PRIMHD Summary Report HONOSCA Health of the Nation Outcomes Scales Child and youth report for New Zealand This report summarises Programme for the Integration of Mental Health Data (PRIMHD) data submitted by your district health board (DHB). In particular, it presents Health of the National Outcomes Scale (HoNOSCA) data from services in which HoNOSCA is the primary measure. This report is organised into three major sections that provide information about: 1. Collection completion and validity: This details the completeness of the data set provided by your mental health services. This is important because it indicates how valid and reliable the data sets are likely to be. The less complete the data set, the less valid the information is likely to be. 2. Outcomes-related information: This provides indications about what changes have occurred for service users between entering and leaving the service. Outcome is assessed by comparing the group admitted and the group discharged from the service in the same time period. This should provide a reasonable indication of outcomes achieved unless the service user mix has changed significantly over the usual period for which service is delivered. 3. Service-related information: This provides information about the services, such as the overall severity of service users who use different services. In many cases the data is presented graphically for New Zealand, and then presented as a table for the individual team types. The time period covered differs for the different data presented. See the title or the notes under the graphs or tables for information about the time period covered. Unless otherwise stated, the notes under the graphs also apply to the corresponding table. For all graphs and tables, if there are less than twenty cases in the data set, then the information is not presented. This is because small samples frequently provide inaccurate and potentially misleading results. See the notes and user guide for other important information about the graphs and tables. Where appropriate, the statistical confidence interval is presented. This is shown by error bars (small lines above and below the average) on the graphs, and a score range in some tables. As a rule of thumb, if the confidence intervals of two data points do not overlap, the two points can be considered to be significantly different. If the confidence intervals of the data points do overlap, we assume the points are not significantly different. It is important to note that statistical significance may not indicate a clinically significantly difference. See the associated user guide for more information about how to understand and use the data presented in this report. Data for graphs and tables 1 and 2 was extracted 4 July 2013 from PRIMHD by the Ministry of Health and formatted by Te Pou. The data for graphs and tables 3 to 12 was extracted 5 July 2013 from PRIMHD by the Ministry of Health, then analysed and formatted by Te Pou. 1
1. Collection completion and validity This section presents information about the completeness and validity of the data on which the remainder of this report is based. It also shows the current targets for the variables presented. Graph 1: Percentage of service users with at least one collection during the period, New Zealand, Oct-Dec 2012 and Jan-Mar 2013 (4-17 years) Notes: Community compliance is affected by crisis teams doing triage/brief assessment type activity which is not a comprehensive assessment. Interpretation: The longer the dark part of the bar, the more completely the data set includes all service users, and the more meaningful and representative the graphs, tables, and analyses using these data will be. The data is approximate due to movements of service users between teams and similar variations; however it does provide a reasonably accurate representation of completion of measures. The data includes both valid and invalid collections. Target: To meet or exceed the target shown on the graph for the percentage of service users with at least one collection within the period. 2
