Routine outcome assessment in mental health research

Current Opinion in Psychiatry

Volumn 12, Issue 2, 1999, Pages 207-210

  Salvador Carulla, Luis ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CÁDIZ   (Spain)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DATA BASE; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MENTAL HEALTH; PSYCHOLOGIC ASSESSMENT; SHORT SURVEY; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 0032997920     PISSN: 09517367     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00001504-199903000-00012     Document Type: Short Survey

References (33)

1. 1 Ellwood P. Shattuck lecture-outcomes management. A technology of patient experience. N Engl J Med 1998; 318:1549-1556. This seminal paper is obligatory reading for anyone interested in ROA.
2. 2 Boot B, Hall W, Andrews G. Disability, outcome and case-mix in acute psychiatric in-patient units. Br J Psychiatry 1997; 171:242-246. The study describes the implementation of ROA in 18 acute inpatient psychiatric units in Australia, including public and private hospitals. Patients were included in case mix groups, and were rated using HoNOS and SF-36. Case mix is a classification system that places patients that are similar in some characteristics (diagnosis, prognosis, resource use) in groups in order to relate these groups to outcome. The HoNOS measure was preferred and the practicality of ROA was proved in syndicate centres.
3. 3 Stedman T, Yellowlees P, Mellsop G, Clarke R, Drake S. Measuring consumers outcomes in mental health. Canberra: Department of Health and Family Services; 1997. This is one of the best reports available on ROA and on its application to mental health to date. It is partly based on previous work [4]. The introduction provides an excellent review of the state-of-the-art in this field. The study incorporates an innovative approach to test the feasibility of six outcome measures in ROA, including quantitative and qualitative analysis through focus groups. The analysis of reliability does not include concordance indexes (κ). Data on convergent validity and sensitivity to change are provided as well.
4. 4 Andrews, Peters L, Teeson M. The measurement of consumer outcome in mental health: a report to the National Mental Health Information Strategy Committee. Sydney: Clinical Research Unit for Anxiety Disorders; 1994.
5. 5 Eisen SV, Dickey B. Mental health outcome assessment: the new agenda. Psychotherapy 1996; 33:181-189.
6. 6 Dunn G. Statistical methods for measuring outcomes. In: Thornicroft G, Tansella M (editors). Mental health outcomes. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 1996. pp. 3-13.
7. 7 Knight S, Hughes J, Challis D, Beecham J, Schneider J, Huxley P, Knapp M. Developments in mental health information systems. Ment Health Res Rev 1998; 5:41-42.
8. 8 Smith MA, Atherly AJ, Kane RL, Pacala JT. Peer review of the quality of care. JAMA 1997; 278:1573-1578.
9. 9 Docherty JP, Streeter MJ. Measuring outcomes. In: Sederer LI, Dickey B (editors). Outcome assessment in clinical practice. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins; 1996. pp. 8-18. This is an excellent review of the goals, dimensions, methods and data reporting of outcome assessment. The book includes other relevant papers and deserves a careful reading.
10. 10 Rothbard AB, Schinnar AP, Hadley TP, Foley KA, Kuno E. Cost comparison of state hospital and community-based care for seriously mentally ill adults. Am J Psychiatry 1998; 155:523-529.
11. 11 Booth BM, Zhang M, Rost KM, Clardy JA, Smith LG, Smith GR. Measuring outcomes and costs for major depression. Psychopharmacol Bull 1997; 33:653-658.
12. 12 Russo J, Roy-Byrne P, Jaffe C, Ries R, Dagadakis C, Avery D. Psychiatric status, quality of life, and level of care as predictors of outcomes of acute inpatient treatment. Psychiatr Serv 1997; 48:1427-1434.
13. 13 Rawson NSB, Malcolm E, D'Arey C. Reliability of the recording of schizophrenia and depressive disorder in the Saskatchewan health care datafiles. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 1997; 32:191-199.
14. 14 Greist JH. The computer as clinician assistant: assessment made simple. Psychiatr Serv 1998; 49:467-468.
15. 15 Evenson RC, Vieweg BW. Using a quality of life measure to investigate outcome in outpatient treatment of severely impaired psychiatric clients. Comp Psychiatry 1998; 39:57-62.
16. 16 Lang FH, Johnstone EC, Murray GD. Service provision for people with schizophrenia. Br J Psychiatry 1997; 171:165-168.
17. 17 Buchanan JP, Dixon DR, Thyer BA. A preliminary evaluation of treatment outcomes at a veterans' hospital's inpatient psychiatric unit. J Clin Psychol 1997; 53:853-858.
18. 18 Wetterling T, Junghanns K, Müssigbrodt H, Freyberger HJ, Dilling H. A quality-assurance program assessing the outcome of psychiatric inpatients. First results of an evaluation study [in German]. Nervenarzt 1997; 68:742-751.
19. 19 Wing JK, Beevor AS, Curtis RH, Park SBG, Hadden S, Burns A. Health of the Nation Outcome Scales (HoNOS): research and development. Br J Psychiatry 1998; 172:11-18. A number of independent papers both in Australia and the UK highlight the advantages of HoNOS as a ROA measure. This paper describes a set of trials related to the development and standardization of HoNOS. It includes data on feasibility, reliability, validity and sensitivity to change, incorporating new methods of testing that are suitable for ROA. The overall project includes a number of coordinated studies involving a large sample, many raters and a significant number of participating centres.
20. 20 Johnson S, Lelliott P. Mental health services in London: evidence from research and routine data. In: Johnson S, Ramsay R, Thornicroft G, Brooks L, Lelliott P, Peck E. et al. (editors). London's mental health. London: King's Fund Publishing; 1997. pp. 167-192.
21. 21 Shepherd G, Beadsmoore A, Moore C, Hardy P, Muijen M. Relation between bed use, social deprivation, and overall bed availability in acute adult psychiatric units, and alternative residential options: a cross sectional survey, one day census data, and staff interviews. Br Med J 1997; 314:262-266.
22. 22 Bloom JR, Hu T-W, Wallace N, Cuffel B, Hausman J, Scheffer R. Mental health costs and outcomes under alternative capitation systems in Colorado: early results. J Ment Health Policy Econ 1998; 1:3-13.
23. 23 Dowrick C, Casey P, Dalgard O, Hosman C, Lehtinen V, Vazquez-Barquero JL, Wilkinson G, and the ODIN group. Outcomes of Depression International Network (ODIN): background, method and field trials. Br J Psychiatry 1998; 172:359-363.
24. 24 Ayuso-Mateos JL, Lasa L, Vazquez-Barquero JL, Oviedo A, Diez-Manrique JF. Measuring health status in psychiatric community surveys: internal and external validity of the Spanish version of the SF-36. Acta Psychiatr Scand 1999; 99:26-32.
25. 25 Johnson JA, Coons SJ, Ergo A, Szava-Kovats G. Valuation of EuroOOL (EQ-5) health states in an adult US sample. Pharmacoeconomics 1998; 13:421-433.
26. 26 Philp I. Can a medical and social assessment be combined? J Roy Soc Med 1997; 90(Suppl 32):11-13. This paper outlines the development and evaluation of an integrated information system for health and social care in the elderly (EPIC Assessment System).
27. • ment was taken, using instruments specifically designed for ROA. Issues in implementation are briefly described.
28. 28 Holcomb WR, Parker JC, Leong GB. Outcomes of inpatients treated on a VA psychiatric unit and a substance abuse treatment unit. Psychiatr Serv 1997; 48:699-704.
29. 29 Lehman AF, Steinwachs DM. Patterns of usual care for shizophrenia: initial results from the shizophrenia Patient Outcomes Research Team (PORT) client survey. Schizophr Bull 1998; 24:11-20.
30. 30 Agro K, Bradley CA, Mittmann N, Iskedjian M, Ilersich AL, Einarson TR. Sensitivity analysis in health economic and pharmacoeconomic studies. An appraisal of the literature. Pharmacoeconomics 1997; 11:75-88.
31. • conomics 1997; 12:555-564.
32. 32 Felli JC, Hazen GB. Sensitivity analysis and the expected value of perfect information. Med Decision Making 1998; 18:95-109.
33. 33 Lelliott P. Should psychiatrists support CPA, guidelines and routine outcome measurement? Psychiatr Bull 1997; 21:1-2.