buprenorphine waiver rule for most physicians
Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management
Repeated ketamine infusions linked to rapid relief of PTSD
Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management
National spike in methamphetamine overdose deaths
Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management