scholarly journals It's not that bad: the views of consumers and carers about routine outcome measurement in mental health

2009 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 93 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer Black ◽  
Tania Lewis ◽  
Pamela McIntosh ◽  
Tom Callaly ◽  
Tim Coombs ◽  
...  

The mandatory use of routine outcome measurement (ROM) has been introduced into all public sector mental health services in Australia over the past 6 years. Qualitative processes were used to engage consumers and carers in suggesting how the measures can be used in clinical practice. The project involved an audit by survey, followed by a range of interactive workshops designed to elicit the views of consumers, carers and clinicians, as well as to involve all parties in dialogue about ROM. In addition, there was engagement of consumers and carers in the training of clinicians in the clinical use of ROM, and in the production of promotional materials aimed at informing consumers and carers about ROM. When consumers and carers have had an opportunity to be involved in ROM they have found it a useful experience, and those who had not been involved can see the potential. Consumers and carers indicated that they believe the greatest opportunity arising from the suite of measures is the use of the consumer self-assessment measure the Behaviour and Symptom Identification Scale (BASIS-32).

2006 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 164 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tom Callaly ◽  
Mary Hyland ◽  
Tim Coombs ◽  
Tom Trauer

This paper explores the attitudes of mental health workers in one public mental health service towards the implementation and use of routine outcome measurement. Two years after their introduction into routine clinical practice, there were equal numbers of positive and negative observations from clinicians about the clinical value of the clinician-rated outcome measures, while more positive observations were made about value of the consumer-rated outcome measure. The most frequent observation from clinicians in relation to making outcome measures more useful to them in clinical practice was that more training, particularly refresher training, is needed. In addition, clinicians indicated that more sophisticated support which assists them to understand the meaning and possible use of outcome measure ratings is required.


Author(s):  
Graham R. Thew ◽  
Louise Fountain ◽  
Paul M. Salkovskis

AbstractWhile the benefits of routine outcome measurement have been extolled and to some degree researched, it is surprising that service user opinions on this common therapy practice have largely not been investigated. This study aimed to assess service users’ experiences of completing measures during psychological therapy, with a view to exploring how therapists can maximize how helpful measures are in therapy. Fifteen participants completed surveys about the use of measures in their current episode of care. Ten clinicians also completed a survey about their use of, and views about, measures. Results showed that despite mixed experiences in how measures were explained and used, service users showed generally favourable attitudes towards their use in therapy, with them being perceived as most helpful when well integrated into sessions by their therapists. Clinicians reported using a wide range of measures, and generally endorsed positive beliefs about measures more strongly than negative ones. Implications for clinical practice, service development, and further research are discussed.


2001 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
pp. 370-376 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Brann ◽  
Grahame Coleman ◽  
Ernest Luk

Objective: This paper evaluates a range of properties for a clinician-based instrument designed for routine use in a child and adolescent mental health service (CAMHS). Method: The Health of the Nation Outcome Scales for Children and Adolescents (HoNOSCA) is a new outcome measure with great promise. Case vignettes were used to examine interrater reliability. HoNOSCA was implemented for routine outpatient use by multidisciplinary staff with a return rate of 84%. The 305 ratings obtained at assessment were analysed by age, gender and diagnosis. Asample of 145 paired ratings with a 3-month interval were examined for the measurement of change over time. Results: Interrater reliability of the total score indicates moderate reliability if absolute scores are used and good reliability if the total score is used for relative comparisons. Most scales have good to very good reliability. The scales discriminated between age and gender in the expected way. HoNOSCA correlated with clinicians’ views of change and was sensitive to change over a 3-month period. The total score seemed a proxy for severity. Conclusion: Routine outcome instruments must be explored in settings where they will be used and with realistic training. HoNOSCA appears to be of value in routine outcome measurement and although questions remain about reliability and validity, the results strongly support further investigation.


2002 ◽  
Vol 180 (3) ◽  
pp. 266-269 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon Gowers ◽  
Warren Levine ◽  
Sarah Bailey-Rogers ◽  
Alison Shore ◽  
Emma Burhouse

BackgroundThe Health of the Nation Outcome Scale for Children and Adolescents (HoNOSCA) is an established outcome measure for child and adolescent mental health. Little is known of adolescent views on outcome.AimsTo develop and test the properties of an adolescent, self-rated version of the scale (HoNOSCA–SR) against the established clinician-rated version.MethodA comparison was made of 6-weekly clinician-rated and self-rated assessments of adolescents attending two services, using HoNOSCA and other mental health measures.ResultsAdolescents found HoNOSCA–SR acceptable and easy to rate. They rated fewer difficulties than the clinicians and these difficulties were felt to improve less during treatment, although this varied with diagnosis and length of treatment. Although HoNOSCA–SR showed satisfactory reliability and validity, agreement between clinicians and users in individual cases was poor.ConclusionsRoutine outcome measurement can include adolescent self-rating with modest additional resources. The discrepancy between staff and adolescent views requires further evaluation.


2006 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 144 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tom Trauer ◽  
Lisa Gill ◽  
Glenda Pedwell ◽  
Peta Slattery

IN ORDER TO FULLY EVALUATE and manage a service, one should be able to answer all parts of the question ?Who receives what services, from whom, at what cost, and with what effect??1 While there is good information on the first four elements, mental health services generally do less well in demonstrating the effectiveness of what they do, and it is here that routine outcome measurement (ROM) can make a contribution. Despite the very real progress that has been made in implementing ROM in Australia it is evident from a variety of sources, formal and informal, that not everyone is convinced of its necessity or value.