Graph 2: Percentage of service users with admission and discharge collections completed, New Zealand, Jan-Mar 2013 (4-17 years) Notes: Community compliance is affected by crisis teams doing triage/brief assessment type activity which is not a comprehensive assessment. Interpretation: The longer the dark bar, the larger the percentage of admissions/discharges that had the relevant data collection type. The data is approximate due to movements of service users between teams and similar variations; however it does provide a reasonably accurate representation of completion of measures. The data include both valid and invalid collections. Graph 3: Percentage of valid collections, HoNOSCA, New Zealand, Apr 2012 - Mar 2013 Notes: Valid = Two or fewer of the 15 items scored as unknown or missing. Discharges exclude collection types for lost to care, discharge dead and brief episode of care. Drug and Alcohol teams are excluded as not required be collected. Interpretation: The longer the dark lines, the higher the percentage of valid scores. Target: Aim for 95% valid collections. 3
Table 3: Invalid collections by team, by HoNOSCA item, New Zealand, Apr 2012 - Mar 2013 Team type % Invalid Number of invalid ratings by HoNOSCA item Total Adm Rev Dch 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 number Community services Child, adolescent and family team 8% 12% 23% 2,908 3,091 3,026 3,206 3,433 3,005 3,078 3,153 2,999 3,135 3,063 2,993 3,505 2,979 3,431 25,697 Community team 9% 15% 31% 81 88 81 92 119 87 89 94 83 95 91 86 187 120 129 814 Eating disorder team 1% 6% 38% 21 22 27 22 24 20 22 21 21 23 22 22 29 21 26 239 Forensic team 5% 3 4 3 7 16 5 6 4 3 7 5 9 18 11 27 155 Kaupapa Māori tamariki and rangatahi (child and youth) mental health services 9% 12% 36% 91 94 107 112 121 102 119 115 96 102 109 96 145 111 182 728 Kaupapa Māori team 11% 1% 20% 19 20 23 19 24 20 21 19 19 21 19 19 25 21 20 281 Pacific Island team 5% 7% 31% 59 65 64 81 93 62 72 67 65 64 60 57 93 73 166 551 Youth specialty team 2% 3% 23% 217 234 227 271 287 216 224 216 214 232 231 216 348 214 367 3,039 Total 8% 11% 24% 3,406 3,625 3,565 3,817 4,129 3,525 3,638 3,696 3,507 3,686 3,607 3,505 4,361 3,558 4,356 31,526 Inpatient services Child, adolescent and family team 21% 10% 5% 15 33 31 64 87 30 31 31 35 85 29 63 168 112 185 864 Eating disorder team 0% 0% 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 107 Inpatient team 6% 14% 7% 10 11 12 19 26 16 15 18 14 24 11 15 69 27 26 342 Youth specialty team 1% 0% 1 0 0 5 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 15 7 6 234 Total 13% 6% 4% 26 44 43 88 114 46 47 49 49 111 40 78 252 146 217 1,551 Notes: % invalid collections = the percentage of collections that had three or more of the 15 items scored as unknown or missing. Number of invalid ratings by HoNOSCA item = for each of the HoNOSCA items, the number of collections for which that item was unknown or missing. Discharges exclude collection types for lost to care, deceased and brief episode of care. Drug and Alcohol teams are excluded as not required be collected. Interpretation: The lower the % invalid, the higher the percentage of valid scores. The lower the number of invalid collections by HoNOSCA item, the more collections that have valid data on that HoNOSCA item. Target: Aim for 95% valid collections (5% invalid collections) or better. Aim for as few invalid items as possible, with all items having a similar validity rate. 4
