Forensic Benchmarking Forum
Forum participants
Participants in the Forensic Forum were:
- Justice Health (NSW)
- Forensicare (VIC)
- The Park – Centre for Mental Health (QLD)
- State Forensic Mental Health Service (WA)
Comparative Indicators Workbook
Comparative Indicators 3 year time series 2004-05 to 2006-07, Forensic Mental Health Services and its accompanying graphical presentation present the national KPIs for each of the organisations in tabular and graphical format. All KPIs are derived from the data submitted by each organisation for each of the years 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07, and constructed according to the specifications and definitions described in National Mental Health Benchmarking Project Manual.
The second part of the workbook groups the national KPIs, plus a number of supplementary indicators, into nine themes:
- Comparative resources available to the organisation
- Efficiency in use of resources
- Productivity and activity of ambulatory services
- Continuity of care
- Access to ambulatory care
- Access to acute inpatient care
- Safety (ACHS Indicators)
- Capability
- Acute Inpatient casemix – (a) Diagnosis and (b) HoNOS at admission
The themes were selected only on the basis of what is feasible from the available data. They were not intended to restrict participating organisations to the eight categories, nor pre-empt where organisations focused their benchmarking effort.
KPI Review
To facilitate the evaluation of the suitability of the 13 national indicators for benchmarking mental health services, each forum completed a comprehensive review of the national Key Performance indicators (KPIs) utilising a set of criteria and made recommendations regarding their definition, specification, targets and appropriateness for benchmarking at the mental health service organisation level. The results of the review by the Forensic Forum include:
Part one - an overview of the discussion and recommendations made by the Forensic Forum in relation to the nationally agreed KPIs.
Part two - outcomes of the forum discussion on a range of additional and supplementary performance and contextual indicators. These indicators were reviewed against their relevance, utility, feasibility and interpretability. Recommendations were made in regards to the appropriateness of each indicator for benchmarking and whether the indicator should be considered for inclusion within the national indicator set (either in addition to or as replacement for an existing indicator).
Special Projects
The Forensic Benchmarking Forum undertook special projects on: