summary report honosca national apr12-mar13 · this section presents honosca data indicating the...

1

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.

2

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.

3

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.

4

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 number Adm Rev Dch 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

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


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.

5

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.

6

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.

7

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.

8

Table 5: Average number of clinically significant HoNOSCA Items by collection type and team, New Zealand, Apr 2012 - Mar 2013


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.

9

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.

10

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.

11

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

N AGR ATT SH AOD LAN PHY DelHal

Adm Disch Adm Disch Adm Disch Adm Disch Adm Disch Adm Disch Adm Disch Adm Disch


team 6,365 4,472 42% 17% 44% 19% 22% 4% 10% 5% 30% 19% 11% 6% 7% 2%

Children and youth, alcohol

and drug services 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

services

188 120 41% 14% 32% 11% 21% 3% 19% 8% 24% 13% 8% 3% 5% 0%

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%

12

Second 8 HoNOSCA items

Team name

NOS EMO PEER SC FAM SCH KNW INFO



team 25% 6% 74% 28% 51% 22% 14% 7% 57% 32% 19% 8% 36% 12% 24% 6%


and drug services 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%




services

12% 3% 56% 14% 40% 11% 4% 2% 57% 24% 22% 8% 39% 13% 34% 8%

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%

13

Inpatient services

First 7 HoNOSCA items

Team name

N AGR ATT SH AOD LAN PHY DelHal



team 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

NOS EMO PEER SC FAM SCH KNW INFO



team 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.

14

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.

15

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

Community services


team 8,942 34% 40% 9% 6% 32% 11% 6% 15% 61% 45% 15% 52% 14% 19% 9%


and drug services 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%




services

254 34% 39% 8% 6% 33% 5% 7% 10% 52% 40% 11% 51% 16% 28% 17%

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%

Inpatient services


team 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.

16

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.

17

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.

18

Table 9: Index of severity for HoNOSCA by collection type and team, New Zealand, Apr 2012 - Mar 2013


Sub Mild Mod Sev N Sub Mild Mod Sev N Sub Mild Mod Sev N Sub Mild Mod Sev N

Community services


team 15% 30% 25% 31% 2,241 4% 16% 26% 54% 6,365 9% 33% 23% 34% 8,942 36% 35% 16% 14% 4,472


and drug services 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

Inpatient services


team 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.

19

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.

20

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

Percentage with no items in clinical range

Community services

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

health services

43

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.

summary report honosca national apr12-mar13 · this section presents honosca data indicating the...

Documents