2021 ◽  
Vol 30 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. L. Roest ◽  
B. M. Siebelink ◽  
H. van Ewijk ◽  
R. R. J. M. Vermeiren ◽  
C. M. Middeldorp ◽  
...  

Routine outcome measurement (ROM) data offer unique opportunities to study treatment outcomes in clinical practice, and can help to assess the real-world impact of mental health services for children and adolescents (youth). This is illustrated by studies using naturalistic data from specialist child and adolescent mental healthcare services (CAMHS), showing the proportion of patients with reliable improvement, recovery or deterioration (Burgess et al., 2015; Wolpert et al., 2016), and revealing specific subgroups of patients with greater risk of poor outcome (Garralda et al., 2000; Lundh et al., 2013; Murphy et al., 2015; Edbrooke-Childs et al., 2017). Naturalistic data are therefore undeniably necessary in addition to data derived from randomised clinical trials, which often have limited generalisability due to strict selection criteria (Rothwell, 2005; Van Noorden et al., 2014).


2005 ◽  
Vol 39 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 1-30 ◽  
Author(s):  

Background: The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists is coordinating the development of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) in psychiatry, funded under the National Mental Health Strategy (Australia) and the New Zealand Health Funding Authority. This paper presents CPGs for schizophrenia and related disorders. Over the past decade schizophrenia has become more treatable than ever before. A new generation of drug therapies, a renaissance of psychological and psychosocial interventions and a first generation of reform within the specialist mental health system have combined to create an evidence-based climate of realistic optimism. Progressive neuroscientific advances hold out the strong possibility of more definitive biological treatments in the near future. However, this improved potential for better outcomes and quality of life for people with schizophrenia has not been translated into reality in Australia. The efficacy-effectiveness gap is wider for schizophrenia than any other serious medical disorder. Therapeutic nihilism, under-resourcing of services and a stalling of the service reform process, poor morale within specialist mental health services, a lack of broad-based recovery and life support programs, and a climate of tenacious stigma and consequent lack of concern for people with schizophrenia are the contributory causes for this failure to effectively treat. These guidelines therefore tackle only one element in the endeavour to reduce the impact of schizophrenia. They distil the current evidence-base and make recommendations based on the best available knowledge. Method: A comprehensive literature review (1990–2003) was conducted, including all Cochrane schizophrenia reviews and all relevant meta-analyses, and a number of recent international clinical practice guidelines were consulted. A series of drafts were refined by the expert committee and enhanced through a bi-national consultation process. Treatment recommendations: This guideline provides evidence-based recommendations for the management of schizophrenia by treatment type and by phase of illness. The essential features of the guidelines are: (i) Early detection and comprehensive treatment of first episode cases is a priority since the psychosocial and possibly the biological impact of illness can be minimized and outcome improved. An optimistic attitude on the part of health professionals is an essential ingredient from the outset and across all phases of illness. (ii) Comprehensive and sustained intervention should be assured during the initial 3–5 years following diagnosis since course of illness is strongly influenced by what occurs in this ‘critical period’. Patients should not have to ‘prove chronicity’ before they gain consistent access and tenure to specialist mental health services. (iii) Antipsychotic medication is the cornerstone of treatment. These medicines have improved in quality and tolerability, yet should be used cautiously and in a more targeted manner than in the past. The treatment of choice for most patients is now the novel antipsychotic medications because of their superior tolerability and, in particular, the reduced risk of tardive dyskinesia. This is particularly so for the first episode patient where, due to superior tolerability, novel agents are the first, second and third line choice. These novel agents are nevertheless associated with potentially serious medium to long-term side-effects of their own for which patients must be carefully monitored. Conventional antipsychotic medications in low dosage may still have a role in a small proportion of patients, where there has been full remission and good tolerability; however, the indications are shrinking progressively. These principles are now accepted in most developed countries. (vi) Clozapine should be used early in the course, as soon as treatment resistance to at leasttwo antipsychotics has been demonstrated. This usually means incomplete remission of positive symptomatology, but clozapine may also be considered where there are pervasive negative symptoms or significant or persistent suicidal risk is present. (v) Comprehensive psychosocial interventions should be routinely available to all patients and their families, and provided by appropriately trained mental health professionals with time to devote to the task. This includes family interventions, cognitive-behaviour therapy, vocational rehabilitation and other forms of therapy, especially for comorbid conditions, such as substance abuse, depression and anxiety. (vi) The social and cultural environment of people with schizophrenia is an essential arena for intervention. Adequate shelter, financial security, access to meaningful social roles and availability of social support are essential components of recovery and quality of life. (vii) Interventions should be carefully tailored to phase and stage of illness, and to gender and cultural background. (viii) Genuine involvement of consumers and relatives in service development and provision should be standard. (ix) Maintenance of good physical health and prevention and early treatment of serious medical illness has been seriously neglected in the management of schizophrenia, and results in premature death and widespread morbidity. Quality of medical care for people with schizophrenia should be equivalent to the general community standard. (x) General practitioners (GPs)s should always be closely involved in the care of people with schizophrenia. However, this should be truly shared care, and sole care by a GP with minimal or no specialist involvement, while very common, is not regarded as an acceptable standard of care. Optimal treatment of schizophrenia requires a multidisciplinary team approach with a consultant psychiatrist centrally involved.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document