Use of standardised outcome measures in adult mental health services

Slade, Mike; McCrone, Paul; Kuipers, Elizabeth; Leese, Morven; Cahill, Sharon; Parabiaghi, Alberto; Priebe, Stefan; Thornicroft, Graham

doi:10.1192/bjp.bp.105.015412

Cited by 124 publications

(87 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This also applies to potential cost savings. The FOCUS study 16 mentioned previously suggested that annual cost savings of regular outcome data feedback (which is also provided in DIALOG) was equivalent to £5172 per patient through reduced bed use. If replicated for only 20% of patients with schizophrenia and related disorders in community care in the NHS, the savings would exceed £100M every year.…”

Section: The Dialog Interventionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effective patient–clinician interaction to improve treatment outcomes for patients with psychosis: a mixed-methods design

Priebe

Golden

Kingdon

et al. 2017

Programme Grants Appl Res

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

et al. Effective patient-clinician interaction to improve treatment outcomes for patients with psychosis: a mixed-methods design. Programme Grants Appl Res 2017;5(6). Programme Grants for Applied ResearchISSN 2050-4322 (Print) ISSN 2050-4330 (Online) This journal is a member of and subscribes to the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (www.publicationethics.org/).Editorial contact: nihredit@southampton.ac.ukThe full PGfAR archive is freely available to view online at www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/pgfar. Print-on-demand copies can be purchased from the report pages of the NIHR Journals Library website: www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk Criteria for inclusion in the Programme Grants for Applied Research journalReports are published in Programme Grants for Applied Research (PGfAR) if (1) they have resulted from work for the PGfAR programme, and (2) they are of a sufficiently high scientific quality as assessed by the reviewers and editors. Programme Grants for Applied Research programmeThe Programme Grants for Applied Research (PGfAR) programme, part of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), was set up in 2006 to produce independent research findings that will have practical application for the benefit of patients and the NHS in the relatively near future. The Programme is managed by the NIHR Central Commissioning Facility (CCF) with strategic input from the Programme Director.The programme is a national response mode funding scheme that aims to provide evidence to improve health outcomes in England through promotion of health, prevention of ill health, and optimal disease management (including safety and quality), with particular emphasis on conditions causing significant disease burden.For more information about the PGfAR programme please visit the website: http://www.nihr.ac.uk/funding/programme-grants-forapplied-research.htm This reportThe research reported in this issue of the journal was funded by PGfAR as project number RP-PG-0108-10023. The contractual start date was in April 2010. The final report began editorial review in October 2015 and was accepted for publication in August 2016. As the funder, the PGfAR programme agreed the research questions and study designs in advance with the investigators. The authors have been wholly responsible for all data collection, analysis and interpretation, and for writing up their work. The PGfAR editors and production house have tried to ensure the accuracy of the authors' report and would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive comments on the final report document. However, they do not accept liability for damages or losses arising from material published in this report.This report presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). The views and opinions expressed by authors in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NHS, the NIHR, CCF, NETSCC, PGfAR or the Department of Health. If there are verbatim quotations included in this publicatio...

show abstract

Section: The Dialog Interventionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effective patient–clinician interaction to improve treatment outcomes for patients with psychosis: a mixed-methods design

Priebe

Golden

Kingdon

et al. 2017

Programme Grants Appl Res

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Regular outcome assessments have been linked to improvements in service delivery and lower readmission rates 103 , whereas infrequent outcome measurement did little to improve quality 104 . Moreover, routine outcome measurement that was fed back to the clinician and used to make joint treatment decisions with the patient did lead to better quality of life 105 .…”

Section: Recommendationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring and improving the quality of mental health care: a global perspective

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mental disorders are common worldwide, yet the quality of care for these disorders has not increased to the same extent as that for physical conditions. In this paper, we present a framework for promoting quality measurement as a tool for improving quality of mental health care. We identify key barriers to this effort, including lack of standardized information technology-based data sources, limited scientific evidence for mental health quality measures, lack of provider training and support, and cultural barriers to integrating mental health care within general health environments. We describe several innovations that are underway worldwide which can mitigate these barriers. Based on these experiences, we offer several recommendations for improving quality of mental health care. Health care payers and providers will need a portfolio of validated measures of patient-centered outcomes across a spectrum of conditions. Common data elements will have to be developed and embedded within existing electronic health records and other information technology tools. Mental health outcomes will need to be assessed more routinely, and measurement-based care should become part of the overall culture of the mental health care system. Health care systems will need a valid way to stratify quality measures, in order to address potential gaps among subpopulations and identify groups in most need of quality improvement. Much more attention should be devoted to workforce training in and capacity for quality improvement. The field of mental health quality improvement is a team sport, requiring coordination across different providers, involvement of consumer advocates, and leveraging of resources and incentives from health care payers and systems.

show abstract

“…Two approaches to ROA should be distinguished: one in which the outcome assessments take place outside client-clinician contacts (see, e.g., Marshall et al, 2004;Slade et al, 2006) and one in which they are incorporated into 'routine' client-clinician contacts (see, e.g., Priebe et al, 2007;Van Os et al, 2004). We modeled our routine violence risk assessment method after the latter approach, because this approach showed positive short term effects on client-clinician communication and treatment (Van Os et al, 2004) and long term improvements in client satisfaction, quality of life, and needs for care (Priebe et al, 2007).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Routine violence risk assessment in community forensic mental healthcare

Brink

Hooijschuur

et al. 2009

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We developed a method for periodic monitoring of violence risk, as part of routine community forensic mental healthcare. The feasibility of the method was tested, as well as its predictive validity for violent and risk enhancing behavior in the subsequent months. Participants were 83 clients who received forensic psychiatric home treatment, and six case managers. The method proved feasible and informative. Violent and risk enhancing behavior could be predicted to a reasonable extent (AUC ¼ .77, 95% CI ¼ .70-.85; respectively .76, .70-.82). Dynamic risk factors had an incremental predictive value over static factors in the prediction of violent behavior (OR ¼ 4.30, 1.72-10.73). The professional judgment of the case managers added further predictive power (OR ¼ 2.16, 1.40-3.33), corroborating the structured professional judgment approach. Finally, unmet needs for care of the client were associated with a reduced risk for violent and risk enhancing behavior (OR ¼ .80, and 0.84,). This latter finding suggests that in cases with unmet needs the case manager saw opportunities to do something about the risk. Currently we are testing whether using the method actually prevents violence.

show abstract

Use of standardised outcome measures in adult mental health services

Abstract: Routine use of outcome measures as implemented in this study did not improve subjective outcomes, but was associated with reduced psychiatric inpatient admissions.

Cited by 124 publications

References 30 publications

Effective patient–clinician interaction to improve treatment outcomes for patients with psychosis: a mixed-methods design

Effective patient–clinician interaction to improve treatment outcomes for patients with psychosis: a mixed-methods design

Measuring and improving the quality of mental health care: a global perspective

Routine violence risk assessment in community forensic mental healthcare

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About