Why Some Clinicians Use Outcome Measures and Others Do Not

Psychology Department, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, 1020 Oakland Avenue, 218 Uhler Hall, Indiana, PA 15705, USA.
Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research (Impact Factor: 3.44). 06/2007; 34(3):283-91. DOI: 10.1007/s10488-006-0110-y
Source: PubMed


Due to their potential as helpful clinical tools, it is necessary to understand the reasons why certain practitioners are currently using outcome measures and certain others are not. This study investigated the reasons why clinicians use outcome measures based upon factors such as work setting, theoretical orientation and source of payment. Similar analyses were conducted for reasons that clinicians do not use outcome measures. Findings suggest that several practical barriers are the primary reasons for not using outcome measures, although a subset of clinicians have additional concerns. Results also emphasized the need for clinicians to be trained on how to maximize the clinical benefits of formalized outcome assessment.

Download full-text


Available from: Benjamin M. Ogles, Mar 12, 2015
  • Source
    • "Time burden is perhaps one of the most significant barriers to the use of ROM [3,4,12,13] but our findings highlight that this can be alleviated by administrative staff supporting the process, provided appropriate resources and structures are put in place. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Regular monitoring of patient progress is important to assess the clinical effectiveness of an intervention. Recently, initiatives within UK child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS) have advocated the use of session-by-session monitoring to continually evaluate the patient's outcome throughout the course of the intervention. However, the feasibility and acceptability of such regular monitoring is unknown. Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with clinicians (n = 10), administrative staff (n = 8) and families (n = 15) who participated in a feasibility study of an electronic session-by-session outcome monitoring tool, (SxS), which is based on the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ). This study took place in three CAMHS clinics in Nottinghamshire. The interview transcripts were thematically analysed. We found clinicians accepted the need to complete outcome measures, particularly valuing those completed by the patient. However, there were some difficulties with engaging clinicians in this practice and in the training offered. Generally, patients were supportive of completing SxS in the waiting room prior to the clinic session and assistance with the process from administrative staff was seen to be a key factor. Clinicians and families found the feedback reports created from SxS to be helpful for tracking progress, facilitating communication and engagement, and as a point of reflection. The use of technology was considered positively, although some technological difficulties hindered the completion of SxS. Clinicians and families appreciated the brevity of SxS, but some were concerned that a short questionnaire could not adequately encapsulate the complexity of the patient's issues. The findings show the need for appropriate infrastructure, mandatory training, and support to enable an effective system of session-by-session monitoring. Our findings indicate that clinicians, administrative staff and young people and their parents/carers would support regular monitoring if the system is easy to implement, with a standard 'clinic-wide' adoption of the procedure, and the resulting data are clinically useful.
    BMC Psychiatry 04/2014; 14(1):113. DOI:10.1186/1471-244X-14-113 · 2.21 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Common reasons for the lack of completion of outcome measures in clinical practice reflect constraints on both time and resources [11,13-15]. The lack of timely feedback from completed outcome measures has also been shown to decrease clinicians’ motivation to use them, rendering them a 'tick box’ exercise used to meet targets but with little clinical utility [13]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Routine outcome measurement (ROM) is important for assessing the clinical effectiveness of health services and for monitoring patient outcomes. Within Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) in the UK the adoption of ROM in CAMHS has been supported by both national and local initiatives (such as government strategies, local commissioning policy, and research). With the aim of assessing how these policies and initiatives may have influenced the uptake of ROM within two different CAMHS we report the findings of two case-note audits: a baseline audit conducted in January 2011 and a re-audit conducted two years later in December 2012-February 2013. The findings show an increase in both the single and repeated use of outcome measures from the time of the original audit, with repeated use (baseline and follow-up) of the Health of the Nation Outcome Scale for Children and Adolescents (HoNOSCA) scale increasing from 10% to 50% of cases. Re-audited case-notes contained more combined use of different outcome measures, with greater consensus on which measures to use. Outcome measures that were applicable across a wide range of clinical conditions were more likely to be used than symptom-specific measures, and measures that were completed by the clinician were found more often than measures completed by the service user. The findings show a substantial improvement in the use of outcome measures within CAMHS. These increases in use were found across different service organisations which were subject to different types of local service priorities and drivers.
    BMC Psychiatry 10/2013; 13(1):270. DOI:10.1186/1471-244X-13-270 · 2.21 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This article applies and illustrates the American Group Psychotherapy Association (AGPA) revised CORE battery to daily practice. The CORE can assist practitioners in periodically or continuously monitoring outcome and process factors to determine patient status (e.g., improved, deteriorated, or no change), and ruptures in the therapeutic relationships. The CORE-R provides group therapists with a tool kit of measures for assessing the effectiveness of their groups and includes three classes of measures: selection, process, and outcome. We provide a summary of each class of measures along with specific instruments.
    Journal of Clinical Psychology 11/2008; 64(11):1225-37. DOI:10.1002/jclp.20535 · 2.12 Impact Factor
Show more