Client Progress Monitoring and Feedback in School-Based Mental Health

Self Cite

The current study evaluated why and how school mental health clinicians use standardized assessment tools in their work with youth and families. Quantitative and qualitative (focus group) data were collected prior to and following a training and consultation sequence as part of a trial program to assess school clinician’s (n = 15) experiences administering standardized tools to youth on their caseloads (n = 191). Findings indicated that, although assessment use was initially somewhat low, clinicians used measures to conduct initial assessments with the bulk of their caseloads (average = 62.2%) during the implementation period. Clinicians also reported on factors influencing their use of assessments at the client, provider, and system levels; perceived functions of assessment; student responses to assessment use; and use of additional sources of clinically-relevant information (primarily educational data) for the purposes of assessment and progress monitoring. Implications for the contextual appropriateness of standardized assessment and training in assessment tools are discussed.

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Determinants and Functions of Standardized Assessment Use Among School Mental Health Clinicians: A Mixed Methods Evaluation

Lyon

Ludwig

Wasse

et al. 2015

Self Cite

“…The process also appears consistent with the recommendations of Borntrager and Lyon (2015) in that the MHPMT identified symptoms relevant to the patient (i.e., is my depression getting better), it monitored more than just symptoms (i.e., patients functioning and therapeutic alliance), it provided feedback to the patient (discussion of the tool is part of the standard work for all visits), and included visual/graphical feedback (results graphically displayed in the EMR). As we move towards a fully integrated delivery system, it is increasingly becoming a part of how primary care physicians monitor patients with psychiatric disorders, how urgent care physicians determine level of risk for suicidal patients, and how nurse caremanagers track comorbid psychiatric symptoms for patients with chronic medical diseases.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 86%

Progress Monitoring in an Integrated Health Care System: Tracking Behavioral Health Vital Signs

Steinfeld

Franklin

Mercer

et al. 2015

Progress monitoring implementation in an integrated health care system is a complex process that must address factors such as measurement, technology, delivery system care processes, patient needs and provider requirements. This article will describe how one organization faced these challenges by identifying the key decision points (choice of measure, process for completing rating scale, interface with electronic medical record and clinician engagement) critical to implementation. Qualitative and quantitative data will be presented describing customer and stakeholder satisfaction with the mental health progress monitoring tool (MHPMT) as well as organizational performance with key measurement targets.

“…Indeed, if SBMH is to embrace calls to “re-imagine” health information exchange and interoperability (Walker et al, 2005) it will be essential to expand assessment domains beyond traditional health and mental health information to relevant educational data. Recent models for incorporating educational data into SBMH clinical decision-making have been presented (Borntrager & Lyon, 2015; Lyon et al, 2013), which could be effectively leveraged via a well-designed MFS.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Contextualized Technology Adaptation Process (CTAP): Optimizing Health Information Technology to Improve Mental Health Systems

Lyon

Wasse

Ludwig

et al. 2015

Self Cite

Health information technologies have become a central fixture in the mental healthcare landscape, but few frameworks exist to guide their adaptation to novel settings. This paper introduces the Contextualized Technology Adaptation Process (CTAP) and presents data collected during Phase 1 of its application to measurement feedback system development in school mental health. The CTAP is built on models of human-centered design and implementation science and incorporates repeated mixed methods assessments to guide the design of technologies to ensure high compatibility with a destination setting. CTAP phases include: (1) Contextual evaluation, (2) Evaluation of the unadapted technology, (3) Trialing and evaluation of the adapted technology, (4) Refinement and larger-scale implementation, and (5) Sustainment through ongoing evaluation and system revision. Qualitative findings from school-based practitioner focus groups are presented, which provided information for CTAP Phase 1, contextual evaluation, surrounding education sector clinicians’ workflows, types of technologies currently available, and influences on technology use. Discussion focuses on how findings will inform subsequent CTAP phases, as well as their implications for future technology adaptation across content domains and service sectors.