Page 675 - Week 02 - Thursday, 20 February 2020
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Mr Rattenbury: The answer to the member’s question is as follows:
(1) All seven recommendations were completed by the timeframe outlined in the Government Response.
(2) With respect to standardisation of mental health services in the ACT, it should first be noted that all mental health services require accreditation against specific health care standards. In the case of those mental health services provided by Canberra Health Services, these are accredited against the National Safety and Quality Health Service Standards (NSQHS). These Standards are designed not only to protect the public from harm and improve health service provision, but also provide ‘a nationally consistent statement regarding the level of care consumers can expect from health services’. (reference Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care; ACSQHC)
Furthermore, the ACSQHC developed a 2nd edition of the NSQHS which incorporates a more ‘robust framework for safety and quality in mental health services in public and private hospitals, and community services provided by local health networks.’ It is against these Standards which Canberra Health Services and its mental health services will be assessed against in 2020.
Additionally, mental health service provision is also aligned with the National Standards for Mental Health Services and other key frameworks, strategies and plans such as the National Framework for Recovery-orient Mental Health Services Recovery and Fifth National Mental Health and Suicide Prevention Plan. This occurs through, but not limited to:
(a) the development of policies, procedures and protocols for existing services;
(b) the implementation of new services including infrastructure projects;
(c) and changes to service models of care;
At a broader service system level, one could suggest that by meeting these Standards (and aligning with key frameworks, plans and strategies) that these mental health services are standardised. However, it should also be considered that there may be individual mental health service areas which purposely operate different from one another in certain facets. For example, there may be assessment tools and interventions which are quite specific to certain populations and groups and so it is neither feasible nor clinically indicated to completely standardise such processes at a more local level. For example, within CHS mental health services there are different forms of Recovery Plan documentation which are used for children and adolescents compared with adults when providing for collaborative care planning. However, the overarching principles of Recovery are still embedded in both documents.
(3) It is difficult to quantify the benefits for consumers or system efficiencies that have come from completion of the Recommendations of the Auditor-General Report because these have not been specifically evaluated and measuring such changes would also be confounded by other system and process changes that have occurred independently of these recommendations and may have potentially impacted on service delivery.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video