Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T07:39:04.026Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Addiction Severity Index (ASI) and the attitudes of staff to the use of care outcome measurement in Saudi Arabia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Abdelaal Ahmed
Abdelaal Ahmed*
Affiliation:
Al Amal Hospital, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, email abduga@hotmail.com
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Several years ago, Al Amal Hospital began to use the Addiction Severity Index (ASI) for the assessment and measurement of the outcome of care provided for persons with addiction problems. Clinical staff have been sceptical about the usefulness of this tool in clinical practice. We conducted a survey of staff to record their opinions of the ASI and other outcome measurement tools. Participants highlighted factors that would encourage the use of such tools in daily practice. In order to achieve the desired goals, an outcome measurement tool should be concise, adapted to culture and suitable for use in treatment planning and follow-up by clinicians.

Type
Research Papers
Information
International Psychiatry , Volume 10 , Issue 3 , August 2013 , pp. 67 - 68
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits noncommercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
Copyright © Royal College of Psychiatrists 2013

References

Battaglia, J. (2001) Medscape education. Available at http://www.medscape.org/viewarticle/418603 (accessed June 2013).Google Scholar
Duncan, E. A. S. & Murray, J. (2012) The barriers and facilitators to routine outcome measurement by allied health professionals in practice: a systematic review. BMC Health Services Research, 12, 96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gilbody, S. M., House, A. O. & Sheldon, T. A. (2002a) Outcomes research in mental health: systematic review. British Journal of Psychiatry, 181, 8–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gilbody, S. M., House, A. O. & Sheldon, T. A. (2002b) Psychiatrists in the UK do not use outcomes measures: national survey. British Journal of Psychiatry, 180, 101–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holcomb, W. R., Parker, J. C. & Leong, G. B. (1997) Outcomes of inpatients treated on a VA psychiatric unit and a substance abuse treatment unit. Psychiatric Services, 48, 699–704.Google Scholar
Holloway, F. (2002) Outcome measurement in mental health: welcome to the revolution. British Journal of Psychiatry, 181, 1–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slade, M., Beck, A., Bindman, J., et al (1999) Routine clinical outcome measures for patients with severe mental illness: CANSAS and HoNOS. British Journal of Psychiatry, 174, 404–408.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, G. R., Fischer, E. P., Nordquist, C. R., et al (1997) Implementing outcomes management systems in mental health settings. Psychiatric Services, 48, 364–368.Google ScholarPubMed
Zimmerman, M., Chelminski, I. & McGlinchey, J. B. (2008) A clinically useful depression outcome scale. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 49, 131–140.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.