Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T10:44:53.007Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The use of patient-level outcomes to inform treatment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 August 2014

Mike Slade
Mike Slade*
Affiliation:
Health Services Research Department, Institute of Psychiatry, London, United Kingdom
*
Indirizzo per la corrispondenza: MRC Clinician Scientist Fellow, Health Services Research Department, Institute of Psychiatry, De Crespigny Park, Denmark Hill, London SE5 8AF(UK).Fax:+44 (0) 20 7277 1462E-mail:m.slade@iop.kcl.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Objective – 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.

Keywords

misurazione dell'esitoservizi di salute mentaleoutcome assessmentmental health services
Type
Invited Paper
Information
Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences , Volume 11 , Issue 1 , March 2002 , pp. 20 - 27
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Anderson, J.R. (1983). The Architecture of Cognition. Harvard University Press: Harvard.Google Scholar
Andrews, G., Peters, L. & Teeson, M. (1994). Measurement of Consumer Outcome in Mental Health: a Report to the National Mental Health Information Strategy Committee. Clinical Research Unit for Anxiety Disorders: Sydney.Google Scholar
Beck, A.T., Rush, A.J., Shaw, B.F. & Emery, G. (1979). Cognitive Therapy of Depression. Guilford Press: New York.Google Scholar
Bowling, A. (1997). Research Methods in Health: Investigating Health and Health Services. Open University Press: Milton Keynes.Google Scholar
Clifford, P. (1999). The FACE Recording and Measurement System: a scientific approach to person-based information. Bulletin of the Men-ninger Clinic 63, 305–331.Google ScholarPubMed
Dickey, B. & Azeni, H. (1992). Data watch: impact of managed care on mental health services. Health Affairs 11, 197–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisen, S.V., Dill, D.L. & Grob, M.C. (1994). Reliability and validity of a brief patient-report instrument for psychiatric outcome evaluation. Hospital and Community Psychiatry 45, 242–247.Google ScholarPubMed
Ellwood, P. (1988). Outcomes management: a technology of patient experience. New England Journal of Medicine 318, 1549–1556.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guadagnoli, E. & Ward, P. (1998). Patient participation in decisionmaking. Social Science and Medicine 47, 329–339.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huxley, P. (1998). Outcomes management in mental health: a brief review. Journal of Mental Health 7, 273–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jenkins, R., Brooksbank, D. & Miller, E. (1994). Ageing in learning difficulties: the development of health care outcome indicators. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 38, 257–264.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kahney, H. (1986). Problem Solving: a Cognitive Approach. Open University Press: Milton Keynes.Google Scholar
Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Prentice-Hall: New Jersey.Google Scholar
Lelliott, P., Beevor, A., Hogman, J., Hogman, G., Hyslop, J., Lathlean, J. & Ward, M. (2001). Carers' and Users' Expectations of Services -User version (CUES-U): a new instrument to measure the experience of users of mental health services. British Journal of Psychiatry 179, 67–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lyons, J.S., Howard, K.I., O'Mahoney, M.T. & Lish, J.D. (1997). The Measurement & Management of Clinical Outcomes in Mental Health. John Wiley & Sons: New York.Google Scholar
Marks, I. (1998). Overcoming obstacles to routine outcome measurement. British Journal of Psychiatry 173, 281–286.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McPheeters, H.L. (1984). Statewide mental health outcome evaluation: a perspective of two southern states. Community Mental Health Journal 20, 44–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Priebe, S. & Gruyters, T. (1993). The role of the helping alliance in psychiatric community care: a prospective study. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 181, 552–557.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Priebe, S., Huxley, P., Knight, S. & Evans, S. (1999). Application and results of the Manchester Short Assessment of quality of life. International Journal of Social Psychiatry 45, 7–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rosen, A., Hadzi-Pavlovic, D. & Parker, G. (1989). The life skills profile: a measure assessing function and disability in schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Bulletin 15, 325–337.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roth, A. & Fonagy, P. (1997). What Works for Whom? Guilford Press: New York.Google Scholar
Ruggeri, M. & Tansella, M. (2000). CAN: Una Strumento per la Valutazione dei Bisogni nei Soggetti con Disturbi Mentali Gravi. CIC: Roma.Google Scholar
Ruggeri, M., Biggeri, A.Rucci, P. & Tansella, M. (1998). Multivariate analysis of outcome of mental health care using graphical chain models. The South-Verona Outcome Project 1. Psychological Medicine 28, 1421–1431.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Senge, P. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: the Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. Doubleday/Currency: New York.Google Scholar
Slade, M. (in press). Routine outcome assessment in mental health services. Psychological Medicine.Google Scholar
Slade, M. & Glover, G. (2000). The needs of people with mental disorder. In Textbook of Community Psychiatry (ed. Thornicroft, G. and Szmukler, G.), pp. 117–127. Oxford University Press: Oxford.Google Scholar
Slade, M., Thornicroft, G. & Glover, G. (1999a). The feasibility of routine outcome measures in mental health. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 34, 243–249.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Slade, M., Loftus, L., Phelan, M.Thornicroft, G. & Wykes, T. (1999b). The Camberwell Assessment of Need. Gaskell: London.Google Scholar
Slade, M., Powell, R., Rosen, A. & Strathdee, G. (2000). Threshold Assessment Grid (TAG): the development of a valid and brief scale to assess the severity of mental illness. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 35, 78–85.Google ScholarPubMed
Slade, M., Cahill, C., Kelsey, W., Powell, R., Strathdee, G. & Valiaka-layil, A. (2001). Threshold 3: The feasibility of the Threshold Assessment Grid (TAG) for routine assessment of the severity of mental health problems. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 36, 516–521.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, G.R., Rost, K., Fischer, E., Burnam, M. & Burns, B. (1997a). Implementing outcomes management systems in mental health settings. Psychiatric Services 48, 364–368.Google ScholarPubMed
Smith, G.R., Manderscheid, R.Flynn, L. & Steinwachs, D. (1997b). Principles for assessment of patient outcomes in mental health care. Psychiatric Services 48, 1033–1036.Google ScholarPubMed
Sperry, L., Brill, P., Howard, K.I. & Grissom, G. (1996). Treatment Outcomes in Psychotherapy and Psychiatric Interventions. Brunner/Mazel: New York.Google Scholar
Stedman, T., Yellowlees, P., Mellsop, G., Clarke, R. & Drake, S. (1997). Measuring Consumer Outcomes in Mental Health. Department of Health and Family Services: Canberra, ACT.Google Scholar
Thornicroft, G. & Tansella, M. (1999). The Mental Health Matrix. A Manual to Improve Services. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trauer, T. (1998). Issues in the assessment of outcome in mental health. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 32, 337–343.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Veit, C.T. & Ware, J.E. (1983). The structure of psychological distress and well-being in general populations. Sournal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology 51, 730–742.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ware, J.E. & Sherbourne, C.D. (1992). The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Medical Care 30, 473–483.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wing, J.K., Beevor, A.S., Curtis, R.H., Park, S.B., Hadden, S. & Burns, A. (1998). Health of the Nation Outcome Scales (HoNOS) - Research and development. British Journal of Psychiatry 172, 11–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed