scholarly journals Implementing validated routine outcome assessment in psychiatry: a field study

2013 ◽  
Vol 164 (04) ◽  
pp. 134-144 ◽  
1992 ◽  
Vol 21 (suppl 2) ◽  
pp. P7-P7
Author(s):  
X. DU ◽  
M. Bardsley ◽  
J. Goodfellow ◽  
C. Striet ◽  
R. G. Cooper ◽  
...  

2002 ◽  
Vol 17 ◽  
pp. 6
Author(s):  
M. Ruggeri ◽  
A. Lasalvia ◽  
R. Dall'Agnola ◽  
M. Tansella

2002 ◽  
Vol 36 (6) ◽  
pp. 743-753 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mike Slade

Objective: Routine outcome assessment in adult mental health services involves the ongoing assessment of patient-level outcomes. Use of outcomes to inform treatment is widely recommended, but seldom implemented. The goals of this review were (i) to identify principles that have been proposed for implementing routine outcome assessment, (ii) to identify the full range of outcome domains that have been proposed for assessment, and (iii) to synthesize proposals for specific outcome domains into emergent categories. Method: A systematic review of published and unpublished research was undertaken, using electronic databases, research registers, conference proceedings, expert informants and the World Wide Web. For goal (i) studies were included that proposed principles for implementing routine outcome assessment. For goal (ii) studies were included that identified at least two patient-level outcome domains for patients using adult mental health services and made some reference to a broader literature base. Results: Six thousand four hundred publications matched initial search criteria. Seven distinct sets of principles for choosing patient-level outcomes were located, which showed a fair degree of consensus. Sixteen outcome domain proposals were identified, which were synthesized into seven emergent categories: wellbeing, cognition/emotion, behaviour, physical health, interpersonal, society and services. Conclusions: The findings from this review were used to develop a four-step method for adult mental health services wishing to implement routine outcome assessment.


2000 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gilbody ◽  
SM ◽  
House ◽  
AO ◽  
Sheldon ◽  
...  

2002 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 20-27 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mike Slade

SummaryObjective – The assessment of outcome for any purpose is not undertaken routinely in European mental health services. This paper discusses the merits of using outcome data to inform the planning of mental health care for individual patients, and provides practical advice to support the implementation of this new approach to working. Method – The use of outcomes in North America and Europe is briefly reviewed. A conceptual basis is proposed for routine outcome assessment – the ongoing measurement and use of outcome data to inform decisions about whether to continue, change or curtail treatment. A cognitive psychology model is developed which indicates that the routine use of outcomes will improve mental health care. Perceived problems with routine outcome assessment are discussed, and principles for implementation are identified. Results – Outcomes are used mainly for generating local-level (rather than patient-level) data in North America, and rarely used in Europe. The use of outcome data routinely may facilitate reflective clinical practice, a model of decision-making which leads to a higher quality of clinical care than automated problem-solving. One issue relates to the use of standardised assessments designed for research purposes in clinical settings, and this is being addressed through the development of a new generation of outcome measures which are explicitly designed for clinical use. However, most clinicians remain unconvinced of the benefits of routine outcome assessment, and relevant research is currently underway across Europe which will address this concern. Scientific principles to maximise quality and pragmatic principles to maximise the chances of successful implementation are identified. Conclusions – The routine use of outcomes will become increasingly prominent in European mental health services. This provides clinicians with an opportunity to improve the quality of clinical care offered to patients.


2006 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 279-288 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Wong ◽  
Meredith Harris ◽  
Sue Cotton ◽  
Jane Edwards

2002 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 4-5

Abstract Different jurisdictions use the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides) for different purposes, and this article reviews a specific jurisdictional definition in the Province of Ontario of catastrophic impairment that incorporates the AMA Guides. In Ontario, a whole person impairment (WPI) exceeding 54% or a mental or behavioral impairment of Class 4 or 5 qualifies the individual for catastrophic benefits, and individuals who do not meet the test receive a lesser benefit. By inference, this establishes a parity threshold among dissimilar injuries and dissimilar outcome assessment scales for benefits. In Ontario, the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) identifies patients who have a high probability of death or of severely disabled survival. The GCS recognizes gradations of vegetative state and disability, but translating the gradations for rating individual impairment on ordinal scales into a method of assessing percentage impairments cannot be done reliably, as explained in the AMA Guides, Fifth Edition. The AMA Guides also notes that mental and behavioral impairment in Class 4 (marked impairment) or 5 (extreme impairment) indicates “catastrophic impairment” by significantly impeding useful functioning (Class 4) or significantly impeding useful functioning and implying complete dependency on another person for care (Class 5). Translating the AMA Guides guidelines into ordinal scales cannot be done reliably.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document