Premium
Differences in self and independent ratings on an organisational dual diagnosis capacity measure
Author(s) -
LEE NICOLE,
CAMERON JACQUI
Publication year - 2009
Publication title -
drug and alcohol review
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.018
H-Index - 74
eISSN - 1465-3362
pISSN - 0959-5236
DOI - 10.1111/j.1465-3362.2009.00116.x
Subject(s) - dual diagnosis , government (linguistics) , dual (grammatical number) , service (business) , mental health , measure (data warehouse) , medicine , business , psychiatry , marketing , computer science , art , linguistics , philosophy , literature , database
and Aims. There are a number of tools to assist services to measure their capacity to respond to co‐occurring substance use and mental health disorders. This study aimed to examine whether services could accurately self‐rate their dual diagnosis capacity. Design and Methods. Data were collected from 13 alcohol and drug services across Australia that participated in a comorbidity capacity building initiative. The organisations provided a range of services, including pharmacotherapy and counselling services, residential and outpatient services, youth and adult services and withdrawal. There was a mix of government and non‐government services. Results. Services rated themselves substantially higher than the independent raters at both baseline and follow up. Discussion and Conclusions. The results suggest that services may not accurately assess their own capacity. For organisations trying to make improvements in their services, independent assessment may be more helpful than self‐assessment in accurately determining service gaps. Overestimation of capacity may lead to failure to address important service needs. [Lee N, Cameron J. Differences in self and independent ratings on an organisational dual diagnosis capacity measure. Drug Alcohol Rev 2009]