2. Outcomes changes in service user status This section presents HoNOSCA data indicating the status of service users at different stages of their contact with the DHB mental health services. Initial pages show results from HoNOSCA total scores. Following pages show results related to the percentage of HoNOSCA items in the clinical range. The final pages in this section show results from the Index of Severity derived from HoNOSCA scores. Graph 4: Average HoNOSCA total score (15 items) by collection type, New Zealand, Apr 2012 - Mar 2013 Notes: Error bars indicate the confidence intervals around the data point. If error bars overlap, the data points are not significantly different. Community discharge does not include discharges to an inpatient unit. Interpretation: Decrease between admission and discharge is an indication of the outcomes achieved by the service user and service. The greater the decrease between admission and discharge, and the lower the average HoNOSCA score at discharge, the more positive the outcome. Target: A greater decrease from admission to discharge and lower average rating at discharge. 5
Table 4: Average HoNOSCA total score (15 items), by collection type and team, New Zealand, Apr 2012 - Mar 2013 Team type Assessment only Admission Review Discharge N Mean CI N Mean CI N Mean CI N Mean CI Community services Child, adolescent and family team 2,241 10.2 9.9-10.5 6,365 14.1 13.9-14.2 8,942 11.4 11.3-11.6 4,472 7.1 6.9-7.2 Children and youth, alcohol and drug services 44 9.8 8.0-11.6 45 12.5 10.6-14.3 29 11.0 9.1-12.9 106 8.1 7.1-9.1 Community team 147 13.7 12.4-15.0 191 13.9 12.9-14.9 218 11.3 10.3-12.3 104 6.8 5.5-8.1 Eating disorder team 67 15.3 13.3-17.3 125 8.4 7.2-9.5 Forensic team 86 14.4 13.1-15.8 39 16.3 14.1-18.5 Kaupapa Māori tamariki and rangatahi (child and youth) mental health services 35 12.7 10.4-14.9 188 13.2 12.2-14.2 254 11.4 10.7-12.1 120 6.2 5.2-7.3 Kaupapa Māori team 26 13.8 11.7-15.9 70 16.6 15.0-18.2 125 11.4 10.2-12.6 38 6.6 4.6-8.5 Pacific Island team 179 10.7 9.7-11.7 124 10.0 8.7-11.2 142 5.1 4.2-6.0 Youth specialty team 172 11.3 10.3-12.3 882 14.2 13.8-14.7 1,177 11.3 10.9-11.7 532 7.2 6.6-7.7 Total 2,777 10.7 10.4-10.9 8,033 14.0 13.9-14.2 11,009 11.4 11.2-11.5 5,545 7.0 6.9-7.2 Inpatient services Child, adolescent and family team 375 17.1 16.2-17.9 54 11.9 9.7-14.1 314 12.2 11.4-13.0 Eating disorder team 32 13.3 11.0-15.7 54 7.0 5.8-8.2 22 6.5 3.5-9.6 Inpatient team 176 20.0 18.7-21.3 129 13.5 12.0-15.0 Youth specialty team 151 20.4 19.2-21.5 82 9.9 8.6-11.3 Total 736 18.2 17.6-18.8 134 10.7 9.4-12.0 548 11.9 11.3-12.6 Notes: N = number of collections in period. Average = average HoNOSCA (15 item) score, CI = confidence interval for average score. Community discharge does not include discharges to an inpatient unit. Interpretation: If confidence intervals for two scores do not overlap, then the scores are statistically significantly different. It is important to note that statistical significance may not indicate a clinically significant difference. 6
Graph 5: Average number of clinically significant HoNOSCA items by collection type, New Zealand, Apr 2012 - Mar 2013 Notes: Average number clinically significant items = the average number of items in the clinical range (2, 3 or 4) per collection. Community discharge does not include discharges to an inpatient unit. Interpretation: Points are significantly different if error bars don t overlap. Decrease between admission and discharge is an indication of the outcomes achieved by the service and service user. A greater decrease between admission and discharge indicates a better outcome. Lower admission score could be indication of service users seeking out and being engaged by services at a lower level of severity. Target: A greater decrease from admission to discharge and smaller percentage in clinical range at discharge. 7
