Article

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.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Benjamin M. Ogles, Mar 12, 2015
4 Followers
 · 
105 Views
  • 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
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Standardized instruments for measuring patients' activity limitations and participation restrictions have been advocated for use by rehabilitation professionals for many years. The available literature provides few recent reports of the use of these measures by physical therapists in the United States. The primary purpose of this study was to determine: (1) the extent of the use of standardized outcome measures and (2) perceptions regarding their benefits and barriers to their use. A secondary purpose was to examine factors associated with their use among physical therapists in clinical practice. The study used an observational design. A survey questionnaire comprising items regarding the use and perceived benefits and barriers of standardized outcome measures was sent to 1,000 randomly selected members of the American Physical Therapy Association (APTA). Forty-eight percent of participants used standardized outcome measures. The majority of participants (>90%) who used such measures believed that they enhanced communication with patients and helped direct the plan of care. The most frequently reported reasons for not using such measures included length of time for patients to complete them, length of time for clinicians to analyze the data, and difficulty for patients in completing them independently. Use of standardized outcome measures was related to specialty certification status, practice setting, and the age of the majority of patients treated. The limitations included an unvalidated survey for data collection and a sample limited to APTA members. Despite more than a decade of development and testing of standardized outcome measures appropriate for various conditions and practice settings, physical therapists have some distance to go in implementing their use routinely in most clinical settings. Based on the perceived barriers, alterations in practice management strategies and the instruments themselves may be necessary to increase their use.
    Physical Therapy 12/2008; 89(2):125-35. DOI:10.2522/ptj.20080234 · 3.25 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Outcome measurement is an integral part of delivering rehabilitation services in community settings. However, measurement is of little value if instruments are chosen ad hoc and are not administered consistently. The purpose of this study was to develop and test a participatory process of outcome measure selection which would engender consistent use of robust and appropriate instruments. The ICF provided the conceptual framework for a systematic review of the literature for relevant outcome measures. A summary of the critical appraisal of the clinimetric properties of the identified instruments was created. The summaries were reviewed and vetted by stakeholders including clinicians, researchers, and managers/policy makers. From the 300 identified and appraised measures, 28 were chosen and made available in a Compendium of Clinical Measures for Community Rehabilitation. The Compendium contains three core measures to be used routinely with all rehabilitation clients and a further 25 that cover particular discipline and client needs. This resource is now available to all clinicians working in the participating rehabilitation services. A participatory process combining rigorous review of the literature, expert opinion, and clinician feedback is recommended in the selection and implementation of outcome measures in rehabilitation settings in the community.
    Disability and Rehabilitation 10/2009; 32(6):511-20. DOI:10.3109/09638280903171519 · 1.84 Impact Factor
Show more