Outcome measures: Do they fit with a recovery model?

International Journal of Mental Health Nursing

Volumn 15, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 153-154

  Browne, Graeme ^a  

^a GRIFFITH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AUSTRALIA; DEINSTITUTIONALIZATION; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH PERSONNEL ATTITUDE; HUMAN; LETTER; MENTAL DISEASE; MENTAL HEALTH SERVICE; MODEL; NURSING STAFF; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PSYCHIATRIC NURSING; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT;

ATTITUDE OF HEALTH PERSONNEL; DEINSTITUTIONALIZATION; HEALTH POLICY; HUMANS; MENTAL DISORDERS; MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES; MODELS, NURSING; NURSING STAFF; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PSYCHIATRIC NURSING; QUEENSLAND;

EID: 33646266737     PISSN: 14458330     EISSN: 14470349     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1447-0349.2006.00417.x     Document Type: Letter

References (7)

1. Barker P. 2003 The Tidal Model: Psychiatric colonisation, recovery and the paradigm shift in mental health care International Journal of Mental Health Nursing 12 96 102
2. Carling PJ. 1990 Major mental illness, housing and supports American Psychologist 45 969 975
3. Coombs T. Meehan T. 2003 Mental health outcomes in Australia: Issues for mental health nurses (Editorial) International Journal of Mental Health Nursing 12 163 164
4. Coombs T. Meehan T. 2005 Standardized routine outcome measurement: Response to Lakeman International Journal of Mental Health Nursing 14 215 217
5. Lakeman R. 2004 Standardized routine outcome measurement: Pot holes in the road to recovery International Journal of Mental Health Nursing 13 210 215
6. National Mental Health Plan Steering Committee. 2003 Consultation Paper on the National Mental Health Plan 2003-2008 Canberra Department of Health and Family Services, Australian Government Printing Service
7. Queensland Health 2005 Sharing Responsibility for Recovery