Dataset Information

Ten outcome measures in forensic mental health: A survey of clinician views on comprehensiveness, ease of use and relevance.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Measurement of outcomes in forensic mental health services is essential to ensure that these services are delivering good quality care and treatment. Instruments for outcome measurement should cover all important domains, be easy to implement in a routine clinical context and facilitate transfer of relevant information between clinicians as the patient progresses along a recovery and rehabilitation pathway.

Aims

We sought the views of clinicians on 10 common instruments used as outcome measures in forensic mental health services, especially on their perceived comprehensiveness and ease of use.

Methods

An online survey was used to gather the views of clinicians from a range of professional backgrounds working in forensic mental health services in the United Kingdom. The selected instruments were identified from a previous systematic review of instruments for measuring outcomes in this context. Questions covered comprehensiveness, ease of use, patient involvement, relevance and use for progressing tracking and care planning.

Results

Complete responses were received from 229 individuals. The range of respondents either agreeing or strongly agreeing that individual instruments were comprehensive was 6-39%; easy to use 19%-69%; relevant 31%-78%; useful to measure progress 7-70%; and useful for care planning 33-81%. Respondents reported that, for each of the 10 instruments, full involvement of patients varied between 3% and 22%; partial involvement 12-45%, patients informed, but not involved 11%-28%; and patients not involved or informed 21%-64%.

Conclusions

The Health of the Nation Outcome Scale Secure, the only instrument designed as an outcome measure, is not regarded by clinicians as useful in that respect and the majority of clinicians do not inform patients they are using it. Clinicians appear most familiar with the Historical Clinical Risk 20 (HCR-20), which some respondents considered potentially useful as a progress measure but with limited patient involvement. Most respondents did not think that the HCR-20 is comprehensive. There is a need for outcome measures that are comprehensive, easy to use and have adequate patient involvement in their development and rating.

SUBMITTER: Ryland H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9299034 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:This article addresses patient-reported outcome (PRO)-based follow-up used as a substitute for regularly scheduled follow-ups. In PRO-based follow-up, patients' PRO data filled in by the patients at home are used by clinicians as a decision aid to identify those who need clinical attention based on an automated PRO algorithm, clinical attention being either a phone call or a physical consultation. A physical consultation in the outpatient clinic prompted by the patient's PRO is termed a "PRO consultation." In this multi-perspective qualitative study, we explored the influence of patients' self-reported data on patient-clinician interaction during PRO consultations in epilepsy outpatient clinics. Interpretive description was the methodological approach, applying data from participant observations, informal interviews with clinicians, and semi-structured interviews with clinicians and patients. RESULTS:We found that application and deliberate use of patients' PRO measures can affect patient-clinician interaction, promoting patient involvement in terms of improved communication and increased patient activation. These findings reflect the general patterns that have been reported in the literature. In addition, we found that PRO measures also may induce unmet expectations among some patients that can have a negative effect on patients' experiences of the interaction and their follow-up experience in general. We extracted two thematic patterns that represent PRO measures' potential for patient involvement in the patient-clinician interaction. The first pattern represents enablers, and the second pattern represents barriers for PRO measures to affect patient involvement. CONCLUSIONS:Applying PRO measures in clinical practice does not automatically enhance the patient-clinician interaction. To strengthen the benefits of PRO measures, the following supplementary clinical initiatives are suggested: summarizing and reporting the PRO measures back to the patient, considering carefully which PRO measures to include, training clinicians and assuring that the patients' introduction to PRO-based follow-up clarifies expectations.

Project description:BackgroundIn this paper, we report the findings of a realist synthesis that aimed to understand how and in what circumstances patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) support patient-clinician communication and subsequent care processes and outcomes in clinical care. We tested two overarching programme theories: (1) PROMs completion prompts a process of self-reflection and supports patients to raise issues with clinicians and (2) PROMs scores raise clinicians' awareness of patients' problems and prompts discussion and action. We examined how the structure of the PROM and care context shaped the ways in which PROMs support clinician-patient communication and subsequent care processes.ResultsPROMs completion prompts patients to reflect on their health and gives them permission to raise issues with clinicians. However, clinicians found standardised PROMs completion during patient assessments sometimes constrained rather than supported communication. In response, clinicians adapted their use of PROMs to render them compatible with the ongoing management of patient relationships. Individualised PROMs supported dialogue by enabling the patient to tell their story. In oncology, PROMs completion outside of the consultation enabled clinicians to identify problematic symptoms when the PROM acted as a substitute rather than addition to the clinical encounter and when the PROM focused on symptoms and side effects, rather than health related quality of life (HRQoL). Patients did not always feel it was appropriate to discuss emotional, functional or HRQoL issues with doctors and doctors did not perceive this was within their remit.ConclusionsThis paper makes two important contributions to the literature. First, our findings show that PROMs completion is not a neutral act of information retrieval but can change how patients think about their condition. Second, our findings reveal that the ways in which clinicians use PROMs is shaped by their relationships with patients and professional roles and boundaries. Future research should examine how PROMs completion and feedback shapes and is influenced by the process of building relationships with patients, rather than just their impact on information exchange and decision making.

Project description:BackgroundOutpatients with acute cough who expect, hope for or ask for antibiotics may be more unwell, benefit more from antibiotic treatment, and be more satisfied with care when they are prescribed antibiotics. Clinicians may not accurately identify those patients.ObjectiveTo explore whether patient views (expecting, hoping for or asking for antibiotics) are associated with illness presentation and resolution, whether patient views are accurately perceived by clinicians, and the association of all these factors with antibiotic prescribing and patient satisfaction with care.MethodsProspective observational study of 3402 adult patients with acute cough presenting in 14 primary care networks. Correlations and associations tested with multilevel logistic regression and McNemar 's tests, and Cohen's Kappa, positive agreement (PA) and negative agreement (NA) calculated as appropriate.Results1,213 (45.1%) patients expected, 1,093 (40.6%) hoped for, and 275 (10.2%) asked for antibiotics. Clinicians perceived 840 (31.3%) as wanting to be prescribed antibiotics (McNemar's test, p<0.05). Their perception agreed modestly with the three patient views (Kappa's = 0.29, 0.32 and 0.21, PA's = 0.56, 0.56 and 0.33, NA's = 0.72, 0.75 and 0.82, respectively). 1,464 (54.4%) patients were prescribed antibiotics. Illness presentation and resolution were similar for patients regardless their views. These associations were not modified by antibiotic treatment. Patient expectation and hope (OR:2.08, 95% CI:[1.48,2.93] and 2.48 [1.73,3.55], respectively), and clinician perception (12.18 [8.31,17.84]) were associated with antibiotic prescribing. 2,354 (92.6%) patients were satisfied. Only those hoping for antibiotics were less satisfied when antibiotics were not prescribed (0.39 [0.17,0.90]).ConclusionPatient views about antibiotic treatment were not useful for identifying those who will benefit from antibiotics. Clinician perceptions did not match with patient views, but particularly influenced antibiotic prescribing. Patients were generally satisfied with care, but those hoping for but not prescribed antibiotics were less satisfied. Clinicians need to more effectively elicit and address patient views about antibiotics.