A qualitative process evaluation of electronic session-by-session outcome measurement in child and adolescent mental health services

BMC Psychiatry

Chris Hollis²  Kapil Sayal²  Robert Goodman¹  Karen Newell⁴  Sarah Pass⁴  Michael Marriott³  Maria Moldavsky³  John Taylor⁴  Charlotte L Hall⁵ 

[1] King's College London, Institute of Psychiatry, London, UK;Developmental Psychiatry, University of Nottingham, Queen’s Medical Centre, Nottingham, UK;Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK;CLAHRC-NDL, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK;B07 Institute of Mental Health, University of Nottingham, Triumph Road, Nottingham NG7 2TU, UK

关键词: Outcome measures;    Clinician;    Parent;    Qualitative evaluation;    CAMHS;    Session by session;   

Others  :  1123637
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-244X-14-113

 received in 2013-10-17, accepted in 2014-04-03,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

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.

Method

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.

Results

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.

Conclusions

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.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Hall et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Department of Health: The NHS Outcome Framework 2011/12. London: Department of Health; 2010.
• [2]Department of Health: National service framework for children, young people and maternity services: the mental health and psychological well-being of children and young people: standard - 9. London: Department of Health; 2007.
• [3]Batty M, Moldavsky M, Pass S, Foroushani PS, Marriot M, Sayal K, Hollis C: Implementing routine outcome measures in child and adolescent mental health services: from present to future practice. Child Adolesc Mental Health 2012, 18:82-87. doi:10.1111/j.1475-3588.2012.00658.x
• [4]Johnston C, Gowers S: Routine outcome measurement: A survey of UK child and adolescent mental health services. Child Adolesc Mental Health 2005, 10:133-139.
• [5]Baruch G, Vrouva I: Collecting routine outcome data in a psychotherapy community clinic for young people: findings from an ongoing study. Child Adolesc Mental Health 2010, 15:30-36.
• [6]Hall CL, Moldavsky M, Baldwin L, Marriott M, Newell K, Taylor J, Sayal K, Hollis C: The use of routine outcome measures in two child and adolescent mental health services: a completed audit cycle. Manuscripted accepted for publication BMC Psychiatry 2013, 13:270.
• [7]Hall CL, Moldavsky M, Taylor J, Sayal K, Marriott M, Batty M, Pass S, Hollis C: Implementation of routine outcome measurement in child and adolescent mental health services in the United Kingdom: a critical perspective. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry 2013, 23:239-242. doi:10.1007/s00787-013-0454-2
• [8]Howard KI, Moras K, Brill PL, Martinovich Z, Lutz W: Evaluation of psychotherapy: Efficacy, effectiveness, and patient progress. Am Psychol 1996, 51(10):1059.
• [9]Lambert MJ, Whipple JL, Smart DW, Vermeersch DA, Nielsen SL: The effects of providing therapists with feedback on patient progress during psychotherapy: Are outcomes enhanced? Psychother Res 2001, 11(1):49-68.
• [10]Worthen VE, Lambert MJ: Outcome oriented supervision: Advantages of adding systematic client tracking to supportive consultations. Couns Psychother Res 2007, 7:48-53.
• [11]Norman S, Dean S, Hansford L, Ford T: Clinical practitioner’s attitudes towards the use of Routine Outcome Monitoring within Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services: A qualitative study of two Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services. Clin Child Psychol Psychiatry 2013. doi:10.1177/1359104513492348
• [12]Hatfield DR, Ogles BM: The use of outcome measures by psychologists in clinical practice. Prof Psychol Res Pract 2004, 35(5):485-491.
• [13]Hatfield DR, Ogles B: Why some clinicians use outcome measures and others do not. Adm Policy Ment Health 2007, 34:283-291.
• [14]Bickman L: A measurement feedback system (MFS) is necessary to improve mental health outcomes. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 2008, 47(10):1114-1119.