Table 5: Average number of clinically significant HoNOSCA Items by collection type and team, New Zealand, Apr 2012 - Mar 2013 Team type Assessment only Admission Review Discharge N Mean CI N Mean CI N Mean CI N Mean CI Community services Child, adolescent and family team 2,241 3.1 3.0-3.2 6,365 4.6 4.6-4.7 8,942 3.6 3.6-3.7 4,472 1.9 1.9-2.0 Children and youth, alcohol and drug services 44 2.8 2.2-3.4 45 3.8 3.0-4.6 29 3.3 2.5-4.1 106 2.1 1.7-2.5 Community team 147 4.3 3.9-4.8 191 4.5 4.1-4.8 218 3.5 3.1-3.8 104 1.9 1.4-2.4 Eating disorder team 67 5.2 4.4-5.9 125 2.6 2.2-3.0 Forensic team 86 4.5 4.0-5.0 39 5.6 4.8-6.4 Kaupapa Māori tamariki and rangatahi (child and youth) mental health services 35 4.1 3.3-5.0 188 4.1 3.7-4.4 254 3.5 3.2-3.8 120 1.3 1.0-1.7 Kaupapa Māori team 26 4.4 3.6-5.2 70 5.8 5.2-6.4 125 3.6 3.2-4.1 38 1.5 0.8-2.3 Pacific Island team 179 3.1 2.8-3.5 124 2.8 2.3-3.2 142 1.1 0.8-1.5 Youth specialty team 172 3.6 3.3-4.0 882 4.7 4.5-4.8 1,177 3.6 3.5-3.7 532 2.1 1.9-2.3 Total 2,777 3.3 3.2-3.4 8,033 4.6 4.5-4.6 11,009 3.6 3.6-3.7 5,545 1.9 1.8-2.0 Inpatient services Child, adolescent and family team 375 5.2 4.9-5.5 54 3.6 2.8-4.4 314 3.6 3.3-3.9 Eating disorder team 32 4.8 3.8-5.7 54 2.4 2.0-2.9 22 1.9 0.8-2.9 Inpatient team 176 6.1 5.6-6.5 129 3.9 3.3-4.4 Youth specialty team 151 6.6 6.2-7.0 82 2.9 2.4-3.5 Total 736 5.7 5.5-5.9 134 3.3 2.9-3.7 548 3.5 3.3-3.7 Notes: N = Number of collections in period. Average = average number of HoNOSCA items in the clinically significant range (i.e. scoring 2, 3, or 4), CI = confidence interval for average score. Community discharge does not include discharges to an inpatient unit. Interpretation: If confidence intervals for two scores do not overlap, then the scores are statistically significantly different. Please note that statistical significance may not indicate a clinically significant difference. 8
Graph 6: Average number of clinically significant HoNOSCA items at admission and discharge by ethnic group, New Zealand, Apr 2012 - Mar 2013 Notes: Average number of HoNOSCA items in the clinical range (2, 3 or 4). Community discharge does not include discharges to an inpatient unit. Interpretation: Points are significantly different if error bars don t overlap. Decrease between admission and discharge is an indication of the outcomes achieved by the service and service user. A greater decrease between admission and discharge indicates a better outcome. Lower admission score could be indication of service users seeking out and being engaged by services at a lower level of acuity. Target: A greater decrease from admission to discharge and smaller percentage in clinical range at discharge. 9
Graph 7a: Percentage of collections in clinical range on each HoNOSCA item, New Zealand, Apr 2012 - Mar 2013 Notes: Percentage of service users in the clinical range (2, 3 or 4) for each HoNOSCA items. Community discharge does not include discharges to an inpatient unit. Interpretation: The longer the bar, the more prevalent the difficulty measured by the item is amongst service users. A greater decrease in the length of the bar from admission to discharge suggests a better outcome for the difficulty measured by the item. Items that show medium high frequency and less change may suggest possible targets for service improvement. Target: A greater decrease from admission to discharge and smaller percentage in clinical range at discharge. 10
