I. Data Collection Sub-Group Recommendations:

Penetration/Utilization Rates, John Pandiani

1. Will complete data collection for clinical sub-populations (MR/DD, Forensic, and Major Mental Illness,and Substamce Abuse) and will collect a new round of data collection for l999.

(Will collect data, as well, for states with directly purchased or state provided inpatient facilities, as available).

2. Will move ahead in the next year to collect utilization rates for out-patient populations on the state level including age, sex, ethnicity, and diagnosis, as was done with the inpatient collection. A few states will be providing information on a regional basis within a state for a pilot comparison.

Level of Functioning and Symptoms indicators, Mary Smith

1. The recent CMHS survey on outcome measures of mental health agencies will be reviewed by the level of functioning and symptoms sub-committee to inform local agencies’ use of functioning and symptom instruments.

2. Recovery measures will be included in these indicators, and the committee will review recovery work published by Ruth Ralph.

3. A committee will be convened to work on instrument development, looking at instruments being used, with consideration of calibration approaches.

Assertive Community Treatment and Supported Employment indicators, John McGrew

1. Both measures need to be assessed for fidelity- the current number of criteria for measures is too lengthy. It was recommended that experts be convened to see if a shorter list of criteria might be identified as a fidelity list for the indicators.

Consumer Surveys, Judy Hall

1. States need to continue to submit data on consumer surveys, once data is collected.

2. States should send data on gender, age, and ethnicity in whatever manner collected, and states should also send data on diagnosis and length of time in treatment if they have the information.

3. States need to think about using the 40 item MHSIP survey, and if they do not, they need to incorporate the two questions for the consumer participation in treatment indicator: 1. I, not staff, decided my treatment etc..., and 2. I felt comfortable asking questions about my treatment and medication.

II. Decisions on New Indicators and Age Demographics, Vijay Ganju

1. The 16 State group voted to include the homeless indicator in the list of indicators. The votes were not sufficient to add the case management indicator.

2. The age categories added to the existing age categories for data collection are categories 18-20 and 21-30.

III. Year Two Next Steps

1. Indicators to be done in year 2:

Access

A1 Penetration/Utilization Rates

A2 Consumer Perception of Access

Quality

Q1 Consumer Participation in Treatment Planning

Q3 Contact within 7 Days Following Hospital Discharge (Oklahoma will take the lead)

Q4 Consumer Perception of Quality/Appropriateness

Q11 Readmission Within 30 Days (State Hospital)

Outcome

O1 Consumer Perception of Outcomes

Structure

S3 Per Member Per Month Average Resources Spent for Mental Health

2. Indicators to be tested in year 2:

Quality

Q2 Consumers Linked to Primary Health Services

Q10 Family Involvement in Treatment for Children/Adolescents

Outcome

O2 School Improvement (Children)

O3 Employment (Adults) change measure

O9 Health Status/Mortality

012 Living Situation (including homeless)

O13 Involvement in the Criminal Justice System

3. Indicators to be developed in Year 2:

Quality

Q5 Adults Receiving Assertive Community Treatment

Q6 Adults in Supported Employment

Q7 Adults in Supported Housing

Outcome

O4 Level of Functioning

O5 Symptom Relief

010 Recovery/Hope/Personhood

O11 Reduced Substance Abuse

Structure

S1 Consumer/Family Member Involvement in Policy, Quality Assurance, and Planning

4. Indicators to be worked on in coordination with ORYX project in year 2:

Quality

Q8 Adults receiving new generation atypicals/medications (also Rhode Island)

Q12 Seclusion

Q13 Restraint

Q14 Medication Errors

Outcome

O6 Consumer Injuries

07 Elopement