Harnessing Clinical Psychiatric Data with an Electronic Assessment Tool (OPCRIT+): The Utility of Symptom Dimensions.

National Institute for Health Research Specialist Biomedical Research Centre for Mental Health at the South London and Maudsley National Health Service Foundation Trust and The Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
PLoS ONE (Impact Factor: 3.23). 09/2013; 8(3):e58790. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0058790
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Progress in personalised psychiatry is dependent on researchers having access to systematic and accurately acquired symptom data across clinical diagnoses. We have developed a structured psychiatric assessment tool, OPCRIT+, that is being introduced into the electronic medical records system of the South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust which can help to achieve this. In this report we examine the utility of the symptom data being collected with the tool. Cross-sectional mental state data from a mixed-diagnostic cohort of 876 inpatients was subjected to a principal components analysis (PCA). Six components, explaining 46% of the variance in recorded symptoms, were extracted. The components represented dimensions of mania, depression, positive symptoms, anxiety, negative symptoms and disorganization. As indicated by component scores, different clinical diagnoses demonstrated distinct symptom profiles characterized by wide-ranging levels of severity. When comparing the predictive value of symptoms against diagnosis for a variety of clinical outcome measures (e.g. 'Overactive, aggressive behaviour'), symptoms proved superior in five instances (R(2) range: 0.06-0.28) whereas diagnosis was best just once (R(2)∶0.25). This report demonstrates that symptom data being routinely gathered in an NHS trust, when documented on the appropriate tool, have considerable potential for onward use in a variety of clinical and research applications via representation as dimensions of psychopathology.

Download full-text


Available from: Myanthi Amarasinghe, Aug 31, 2015
1 Follower
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: An operational criteria checklist for psychotic illness and computer programs designed to be used in conjunction with it constitute the OPCRIT system. This provides a simple and reliable method of applying multiple operational diagnostic criteria in studies of psychotic illness. The development of the OPCRIT system and an assessment of reliability are described. Diagnostic agreement between three raters is excellent. Item-by-item agreement, although less good, still achieves reasonable reliability despite the problem of low base rates for some items.
    Archives of General Psychiatry 09/1991; 48(8):764-70. · 13.75 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The usefulness of any diagnostic scheme is directly related to its ability to provide clinically useful information on need for care. In this study, the clinical usefulness of dimensional and categorical representations of psychotic psychopathology were compared. A total of 706 patients aged 16-65 years with chronic psychosis were recruited. Psychopathology was measured with the Comprehensive Psychopathological Rating Scale (CPRS). Lifetime RDC, DSM-III-R, and ICD-10 diagnoses and ratings of lifetime psychopathology were made using OPCRIT. Other clinical measures included: (i) need for care; (ii) quality of life; (iii) social disability; (iv) satisfaction with services; (v) abnormal movements; (vi) brief neuropsychological screen; and (vii) over the last 2 years--illness course, symptom severity, employment, medication use, self-harm, time in hospital and living independently. Principal component factor analysis of the 65 CPRS items on cross-sectional psychopathology yielded four dimensions of positive, negative, depressive and manic symptoms. Regression models comparing the relative contributions of dimensional and categorical representations of psychopathology with clinical measures consistently indicated strong and significant effects of psychopathological dimensions over and above any effect of their categorical counterparts, whereas the reverse did not hold. The effect of psychopathological dimensions was mostly cumulative: high ratings on more than one dimension increased the contribution to the clinical measures in a dose-response fashion. Similar results were obtained with psychopathological dimensions derived from lifetime psychopathology ratings using the OCCPI. A dimensional approach towards classification of psychotic illness offers important clinical advantages.
    Psychological Medicine 06/1999; 29(3):595-606. · 5.43 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: An instrument was required to quantify and thus potentially measure progress towards a Health of the Nation target, set by the Department of Health, "to improve significantly the health and social functioning of mentally ill people". A first draft was created in consultation with experts and on the basis of literature review. This version was improved during four stages of testing: two preliminary stages, a large field trial involving 2706 patients (rated by 492 clinicians) and tests of the final Health of the Nation Outcome Scales (HoNOS), which included an independent study (n = 197) of reliability and relationship to other instruments. The resulting 12-item instrument is simple to use, covers clinical problems and social functioning with reasonable adequacy, has been generally acceptable to clinicians who have used it, is sensitive to change or the lack of it, showed good reliability in independent trials and compared reasonably well with equivalent items in the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scales and Role Functioning Scales. The key test for HoNOS is that clinicians should want to use it for their own purposes. In general, it has passed that test. A further possibility, that HoNOS data collected routinely as part of a minimum data set, for example for the Care Programme Approach, could also be useful in anonymized and aggregated form for public health purposes, is therefore testable but has not yet been tested.
    The British Journal of Psychiatry 01/1998; 172(1):11-8. DOI:10.1192/bjp.172.1.11 · 7.34 Impact Factor
Show more