10.07.2015 Views

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

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

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

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS
  • No tags were found...

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

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

In terms <strong>of</strong> activities relat<strong>in</strong>g to programme evaluation, f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs show that few facilities<strong>in</strong> Free State, Limpopo, Mpumalanga, North West and Northern Cape have conductedformal evaluations <strong>of</strong> their treatment programmes. More specifically, less than half <strong>of</strong> thefacilities surveyed report hav<strong>in</strong>g conducted a treatment outcomes evaluation <strong>of</strong> theirprogramme; half <strong>of</strong> the facilities have conducted a process evaluation <strong>of</strong> theirprogramme/s; with a similar proportion hav<strong>in</strong>g evaluated the quality <strong>of</strong> their treatmentservices. Despite this, many treatment facilities make statements about their treatment“success rate.” This is cause for concern as it is impossible to make accurate claims abouttreatment “success rates” without hav<strong>in</strong>g conducted an outcome evaluation.It should be noted that the costs <strong>of</strong> conduct<strong>in</strong>g formal programme evaluations are <strong>of</strong>tenhigh, and facilities that rely on public fund<strong>in</strong>g for f<strong>in</strong>ancial susta<strong>in</strong>ability may not havef<strong>in</strong>ancial resources available for research and evaluation. [All <strong>of</strong> the facilities thatparticipated <strong>in</strong> this study have non-pr<strong>of</strong>it status.] Nonetheless, as f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs fromprogramme evaluations can be used to both improve service quality (and client outcomes)and to motivate fund<strong>in</strong>g agencies for additional treatment resources, it is vital that nonpr<strong>of</strong>itfacilities afford greater priority to programme evaluation activities.F<strong>in</strong>ally, many facilities displayed poor understand<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>of</strong> the terms “monitor<strong>in</strong>g” and“evaluation.” This reflects a need for substance abuse practitioners to be tra<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>in</strong> i) theimportance <strong>of</strong> monitor<strong>in</strong>g and evaluation for programme plann<strong>in</strong>g and serviceimprovement, ii) basic pr<strong>in</strong>ciples <strong>of</strong> monitor<strong>in</strong>g and evaluation (such as the identification<strong>of</strong> suitable <strong>in</strong>dicators for monitor<strong>in</strong>g and evaluat<strong>in</strong>g substance abuse treatmentprogrammes), and iii) systems for the rout<strong>in</strong>e monitor<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> clients with<strong>in</strong> and posttreatment.4.5. RECOMMENDATIONSTo improve the availability and utilisation <strong>of</strong> substance abuse treatment facilitiesAvailability <strong>of</strong> treatment services• In general, the availability <strong>of</strong> affordable treatment options needs to be <strong>in</strong>creased. Acost-effective way <strong>of</strong> achiev<strong>in</strong>g this would be to <strong>in</strong>crease the number <strong>of</strong> state-fundedoutpatient facilities.78

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!