• [15]Martin A-M, Fishman R, Baxter L, Ford T: Practitioners' attitudes towards the use of standardized diagnostic assessment in routine practice: a qualitative study in two child and adolescent mental health services. Clin Child Psychol Psychiatry 2011, 16(3):407-420.
• [16]Moran P, Kelesidi K, Guglani S, Davidson S, Ford T: What do parents and carers think about routine outcome measures and their use? A focus group of CAMHS attenders. Clin Child Psychol Psychiatry 2011, 17(1):65-79.
• [17]Merry S, Stasiak K, Parkin A, Seymour F, Lambie I, Crengle S, Pasene-Mizziebo E: Child and Youth Outcome Measures. Health Research Council of New Zealand: Examining current use and acceptability of measures in mental health services and recommending future directions; 2004.
• [18]Dour HJ, Chorpita BF, Lee S, Weisz JR: Sudden Gains as a Long-term Predictor of Treatment Improvement Among Children in Community Mental Health Organizations. Behav Res Ther 2013, 51(9):564-572.
• [19]Black MM, Ponirakis A: Computer-Administered Interviews With Children About Maltreatment Methodological, Developmental, and Ethical Issues. J Interpers Violence 2000, 15(7):682-695.
• [20]Epstein J, Klinkenberg WD: From Eliza to Internet: a brief history of computerized assessment. Comput Hum Behav 2001, 17(3):295-314.
• [21]Goodman R: The extended version of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire as a guide to child psychiatric caseness and consequent burden. J Child Psychol Psychiatr 1999, 40(5):791-799.
• [22]Britten N: Qualitative interviews in medical research. BMJ: Br Med J 1995, 311(6999):251.
• [23]Braun V, Clarke V: Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 2006, 3(2):77-101.
• [24]Joffe H, Yardley L, Marks D: Research methods for clinical and health psychology. London, UK: Sage; 2004.
• [25]Thompson C, McCaughan D, Cullum N, Sheldon TA, Raynor P: Increasing the visibility of coding decisions in team-based qualitative research in nursing. Int J Nurs Stud 2004, 41(1):15-20.
• [26]Gowers SG, Harrington RC, Whitton A, Lelliott P, Beevor A, Wing J, Jezzard R: Brief scale for measuring the outcomes of emotional and behavioural disorders in children - Health of the Nation Outcome Scales for Children and Adolescents (HoNOSCA). Br J Psychiatry 1999, 174:413-416.
• [27]Shaffer D, Gould MS, Brasic J, Ambrosini P, Fisher P, Bird H, Aluwahlia S: A Childrens Global Assessment Scale (CGAS). Arch Gen Psychiatry 1983, 40(11):1228-1231.
• [28]Goodman R: The strengths and difficulties questionnaire: A research note. J Child Psychol Psychiatr 1997, 38(5):581-586.
• [29]Ford T, Tingay T, Wolpert M, Group CS: CORC’s survey of routine outcome monitoring and national CAMHS dataset developments: A response to Johnston and Gower. Child Adolesc Mental Health 2006, 11:50-52.
• [30]Wolpert M, Fugard AJ, Deighton J, Görzig A: Routine outcomes monitoring as part of children and young people's Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (CYP IAPT)–improving care or unhelpful burden? Child Adolesc Mental Health 2012, 17(3):129-130.
• [31]Law D: A practical guide to using service user feedback & outcome tools to inform clinical practice in child & adolescent mental health. some initial guidance from the children and young peoples’ Improving access to psychological therapies outcomes-oriented practice (CO-OP) group. Version 1.3. London: IAPT-NHS; 2012. Available from http://www.iapt.nhs.uk webcite [accessed 30 June 2013]
• [32]Wolpert M: Do patient reported outcome measures do more harm than good? BMJ: Br Med J 2013, 346:f2669.
• [33]Wolpert M: Uses and Abuses of Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs): Potential Iatrogenic Impact of PROMs Implementation and How It Can Be Mitigated.". Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research 2014, 41:141-145.
• [34]Walter G, Cleary M, Rey JM: Attitudes of mental health personnel toward rating outcome. J Qual Clin Pract 1998, 18:109-115.
• [35]Truman J, Robinson K, Evans AL, Smith D, Cunningham L, Millward R, Minnis H: The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire - A pilot study of a new computer version of the self-report scale. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry 2003, 12(1):9-14.
• [36]Johnson LD, Miller SD, Duncan BL: The Session Rating Scale 3.0. Chicago: Author; 2000.