Comparing Choice and Partnership Approach assumptions to Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services in NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to compare NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde (NHSGGC) Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service (CAMHS) activity data over a one-year period to the Choice and Partnership Approach (CAPA) demand and capacity model assumptions, providing an evaluation of CAPA model implementation and its effects on actual demand and capacity of the service.

Design/methodology/approach

Three assumptions within the CAPA model are tested against activity data extracted from the patient management system. Analysis by patient record assesses the number of appointments the patients received and the patients’ journey from assessment to treatment. A combination of community CAMHS data are combined to compare actual activity against assumed capacity required to meet demand according to the CAPA model.

Findings

Tested against an audit of 2,896 patient records, CAMHS average 7.76 core appointments per patient compared to the CAPA assumption of 7.5 appointments at a 0 per cent DNA rate. The second CAPA assumption states that 66 per cent of assessments will result in treatment, compared to 73.55 per cent in NHSGGC CAMHS. Finally, the workforce model in CAMHS has clinical capacity to meet demand according to the CAPA assumption of weekly accepted referral rates not exceeding the number of clinical whole time equivalent.

Originality/value

The data allow for identification of inefficiencies within CAMHS and highlights how capacity can be increased, without increasing budgets, to meet a rising clinical demand. The results allow managers and clinicians to improve job planning to ensure more children and young people have quick access to services.

Citation

Wilson, S., Metcalfe, J. and McLeod, S. (2015), "Comparing Choice and Partnership Approach assumptions to Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services in NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde", International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance, Vol. 28 No. 8, pp. 812-825. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJHCQA-03-2015-0032