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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Figure 26.Proportion of substance abuse treatment facilities conducting formalevaluations of their treatment programmes (%).7063 6360504450 50403020100Outcome evaluation Process evaluation Evaluation:programme qualityEvaluation: clientsatisfactionEvaluation:Department of SocialServices for fundingOverallBy province, 57.1% (4) of facilities in Free State, 100.0% (2) in North West and 50.0%(1) in Northern Cape reported having conducted a treatment outcomes evaluation of theirprogramme. Equal proportions of facilities in all 5 provinces had conducted a processevaluation of their treatment programme/s as well as evaluated the quality of theirtreatment programmes: 42.9% (3) in Free State, 50.0% (1) in Limpopo, 33.3% (1) inMpumalanga, 100.0% (2) in North West and 50.0% (1) in Northern Cape. An evaluationof client satisfaction with services was performed in 57.1% (4) of facilities in Free State,50.0% (1) in Limpopo, 66.7% (3) in Mpumalanga, 100.0% (2) in North West and 50.0%(1) in Northern Cape. In terms of participating in a Department of Social Servicesevaluation for funding, 71.4% (5) of facilities in Free State, 33.3% (1) in Mpumalanga,100.0% (2) in both North West and Northern Cape had done so. Evaluation reports areavailable in Free State (6 facilities), Limpopo (1 facility), Mpumalanga (2 facilities) andNorthern Cape (2 facilities).64
PART 4: DISCUSSION OF KEY FINDINGSWhile substance abuse treatment facilities in Free State, Limpopo, Mpumalanga, NorthWest and Northern Cape offer a range of services to clients, this audit shows that accessto services varies extensively among facilities. The following sections describe theavailability of substance abuse treatment, the range of services provided, and the extent towhich barriers to entering, engaging and being retained in treatment for clients fromhistorically underserved groups are addressed by treatment facilities. Variations in thesecomponents of access are discussed in the light of facility characteristics, includingstaffing resources and the organisational environment; as well as in the light of minimumnorms and standards for treatment facilities. Finally, recommendations are made forimproving the accessibility and quality of treatment services.4.1. AVAILABILITY OF SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT SERVICESThis study examined the availability of substance abuse treatment services (in terms oftreatment capacity), the extent to which available treatment slots are utilised (in terms oftreatment occupancy rates), the demand for treatment services (in terms of waiting lists),and the extent to which available treatment slots are effectively used (in terms of clientretention rates). Availability of services is an important variable to examine as lowavailability may act as a barrier to accessing services; even when there are high levels ofperceived need (Appel et al., 2004).4.1.1. Availability of treatment servicesThe availability of substance abuse treatment services appears to be greater inMpumalanga, with findings suggesting that facilities in Mpumalanga have moretreatment slots available and treat greater numbers of clients than facilities in the FreeState, Limpopo, North West and Northern Cape.4.1.2. Utilisation of and demand for available treatment slotsWe also examined the extent to which available treatment slots are utilised. For theoverall sample, just over half of the available treatment slots are occupied on an annualbasis. Although this occupancy rate is relatively high, the finding that a third of slotsremain unoccupied is still cause for concern given the high demand for substance abusetreatment services. This demand for treatment services is reflected in the finding that 765
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 and 62: 3.9.2. Monitoring of clients’ pro
Page 63: Table 16. Proportion of facilities
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?