Client Outcome Data
Performance of MHS compared
with other Cuyahoga County & Ohio agencies.

Client Outcome Data for 2007

Summary of MHS Outcomes

Homeless Assistance Outcomes

Mobile Crisis Team Outcomes -1

How to help

The performance of MHS in the collection and submission of outcome data to the Ohio Department of Mental Health (ODMH) is presented in the tables below. The collection, use, and submission of outcome data to ODMH became mandatory for MHS and other ODMH-certified agencies in September 2005, when the provisions of ODMH Administrative Rule 5122-28-04 took effect.

Presented in the tables below are the number of adults for whom outcome data has been submitted to ODMH (identified in the table header as "Number Received"), the number of adults for whom ODMH has received billing claims and therefore expects outcome data (identified as "Number Expected"), and the percentage ratio of Number Received to Number Expected. These measures are presented for each of the 27 ODMH-certified agencies in Cuyahoga County who provided community support, counseling, and/or psychiatric services for adults with mental disorders. County and state data are also presented for comparison.

Table 1 presents information about the Provider Form. This form is completed by the client's case manager or social worker, and is a 12-item instrument that collects information about the client’s social and role functioning, housing status, activities of daily living, criminal justice involvement, harmful behavior, and victimization. Table 2 presents information about the Consumer Form that is completed by the client, with help from staff members when needed. It is a 61-item survey that collects information about clients’ perceived quality of life, safety and health, symptom distress, and empowerment.

As shown in Table 1 (below), the performance of MHS in the submission of provider-rated outcome data exceeds the performance of all but three agencies with much smaller caseloads.

Table 2 (below) shows the performance of MHS in the submission of client-rated outcome data exceeds the performance of all but eight agencies. However, this table understates the actual performance of MHS. ODMH ruled that the Consumer Outcomes rule is not applicable to individuals who receive only crisis intervention and psychiatric services "for resolution of short-term emotional problems," and granted MHS a variance (see the bottom of page 10 of the full report) because of the large number of clients who come to MHS for short-term crisis services. In a letter to MHS, ODMH wrote that it "cannot revise the Outcomes Missing Data report to accommodate these criteria, but we will use these criteria" in evaluating MHS' compliance with the rule. Most of the individuals who did not complete an outcome form were those who had received only crisis intervention and psychiatric services.

Earlier ODMH outcome reports show that the performance of MHS in the collection of outcome data improved from 71.8% in the 2006 fiscal year, to 77% in the 2007 fiscal year. In both years, the performance of MHS was considerably above both county and state averages.  To improve our performance in this area, Program Managers of MHS homeless assistance services now receive weekly reports identifying individuals for whom outcome assessments are due.

Latonya Murray, Director of Quality Assurance, reports that the data presented in Tables 3 and 4 also understate the actual performance of MHS, for reasons presented in the narrative before Table 2. Ms Murray states that most of the 240 individuals for whom MHS submitted no outcome data in the 2007 fiscal year were individuals served by the Mobile Crisis Team, who had received only crisis intervention and psychiatric services. The Consumer Outcomes rule is not applicable to these individuals, although ODMH stated that it "cannot revise the Outcomes Missing Data report to accommodate these criteria."