Measurement-Based Care in Psychiatric Practice: A Policy Framework for Implementation

Columbia University, Department of Psychiatry, New York, NY 10032, USA.
The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry (Impact Factor: 5.14). 08/2011; 72(8):1136-43. DOI: 10.4088/JCP.10r06282whi
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT This article describes the need for measurement-based care (MBC) in psychiatric practice and defines a policy framework for implementation. Although measurement in psychiatric treatment is not new, it is not standard clinical practice. Thus a gap exists between research and practice outcomes. The current standards of psychiatric clinical care are reviewed and illustrated by a case example, along with MBC improvements. Measurement-based care is defined for clinical practice along with limitations and recommendations. This article provides a policy top 10 list for implementing MBC into standard practice, including establishing clear expectations and guidelines, fostering practice-based implementation capacities, altering financial incentives, helping practicing doctors adapt to MBC, developing and expanding the MBC science base, and engaging consumers and their families. Measurement-based care as the standard of care could transform psychiatric practice, move psychiatry into the mainstream of medicine, and improve the quality of care for patients with psychiatric illness.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Approaches based on continuous indicators (the size of the pre-to-post-test change; effect size or ΔT) and on categorical indicators (Percentage Improvement and the Jacobson-Truax approach to Clinical Significance) are evaluated to determine which has the best methodological and statistical characteristics, and optimal performance, in comparing outcomes of treatment providers. Performance is compared in two datasets from providers using the Brief Symptom Inventory or the Outcome Questionnaire. Concordance of methods and their suitability to rank providers is assessed. Outcome indicators tend to converge and lead to a similar ranking of institutes within each dataset. Statistically and conceptually, continuous outcome indicators are superior to categorical outcomes as change scores have more statistical power and allow for a ranking of providers at first glance. However, the Jacobson-Truax approach can complement the change score approach as it presents outcome information in a clinically meaningful manner. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. When comparing various indicators or treatment outcome, statistical considerations designate continuous outcomes, such as the effect size of the pre-post change (effect size or ΔT) as the optimal choice. Expressing outcome in proportions of recovered, changed, unchanged or deteriorated patients has supplementary value, as it is more easily interpreted and appreciated by clinicians, managerial staff and, last but not the least, by patients. If categorical outcomes are used with small datasets, true differences in institutional performance may get obscured due to diminished power to detect differences. With sufficient data, outcome according to continuous and categorical indicators converge and lead to similar rankings of institutes' performance. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
    Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy 04/2015; DOI:10.1002/cpp.1954 · 2.59 Impact Factor
  • Canadian journal of psychiatry. Revue canadienne de psychiatrie 01/2015; 60(1):9-13. · 2.41 Impact Factor
  • Canadian journal of psychiatry. Revue canadienne de psychiatrie 01/2015; 60(1):6-8. · 2.41 Impact Factor