Routine outcome measurement in public mental health: results of a clinician survey

This paper explores the attitudes of mental health workers in one public mental health service towards the implementation and use of routine outcome measurement. Two years after their introduction into routine clinical practice, there were equal numbers of positive and negative observations from cli...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Australian health review 2006-05, Vol.30 (2), p.164-173
Main Authors: Callaly, Tom, Hyland, Mary, Coombs, Tim, Trauer, Tom
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Activities of daily living
Attitude of Health Personnel
Attitudes
Australia
Care and treatment
Clinical medicine
Clinical outcomes
Clinical psychology
Consumers
Data Collection
Elder care
Focus groups
Health administration
Health services
Humans
Interviews
Medical personnel
Medical technology
Mental health care
Mental Health Services
Mental illness
National Health Programs
Outcome Assessment (Health Care) - methods
Outcome assessment (Medical care)
Patient outcomes
Psychiatric services
Public health
Ratings & rankings
Training
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:This paper explores the attitudes of mental health workers in one public mental health service towards the implementation and use of routine outcome measurement. Two years after their introduction into routine clinical practice, there were equal numbers of positive and negative observations from clinicians about the clinical value of the clinician-rated outcome measures, while more positive observations were made about value of the consumer-rated outcome measure. The most frequent observation from clinicians in relation to making outcome measures more useful to them in clinical practice was that more training, particularly refresher training, is needed. In addition, clinicians indicated that more sophisticated support which assists them to understand the meaning and possible use of outcome measure ratings is required. (author abstract)
ISSN:0156-5788
1449-8944
DOI:10.1071/AH060164