Table 7a: Percentage of collections in clinical range on each HoNOSCA item (admission and discharge collections) by team, New Zealand, Apr 2012 - Mar 2013 Community services First 7 HoNOSCA items Team name Child, adolescent and family team Children and youth, alcohol and drug services N AGR ATT SH AOD LAN PHY DelHal Adm Disch Adm Disch Adm Disch Adm Disch Adm Disch Adm Disch Adm Disch Adm Disch 6,365 4,472 42% 17% 44% 19% 22% 4% 10% 5% 30% 19% 11% 6% 7% 2% 45 106 56% 23% 22% 16% 18% 4% 84% 42% 18% 19% 2% 2% 0% 0% Community team 191 104 33% 15% 39% 10% 39% 9% 15% 17% 23% 12% 12% 6% 10% 6% Eating disorder team 67 24% 0% 34% 0% 19% 0% 1% 0% 18% 0% 52% 0% 51% 0% Forensic team 39 77% 0% 33% 0% 8% 0% 49% 0% 37% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% Kaupapa Māori tamariki and rangatahi (child and youth) mental health 188 120 41% 14% 32% 11% 21% 3% 19% 8% 24% 13% 8% 3% 5% 0% services Kaupapa Māori team 70 38 61% 16% 59% 11% 33% 5% 16% 5% 42% 18% 9% 0% 10% 0% Pacific Island team 179 142 23% 9% 32% 6% 16% 3% 8% 6% 18% 9% 8% 5% 8% 4% Youth specialty team 882 532 26% 15% 41% 18% 34% 7% 16% 13% 23% 12% 9% 4% 10% 4% Total 8,033 5,545 40% 17% 43% 18% 24% 5% 11% 7% 29% 18% 11% 6% 8% 2% 11
Second 8 HoNOSCA items Team name Child, adolescent and family team Children and youth, alcohol and drug services NOS EMO PEER SC FAM SCH KNW INFO Adm Disch Adm Disch Adm Disch Adm Disch Adm Disch Adm Disch Adm Disch Adm Disch 25% 6% 74% 28% 51% 22% 14% 7% 57% 32% 19% 8% 36% 12% 24% 6% 0% 0% 36% 26% 20% 8% 7% 3% 53% 41% 29% 19% 22% 4% 16% 5% Community team 28% 11% 76% 31% 43% 16% 15% 6% 50% 26% 21% 11% 29% 9% 17% 9% Eating disorder team 28% 0% 81% 0% 42% 0% 55% 0% 49% 0% 23% 0% 25% 0% 14% 0% Forensic team 0% 0% 64% 0% 37% 0% 11% 0% 87% 0% 32% 0% 76% 0% 53% 0% Kaupapa Māori tamariki and rangatahi (child and youth) mental health 12% 3% 56% 14% 40% 11% 4% 2% 57% 24% 22% 8% 39% 13% 34% 8% services Kaupapa Māori team 43% 5% 69% 24% 59% 21% 14% 5% 67% 21% 24% 13% 47% 5% 29% 3% Pacific Island team 6% 1% 37% 7% 25% 8% 8% 1% 40% 19% 17% 12% 39% 14% 42% 18% Youth specialty team 23% 6% 82% 34% 49% 25% 11% 9% 60% 37% 25% 12% 34% 8% 26% 3% Total 24% 5% 73% 28% 50% 21% 13% 7% 57% 32% 20% 9% 36% 11% 25% 6% 12
Inpatient services First 7 HoNOSCA items Team name Child, adolescent and family team N AGR ATT SH AOD LAN PHY DelHal Adm Disch Adm Disch Adm Disch Adm Disch Adm Disch Adm Disch Adm Disch Adm Disch 375 314 37% 20% 34% 23% 60% 24% 24% 11% 18% 19% 13% 12% 38% 27% Eating disorder team 32 22 22% 0% 56% 14% 38% 14% 3% 5% 22% 5% 44% 23% 53% 18% Inpatient team 176 129 45% 28% 40% 26% 65% 26% 37% 21% 21% 18% 13% 12% 36% 18% Youth specialty team 151 82 53% 20% 66% 26% 66% 21% 29% 11% 29% 7% 21% 6% 42% 22% Total 736 548 42% 21% 43% 23% 61% 24% 27% 13% 21% 16% 16% 12% 39% 24% Second 8 HoNOSCA items Team name Child, adolescent and family team NOS EMO PEER SC FAM SCH KNW INFO Adm Disch Adm Disch Adm Disch Adm Disch Adm Disch Adm Disch Adm Disch Adm Disch 17% 10% 72% 52% 54% 36% 15% 7% 58% 55% 45% 35% 32% 23% 21% 13% Eating disorder team 13% 0% 75% 36% 25% 9% 59% 18% 19% 23% 22% 14% 22% 5% 3% 5% Inpatient team 15% 6% 84% 57% 56% 41% 25% 14% 71% 57% 41% 31% 42% 29% 28% 14% Youth specialty team 34% 11% 93% 57% 69% 28% 15% 5% 72% 51% 35% 12% 27% 14% 17% 5% Total 20% 9% 79% 53% 56% 35% 19% 9% 62% 53% 40% 29% 33% 22% 21% 12% Notes: Percentage of service users in the clinical range (2, 3 or 4) for each HoNOSCA items. Community discharge does not include discharges to an inpatient unit. Interpretation: The higher the percentage, the more prevalent the difficulty measured by the item is amongst service users. A greater decrease between admission to discharge suggests a better outcome for the difficulty measured by the item. Items that show medium high frequency and less change may suggest possible targets for service improvement. Target: A greater decrease from admission to discharge and smaller percentage in clinical range at discharge. 13
