The public reporting of organizational performance in mental health: coming soon to a mental health service near you

Clinical use of the Kessler psychological distress scales with culturally diverse groups

The Kessler 10 (K10) and embedded Kessler 6 (K6) was developed to screen for non-specific psychological distress and serious mental illness in mental health surveys of English-speaking populations, but has been adopted in Western and non-Western countries as a screening and outcome measure in primary care and mental health settings. This review examines whether the original K6/K10's validity for culturally diverse populations was established, and whether the cultural equivalence, and sensitivity to change of translated or culturally adapted K6/K10s, has been demonstrated with culturally diverse client groups. Evidence for the original K6/K10's validity for culturally diverse populations is limited. Questions about the conceptual and linguistic equivalence of translated/adapted K6/K10s arise from reports of changes in item connotation and differential item functioning. Evidence for structural equivalence is inconsistent, as is support for criterion equivalence, with the majority of studies compromising on accuracy in case prediction. Research demonstrating sensitivity to change with culturally diverse groups is lacking. Inconsistent evidence for the K6/K10's cultural appropriateness in clinical settings, and a lack of clinical norms for either majority or culturally diverse groups, indicate the importance of further research into the psychological distress construct with culturally diverse clients, and the need for caution in interpreting K6/K10 scores.

The public disclosure of accreditation information in Australia: stakeholder perceptions of opportunities and challenges

Public disclosure is increasingly a requirement of accrediting agencies and governments. There are few published empirical evaluations of disclosure interventions that inform evidence-based implementation or policy. This study investigated the practices associated with the public disclosure of healthcare accreditation information, in addition to multi-stakeholder perceptions of key challenges and opportunities for improvement. We conducted a mixed methods study comprising analysis of disclosure practices by accreditation agencies, and 47 semi-structured individual or group interviews involving 258 people. Participants were diverse stakeholders associated with Australian primary, acute and residential aged care accreditation programmes. Four interrelated issues were identified. First, there was broad agreement that accreditation information should be publicly disclosed, although the three accreditation agencies differed in the information they made public. Second, two implementation issues emerged: the need to educate the community about accreditation information, and the practical question of the detail to be provided. Third, the impact, both positive and negative, of disclosing accreditation information was raised. Fourth, the lack of knowledge about the impact on consumers was discussed. Public disclosure of accreditation information is an idea that has widespread support. However, translating the idea into practice, so as to produce appropriate, meaningful information, is a challenge.