Addiction Treatment Agencies’ Use of Data: A Qualitative Assessment

  • Jennifer P. Wisdom
  • James H. Ford II
  • Randy A. Hayes
  • Eldon Edmundson
  • Kim Hoffman
  • Dennis McCarty
Regular Article

Abstract

Addiction treatment agencies typically do not prioritize data collection, management, and analysis, and these agencies may have barriers to integrating data in agency quality improvement. This article describes qualitative findings from an intervention designed to teach 23 addiction treatment agencies how to make data-driven decisions to improve client access to and retention in care. Agencies demonstrated success adopting process improvement and data-driven strategies to make improvements in care. Barriers to adding a process improvement and data-driven focus to care included a lack of a data-based decision making culture, lack of expertise and other resources, treatment system complexity, and resistance. Factors related to the successful adoption of process-focused data include agency leadership valuing data and providing resources, staff training on data collection and use, sharing of change results, and success in making data-driven decisions.

Keywords

information services substance abuse treatment centers quality of health care health services needs and demand 

References

  1. 1.
    McLellan AT, Carise D, Kleber HD. The national addiction treatment infrastructure: Can it support the public’s demand for quality care? Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 2003;25:117–121.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ogborne AC, Braun K, Rush BR. Developing an integrated information system for specialized addiction treatment agencies. Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research. 1998;25(1):100–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Camp JM, Krakow M, McCarty D, et al. Substance abuse treatment management information systems: Balancing federal, state, and service provider needs. Journal of Mental Health Administration. 1992;19:5–19.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Institute of Medicine. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2001.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Institute of Medicine. Improving the Quality of Health Care for Mental and Substance-use Conditions. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2006.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Essock SM, Goldman, HH, Van Tosh L, et al. Evidence-based practices: setting the context and responding to concerns. Psychiatric Clinics of North America. 2003;26(4):919–38.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Knights D, Murray F. Politics and pain in managing information technology: A case study from insurance. Organization Studies. 1992;13(2):211–228.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gustafson DH, Schoofs Hundt A. Findings of innovation research applied to quality management principles for health care. Health Care Management. 1995;20(2):16–33.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Capoccia V, Cotter F, Gustafson D, et al. (in press). Making Stone Soup: How Process Improvement Is Changing the Addiction Treatment Field. Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Langley GJ, Nolan KM, Nolan TW, et al. The Improvement Guide: A Practical Approach to Enhancing Organizational Performance. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers; 1996.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    McCarty D, Gustafson DH, Wisdom JP, et al. (in press). The Network for the Improvement of Addiction Treatment: Strategies to enhance access and retention. Drug and Alcohol Dependence.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Boyzatis RE. Transforming Qualitative Information: Thematic Analysis and Code Development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1998.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Garnick DW, Lee MT, Chalk M, et al. Establishing the feasibility of performance measures for alcohol and other drugs. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 2002;23(4):375–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    McCorry F, Garnick D, Bartlett J, et al. Developing performance measures for alcohol and other drug services in managed care plans. Joint Commission Journal on Quality Improvement. 2000;26(11):633–43.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dick RS, Steen EB. The Computer-Based Patient Record: An Essential Technology for Health Care. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1991.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Anderson JG. Clearing the way for physicians’ use of clinical information systems. Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery. 1997;40(8):83–90.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lapointe L, Rivard S. Getting physicians to accept new information technology: insights from case studies. Canadian Medical Association Journal. 2006;174(11):1573–1578.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    National Board for Certified Counselors and Affiliates. National Counselor Examination for Licensure and Certification. No date. Available at: http://www.nbcc.org/ncestats. Accessed March 7, 2006.
  19. 19.
    Burlton RT. Business Process Management. Indianapolis, IN: Sams Publishing; 2001.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© National Council for Community Behavioral Healthcare 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jennifer P. Wisdom
    • 1
  • James H. Ford II
    • 2
  • Randy A. Hayes
    • 3
  • Eldon Edmundson
    • 1
  • Kim Hoffman
    • 1
  • Dennis McCarty
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Public Health and Preventive MedicineOregon Health & Science UniversityPortlandUSA
  2. 2.Network for the Improvement of Addiction Treatment National Program OfficeUniversity of WisconsinMadisonUSA
  3. 3.Quality Management & Health Information ManagementLemontUSA

Personalised recommendations