Graph 7b: Percentage of collections in clinical range on each HoNOSCA Item (review collections), New Zealand, Apr 2012 - Mar 2013 Notes: Percentage of service users in the clinical range (2, 3 or 4) for each HoNOSCA items on review collections. Due to most admission being less than 90 days, the data set for review collections in inpatient settings is relatively small. Interpretation: The longer the bar, the more prevalent the difficulty measured by the item is amongst service users. 14
Table 7b: Percentage of collections in clinical range on each HoNOSCA item (review collections) by team, New Zealand, Apr 2012 - Mar 2013 Team type N AGR ATT SH AOD LAN PHY DelHal NOS EMO PEER SC FAM SCH KNW INFO Child, adolescent and family team Children and youth, alcohol and drug services Community services 8,942 34% 40% 9% 6% 32% 11% 6% 15% 61% 45% 15% 52% 14% 19% 9% 29 34% 28% 7% 45% 34% 0% 0% 3% 28% 21% 17% 72% 21% 17% 3% Community team 218 15% 34% 10% 10% 30% 10% 18% 17% 52% 43% 20% 47% 18% 18% 7% Eating disorder team 125 10% 10% 8% 1% 6% 24% 39% 9% 61% 22% 25% 27% 7% 10% 1% Kaupapa Māori tamariki and rangatahi (child and youth) mental health 254 34% 39% 8% 6% 33% 5% 7% 10% 52% 40% 11% 51% 16% 28% 17% services Kaupapa Māori team 125 42% 38% 11% 13% 31% 6% 10% 24% 49% 40% 10% 41% 22% 15% 10% Pacific Island team 124 23% 28% 3% 8% 19% 9% 6% 4% 33% 22% 12% 38% 15% 34% 33% Youth specialty team 1,177 18% 31% 17% 15% 18% 8% 10% 16% 69% 44% 14% 53% 20% 20% 9% Total 11,009 32% 39% 9% 7% 30% 10% 7% 15% 61% 44% 15% 52% 15% 19% 9% Child, adolescent and family team Inpatient services 54 19% 22% 38% 15% 14% 13% 30% 4% 61% 41% 13% 48% 35% 9% 4% Eating disorder team 54 9% 4% 19% 0% 2% 28% 46% 2% 65% 7% 28% 24% 6% 4% 0% Total 134 21% 18% 28% 11% 10% 18% 39% 5% 62% 28% 19% 41% 18% 11% 5% Notes: Percentage of service users in the clinical range (2, 3 or 4) for each HoNOSCA items on review collections. Due to most admission being less than 90 days, the data set for review collections in inpatient settings is relatively small. Interpretation: The higher the percentage, the more prevalent the difficulty measured by the item is amongst service users. 15
Graph 8: Index of severity ratings for HoNOSCA by collection type, New Zealand, Apr 2012 - Mar 2013 Notes: Community discharge does not include discharges to an inpatient unit. Index of Severity: sub-clinical = all items <2, mild = at least one item > 1 and all items <3, moderate = at least one item >=3, severe = at least 2 items >=3 using first 13 items. Community discharge does not include discharges to an inpatient unit. Interpretation: Darker bars indicate higher overall level of severity. More positive outcome shown by larger decrease in darker sections of bar between admission and discharge. 16
3. Other measures of service activity This section presents other information related to data collected in PRIMHD that may be helpful for understanding how teams are operating. This includes information relevant to caseload intensity and team activity. Graph 9: Index of severity for HoNOSCA (admission and review collections) by team, New Zealand, Apr 2012 - Mar 2013 Notes: Only data related to collection at admission and review is included so that results reflect the severity of service users during their engagement with the service. Index of Severity: sub-clinical = all items <2, mild = at least one item > 1 and all items <3, moderate = at least one item >=3, severe = at least 2 items >=3 using first 13 items. Interpretation: This graph gives an impression of the overall severity of the caseload for different teams at admission. The longer the darker bar, the higher the overall severity of the team s caseload. 17
