Untitled

Abstract

Increasingly, hospitals are expected to monitor and document service delivery variables, such as treatment outcome and patient satisfaction with care, which are thought to be associated with the quality of care received by patients. Documenting the patient's collaboration in the treatment-planning process also has become more important. However, for many clinically oriented units, translating these expectations into a useable instrument and an efficient measurement procedure is a complex and difficult task. This paper outlines the development of a brief multi-faceted program evaluation instrument and assessment process for completing these tasks. The authors describe the rationale behind their approach to these measurement issues, and they introduce an instrument capable of effectively measuring both outcome and satisfaction. They also provide an overview of how they apply the instrument in their inpatient psychiatry service. The strengths and weakness of this assessment strategy are reviewed.

<p>Measuring the Patient Experience of Mental Health Care: A Systematic and Critical Review of Patient-Reported Experience Measures</p>

“…43,44,49,52,60,65,68,82,89,93,94,97,108,112,113,117 Most of the scales specifically targeted mental health service users (89.3%), while 8 were generic and applicable for mental health care. [43][44][45][46]57,58,71,75,111,114,115 Of these 75 included instruments, 24 were designed for inpatient and residential settings (32.0%), 50,51,56,59,64,68,71,74,[78][79][80]84,85,90,95,100,101,[104][105][106]108,[118][119]…”

“…16,39,42,47,48,52,66,67,69,72,75,87,98,102,103,110,114,115,122,124,125 Among them, some instruments were only validated in specific populations: three in patients with schizophrenia, 85,98,102,124 one in bipolar patients, 88 one in depressed patients 63 and one in bipolar or psychotic patients. 67 The time frame for administering the instrument was reported for 29 instruments (38.7%): twenty were designed for completion before leaving the hospital, one of which was delivered 6 to 7 days after admission, 64 one at the end of a group therapy session (normally after the first week of admission), 119 one 1 week before discharge, 85 seven on the day of discharge, 50,51,74,90,106,118,120 1 day before discharge, 56 and nine unspecified, 53,59,67,78,84,95,121…”

“…Alternatively, 19 instruments established their dimensionality based on a conceptual framework drawn from the literature without using statistical methods to confirm their structure. The number of items ranged from 5 (PEC-5); 50 Helping Alliance Scale (HAS) 97 to 84 (Thai Psychiatric Satisfaction Scale (TPSS)). 96 The mean and mode were 26.1 (SD=17.4) and 20, respectively.…”

“…These findings were not available for 9 out of the 75 instruments (12%). 51,52,65,78,86,95,97,116,118 Only four papers used statistical methods from item response theory (IRT), 50,62,73,121 while the others used classical test theory (CTT). Reliability measured by internal consistency was documented for 61 instruments and was the most commonly used approach.…”

“…Indeed, among these articles, 51 investigated the structure of the instruments by using either exploratory or confirmatory factorial analysis- 108,[110][111][112][113][114][115][119][120][121]123 or a Mokken analysis 69 (68.0%), and 37 tested inter-item, item-dimension, dimension-dimension and item-total correlations (49.3%). 16,[42][43][44][45][46]49,50,53,54,[60][61][62][63]66,67,[71][72][73][74][75][80][81][82]85,88,93,96,100,101,103,104,106,107,114,115,117,…”