There is a more variable approach to monitoring and compliance, and processes will differ depending on funding status. Contractual arrangements will be used to monitor and enforce compliance with the National Quality Framework for government-funded treatment providers, whereas for other providers it will be at the discretion of each jurisdiction. Overall, the principles behind the framework aim to shift some of the responsibility away from the government, encouraging individual providers to take more accountability for the quality of their services. … Simone Henriksen from the University of the Sunshine Coast has reviewed the expectations of the National Quality Framework and assessed whether it is a suitable regulatory tool. She was keen to identify potential challenges that may be faced during implementation and through sustained usage. One of her initial observations is that the National Quality Framework hasn’t provided a clear definition of what ‘quality’ means, and this could have negative repercussions in terms of assessing compliance. Simone Henriksen also highlighted that a lack of resources could be an issue, particularly given that the sector is currently underfunded. She suggests that it is important that adequate financial backing and infrastructure are in place for this framework to survive long term. A further concern is that some of the arrangements for monitoring and compliance don’t align with the national approach, which could lead to issues around uniformity. … One of the main challenges facing the framework is the question of whether advancements in quality will really be achieved. Simone Henriksen suggests that this may prove difficult as the process of accreditation only deems providers as accredited or not, and does not give any extra merit for excellence. Thus, providers who are accredited are not provided with the motivation to push for further improvements. Whilst publishing accreditation in the National Directory is helpful for members of the public, it does not provide any further information or allow the public to make complaints. Simone Henriksen advises that a central body, capable of coordinating the National Quality Framework and managing complaints at a national level should be established. Another concern is whether the goals of the National Quality Framework are clearly defined. The nine guiding principles do give providers a steer on what they should be achieving and set the criteria for measurement but may be too flexible. Although flexibility can be positive as it helps to accommodate the broad range of practitioners and services that are needed, Simone Henriksen feels the guidelines should be more industry-specific. A key area that needs more clarity is the definition of quality. Research has shown that frameworks which are not clearly defined are harder to implement and sustain. This lack of definition can also have a negative impact on innovation, particularly relating to the development of treatments to tackle newer substances, as providers do not want to risk not meeting the standards. Simone Henriksen feels that part of the uncertainty comes from allowing providers to choose from several different sets of accreditation standards within the framework and recommends that the number should be reduced, something that has been seen to be effective in the implementation of other quality frameworks. She also recommends that there is more uniformity in terms of monitoring and compliance, removing the different practices that are determined by funding status. …

WWW.SCIPOD.GLOBAL