Audit of Substance Abuse Treatment Facilities in ... - SA HealthInfo

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Free State (14.3%) and North West (100.0%) are the only provinces using structuredfollow-up questionnaires to track clients’ progress post-treatment.Overall, the average proportion of clients monitored once they complete the treatmentprogramme ranges from 0 to 100 (χ = 45.8, SD = 33.1). By province, the averageproportion of clients monitored post-treatment ranges from 20 to 100 (χ = 50.0, SD =30.3) in Free State, 40 (χ = 40.0, SD = 0.0) in Limpopo, 0 to 10 (χ = 3.7, SD = 5.5) inMpumalanga, 70 (χ = 70.0, SD = 0.0) in North West, and 50 to 100 (χ = 75.0, SD = 35.4)in Northern Cape.A small proportion of facilities monitor clients for the first month (12.5%), first threemonths (12.5%) and first six months (18.8%). Just over half of the facilities (56.3%)monitor clients on an ad hoc basis or on request of family members while half of thefacilities report monitoring clients for the first year (Figure 25).Figure 25.Proportion of substance abuse treatment facilities monitoring clients posttreatmentby period (%).605050564030201013 13190First month First three months First six months First year Ad hoc basis/ requestof family membersOverallNorthern Cape is the only province monitoring clients for the first month post-treatmentas well as monitoring clients on an ongoing basis, namely for the first three months, firstsix months, first year and on an ad hoc basis (Table 16). Facilities in North West monitorclients for the first year only.62
Table 16. Proportion of facilities monitoring clients post-treatment by province.Monitoring: Period of time Free State(N = 7)Limpopo(N = 2)Mpumalanga(N = 3)NorthWestNorthernCapeOverall(N = 16)(N = 2) (N = 2)N % N % N % N % N % N %For the first month 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 100.0 2 12.5For the first three months 0 0 1 50.0 0 0 0 0 1 50.0 2 12.5For the first six months 1 14.3 1 50.0 0 0 0 0 1 50.0 3 18.8For the first year 2 28.6 1 50.0 2 66.7 2 100.0 1 50.0 8 50.0Ad hoc basis / request of familymembers4 57.1 0 0 3 100.0 0 0 2 100.0 9 56.33.9.3. Formal treatment programme evaluationThe proportion of substance abuse treatment facilities that have conducted formalevaluations of their treatment programmes and the types of evaluations conducted wasalso examined. Overall, less than half of the facilities (43.8%) surveyed report havingconducted a treatment outcomes evaluation of their programme (Figure 26). Half of thefacilities have conducted a process evaluation of their treatment programme/s as well asevaluated the quality of their treatment programmes. A slightly larger proportion offacilities (62.5%) have examined client satisfaction with treatment services provided(Figure 26). Similarly, 62.5% of facilities have participated in a Department of SocialServices evaluation for funding and 68.8% of facilities have evaluation reports available.63
Page 1 and 2:
Alcohol & Drug Abuse Research UnitM
Page 3 and 4:
3.1.2 Treatment facility profile by
Page 5 and 6:
4.3 Targeting barriers to treatment
Page 7 and 8:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARYA cross-sectional
Page 9 and 10:
services to historically underserve
Page 11 and 12: use, reductions in criminal activit
Page 13 and 14: Despite high levels of substance ab
Page 15 and 16: Despite the apparent availability o
Page 17 and 18: treatment services provided. At pre
Page 19 and 20: use disorders whose physical and em
Page 21 and 22: delivery, treatment retention, and
Page 23 and 24: audit substance abuse treatment fac
Page 25 and 26: 2.8.3. Further data considerations
Page 27 and 28: Figure 1. Inpatient intensity of ca
Page 29 and 30: Since there is a large overlap betw
Page 31 and 32: the total client population (χ = 4
Page 33 and 34: Figure 7.Comparison of race profile
Page 35 and 36: services per month ranges from 13 t
Page 37 and 38: 3.4.1. Characteristics of staff at
Page 39 and 40: supervision. In contrast, a much sm
Page 41 and 42: In terms of client record-keeping,
Page 43 and 44: Core findings:• Compared to the p
Page 45 and 46: using 12-step approaches, 75.0% rep
Page 47 and 48: Figure 16. Proportion of treatment
Page 49 and 50: 3.7. ADDRESSING BARRIERS TO TREATME
Page 51 and 52: Table 11. Proportion of facilities
Page 55 and 56: Figure 20.Proportion of substance a
Page 61: 3.9.2. Monitoring of clients’ pro
Page 65 and 66: PART 4: DISCUSSION OF KEY FINDINGSW
Page 67 and 68: previous audits of specialist subst
Page 69 and 70: small proportion of South African d
Page 71 and 72: high levels of substance use among
Page 73 and 74: these barriers appears to significa
Page 75 and 76: appropriate services for Black/Afri
Page 77 and 78: clients progress post-treatment, an
Page 79 and 80: • The number of state facilities
Page 81 and 82: • Another way of ensuring (indire
Page 83 and 84: • The age appropriateness of serv
Page 85 and 86: REFERENCESAllard, S.W., Tolman, R.M
Page 87 and 88: Myers, B., & Fakier, N. (2007). Rep
Page 89: Zule, W.A., Lam, W.K., & Wechsberg,
show all

Audit of Substance Abuse Treatment Facilities in ... - SA HealthInfo

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?