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

ABSTRACT 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.


Available from: Benjamin M. Ogles, Mar 12, 2015
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Evidence-based assessment has received little attention despite its critical importance to the evidence-based practice movement. Given the limited resources in the public sector, it is necessary for evidence-based assessment to utilize tools with established reliability and validity metrics that are free, easily accessible, and brief. We review tools that meet these criteria for youth and adult mental health for the most prevalent mental health disorders to provide a clinical guide and reference for the selection of assessment tools for public sector settings. We also discuss recommendations for how to move forward the evidence-based assessment agenda.
    Cognitive and Behavioral Practice 03/2014; 22(1). DOI:10.1016/j.cbpra.2014.02.002 · 1.33 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [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 · 2.24 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Context : Patient-rated outcome measures (PROMs) are important for driving treatment decisions and determining treatment effectiveness. However, athletic trainers (ATs) rarely use them; understanding why may facilitate strategies for collection of these outcomes. Objectives : To identify the benefits and barriers to the use of PROMs in athletic training. Design : Cross-sectional study. Setting : Web-based survey. Patients or Other Participants : A total of 1469 randomly sampled ATs (age = 36.8 ± 9.8 years; 48% female) working in the college/university, 2-year institution, secondary school, clinic, hospital, or industrial/occupational setting. Intervention(s) : An e-mail was sent to ATs inviting them to complete a survey regarding the use, benefits, and barriers of PROMs. Athletic trainers who indicated they used PROMs (AT-PRs) completed 65 questions about the benefits of and barriers to their use. Athletic trainers who indicated no use of PROMs (AT-NON) completed 21 questions about barriers of use. Main Outcome Measures : Dependent variables were the endorsements for the benefits of and barriers to the use of PROMs. Results : A total of 458 ATs initiated the survey and 421 (AT-PR = 26%, AT-NON = 74%) completed it (response rate = 28.7%). The most frequently endorsed benefits by AT-PRs were enhancing communication with patients (90%) and other health care professionals (80%), directing patient care (87%), and increasing examination efficiency (80%). The most frequently endorsed barriers by AT-PRs were that PROMs are time consuming (44%), difficult (36%), and confusing (31%) for patients and time consuming for clinicians to score and interpret (29%). The most frequently endorsed problems by AT-NON were that PROMs are time consuming for clinicians to score and interpret (31%), time consuming (46%) and irrelevant to patients (28%), and lacking a support structure for clinicians (29%). Conclusions : These results suggest that, although benefits to using PROMs exist, there are also barriers. Barriers are similar for AT-PRs and AT-NON. Strategies to decrease barriers and facilitate the use of PROMs warrant investigation.
    Journal of athletic training 08/2014; 49(5). DOI:10.4085/1062-6050-49.3.15 · 1.51 Impact Factor