Objectives: To demonstrate the use of the National Health Performance Framework as an evaluation framework for clinical interventions and service outcomes in mental health
Conclusions: Evaluation is not a complex process. What is required is a willingness to be accountable for outcomes of care. It does not require complex data systems but openness to scrutiny through reflective practices and a commitment to continue to explore the possibilities of making things better.
Australian Council on Health Care Standards Evaluation Program. The ACHS EQuIP Standards, 3rd edn. 2000.
2.
Oxford Dictionary. Oxford University Press, Melbourne2000.
3.
GohJMcDermottFMeadowsGWadsworthY. Evaluation and the concept of quality in mental health care delivery. Mental Health in Australia: Collaborative Community Practice, MeadowsGSinghB. Oxford University Press, Melbourne2001; 174–195.
4.
ScallyGDonaldsonL J. Clinical governance and the drive for quality improvement in the new NHS in England. British Medical Journal1998; 317: 61–65.
5.
Development of Key Performance Indicators for Victoria's Mental Health Services, Stage 1: Adult Mental Health Services, Discussion paper: Design Issues. Prepared by Policy and Analysis Group, Mental Health Research Institute in conjunction with Buckingham & Associates, 2003.
6.
MorrellCHarveyG. The Clinical Audit Handbook. Improving the Quality of Health Care. Harcourt Brace, 1999, London, for the Royal College of Nursing.
7.
LincolnY. Tracks towards a postmodern politics of evaluation. Evaluation Practice1994; 15: 299–309.
