Routine outcome measurement in public mental health — what do clinicians think?

Abstract

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.

The clinical utility of the Personal Questionnaire (PQ): a mixed methods study

“…The Clinical Utility of the PQ, p. 4 outcome measures (Garland, Kruse, & Aarons, 2003;Hatfield & Ogles, 2004;Hatfield & Ogles, 2007;Norman, Dean, Hansford, & Ford, 2014;Trauer, Gill, Pedwell, & Slattery, 2006).…”

The use of the Health of the Nation Outcome Scales (HoNOS) to inform discharge and transfer decisions in community mental health services

“…Staff often question the utility of the measure, citing the time burden of collection, suspicion of management motives, and competence and confidence in use of the information. 5 These concerns do not only impact on the willingness of staff to collect information but on the quality of that information collected as part of routine clinical practice. Indications, however, from Callaly et al 6 are that as measures such as the HoNOS are increasingly used within clinical practice, participation and understanding of potential value and benefit increases.…”

Clinicians’ Attitudes Towards Outcome and Process Monitoring: A Validation of the Outcome Measurement Questionnaire

“…So far, only a limited number of empirical studies have examined this relationship. Concerning the relationship between gender, age and monitoring attitudes, multiple studies (De Jong et al 2012;Trauer et al 2006;Willis et al 2009) found no significant associations. The findings on professional characteristics are more ambiguous.…”

“…Walter et al (1998) found that almost 67 % of clinicians would refuse the use of self-report instruments, even if even they acknowledged that it would lead to better patient outcomes. Similarly, Trauer et al (2006) observed that a significant portion of clinicians (up to 50 %) had no recorded instances of selfreport measures in services with mandatory use of outcome measurements. Often policymakers and mental health service managers tackle clinicians' 'resistance' by mandating the routine use of monitoring.…”