Assessing success—a commentary on the necessity of outcomes measures

Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy

Alexander K. Moler²  Alexandra L. Carlin¹  Ruchi M. Sanghani² 

[1] Department of Psychology, Fordham University, 441 E. Fordham Road, Dealy Hall 226, Bronx 10458, NY, USA;The Coalition Against Drug Abuse, 900 Broadway #704, New York 10003, NY, USA

关键词: Success metrics;    Oversight;    Standardization;    Quality assessment;    Outcomes measurements;   

Others  :  1212293
DOI  :  10.1186/s13011-015-0017-2

 received in 2015-03-05, accepted in 2015-05-02,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Measurements for outcomes reporting are not fully formed and utilized in the American addiction industry, though formulated and adopted elsewhere in the world. While studies have established demographic information about those needing and receiving treatment as well as the facilities that offer such treatment, short- and long-term outcomes are scantily reported. This commentary serves as a call to action to developing such metrics in the US by illustrating the benefits to treatment providers and clients of creating outcomes standards, and the subsequent improvements in quality of care needed to reach those standards. Benefits of developing these metrics beyond improved quality of care may also include a more efficient allocation of resources, such as time and money. Additionally, the delivery of more effective, personalized, and outcomes-driven addiction treatment may increase client buy-in and foster a more open communication channel between clients and providers during and after treatment.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Sanghani et al.; licensee BioMed Central.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Results from the 2009 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Volume I. Summary of National Findings. Office of Applied Studies, NSDUH Series H-38A, HHS Publication No. SMA 10–4856 Findings. US Department of Health and Human Services, Rockville, MD; 2010.
• [2]Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality: National Survey of Substance Abuse Treatment Services (N-SSATS): 2012. Data on Substance Abuse Treatment Facilities. US Department of Health and Human Services, Rockville, Maryland; 2013.
• [3]Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality: Treatment Episode Data Set—Admissions (TEDS-A) 2012. US Department of Health and Human Services, Rockville, MD; 2014.
• [4]Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality: Treatment Episode Data Set—Discharges (TEDS-D), 2011. US Department of Health and Human Services, Rockville, MD; 2014.
• [5]Cherkis J. Dying To Be Free. The Huffington Post, Washington DC; 2015.
• [6]Laudet AB. What does recovery mean to you? Lessons from the recovery experience for research and practice. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2007; 33(3):243-56.
• [7]Graham K. Guidelines for using standardized outcome measures following addictions treatment. Evaluation & the Health Professions. 1994; 17:43-59.
• [8]Butler Center for Research: Research Update. The Hazelden Betty Ford Foundation, Center City, MN; 2011.
• [9]Falkowski CL. Chemical Dependency Provider Performance Measures. Minnesota Department of Health Services, St. Paul, MN; 2013.
• [10]Hedden S, Guard M, Arndt S. State of Iowa Outcomes Monitoring System: Evaluation Trend Report. Iowa Department of Public Health Contract #5881NA01. The Iowa Consortium for Substance Abuse Research and Evaluation, Iowa City, IA; 2011.
• [11]Schippers G, Broekman T. Measurements in the Addictions for Triage and Evaluation – MATE 2.1 Manual and Protocol. English Edition. European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, Bureau Beta, Nijmegen, The Netherlands; 2003.
• [12]Donmall M, Jones A, Lawrinson P, Long J, Millar T, Royuela Morales L et al.. Guidance for the measurement of drug treatment demand. Global Assessment Programme on Drug Abuse in collaboration with the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, New York, NY; 2006.
• [13]DeLeon G. CMRS Scales for Substance Abuse Treatment. Center for Therapeutic Community Research (CTCR). European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addictions, New York, NY; 1993.
• [14]Deady M. Summary Table of Assessment and Outcomes Measure Tools. Network of Alcohol & Other Drugs Agencies (NADA) as part of the Drug and Alcohol and Mental Health Information Management Project. 2009:14.
• [15]Relapse Prevention: Maintenance Strategies in the Treatment of Addictive Behaviors. Guilford Press, New York; 2005.
• [16]Teesson M, Clement N, Copeland J, Conroy A, Reid A. The Measurement of Outcome in Alcohol and Other Drug Treatment: A Review of Available Instruments. National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre (NDARC) Technical Report No. 90. University of New South Wales, Australia; 2000.
• [17]Drake RE, Cimpean D, Torrey WC. Shared decision making in mental health: prospects for personalized medicine. Dialogues in Clinical Neurosciences. 2009; 11:455-63.
• [18]Sacristán JA. Patient-centered medicine and patient-oriented research: improving health outcomes for individual patients. BMC Med Informat Decis Making. 2013; 13:6. BioMed Central Full Text
• [19]Di Paula A, Long R, Wiener DE. Are your patients satisfied? Market Health Serv. 2002; 22:28-32.
• [20]Vermeire E, Hearnshaw H, Van Royen P, Denekens J. Patient adherence to treatment: three decades of research. A comprehensive review. J Clin Pharm Therapeut. 2001; 26:331-42.
• [21]O’Connor LE, Berry JW, Inaba D, Weiss J, Morrison A. Shame, guilt, and depression in men and women in recovery from addiction. J Subst Abuse Treat. 1994; 11:503-10.