Table 9: Index of severity for HoNOSCA by collection type and team, New Zealand, Apr 2012 - Mar 2013 Team type Child, adolescent and family team Children and youth, alcohol and drug services Assessment only Admission Review Discharge Sub Mild Mod Sev N Sub Mild Mod Sev N Sub Mild Mod Sev N Sub Mild Mod Sev N Community services 15% 30% 25% 31% 2,241 4% 16% 26% 54% 6,365 9% 33% 23% 34% 8,942 36% 35% 16% 14% 4,472 14% 20% 30% 36% 44 4% 24% 31% 40% 45 10% 41% 14% 34% 29 26% 38% 14% 22% 106 Community team 7% 21% 25% 46% 147 3% 16% 24% 57% 191 18% 27% 20% 35% 218 37% 28% 20% 15% 104 Eating disorder team 4% 15% 24% 57% 67 26% 29% 18% 27% 125 Forensic team 6% 19% 31% 44% 86 3% 31% 15% 51% 39 Kaupapa Māori tamariki and rangatahi (child and youth) mental health services 6% 29% 29% 37% 35 10% 25% 25% 40% 188 10% 39% 24% 28% 254 51% 33% 8% 8% 120 Kaupapa Māori team 0% 12% 31% 58% 26 1% 6% 19% 74% 70 11% 24% 20% 45% 125 53% 18% 11% 18% 38 Pacific Island team 18% 35% 23% 23% 179 26% 38% 18% 19% 124 55% 31% 11% 3% 142 Youth specialty team 10% 26% 27% 37% 172 2% 15% 25% 57% 882 10% 29% 23% 38% 1,177 37% 30% 16% 17% 532 Average 14% 29% 25% 33% 2,777 4% 17% 26% 53% 8,033 10% 33% 23% 34% 11,009 37% 34% 15% 14% 5,545 Child, adolescent and family team Inpatient services 4% 13% 15% 69% 375 20% 26% 15% 39% 54 13% 33% 21% 33% 314 Eating disorder team 3% 28% 22% 47% 32 11% 46% 31% 11% 54 50% 23% 14% 14% 22 Inpatient team 2% 5% 13% 80% 176 12% 29% 19% 40% 129 Youth specialty team 0% 2% 12% 86% 151 17% 40% 17% 26% 82 Average 3% 10% 14% 74% 736 14% 31% 25% 31% 134 15% 32% 20% 33% 548 Notes: Sub = Sub-clinical, Mild = Mild, Mod=Moderate, Sev=Severe on Index of Severity. Only admission collection data is included so that results reflect the severity of service users during their engagement with the service. Index of Severity: sub-clinical = all items <2, mild = at least one item > 1 and all items <3, moderate = at least one item >=3, severe = at least 2 items >=3 using first 13 items. Community discharge does not include discharges to an inpatient unit. Interpretation: Larger percentages in the columns to the right for each type of collection, the higher the overall severity of the team s caseload. 18
Graph 10: Collections with no HoNOSCA items in clinical range, New Zealand, Apr 2012 - Mar 2013 Notes: Includes admission and review collections. Shows percentage of service users with all HoNOSCA items less than 2, i.e. no HoNOSCA items in the clinical range. National average = this is the equivalent value for all DHBs by setting. Interpretation: There are a variety of reasons that may make it appropriate for service users to remain in the service even though they show no HoNOSCA items in the clinical range. However, teams showing larger/substantial percentage of service users with no HoNOSCA items in the clinical range could benefit from reviewing these cases to ensure that the service remains appropriate for this service user. 19
Table 10: Collections with no HoNOSCA items in clinical range, New Zealand, Apr 2012 Mar 2013 Team type Number of collections with no items in clinical range Community services Percentage with no items in clinical range Child, adolescent and family team 1,067 7% Children and youth, alcohol and drug services 5 7% Community team 45 11% Eating disorder team 36 19% Forensic team 2 4% Kaupapa Māori tamariki and rangatahi (child and youth) mental 43 health services 10% Kaupapa Māori team 15 8% Pacific Island team 57 19% Youth specialty team 133 6% Total 1,407 7% Inpatient services Child, adolescent and family team 24 6% Eating disorder team 7 8% Inpatient team 4 2% Youth specialty team 0 0% Total 37 4% Notes: For further information see the notes to graph 10. 20