Ten outcome measures in forensic mental health: A survey of clinician views on comprehensiveness, ease of use and relevance.
forensic psychiatry
outcome measurement
quality of life
risk assessment
Journal
Criminal behaviour and mental health : CBMH
ISSN: 1471-2857
Titre abrégé: Crim Behav Ment Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9309668
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Dec 2021
Dec 2021
Historique:
received:
26
01
2021
accepted:
04
10
2021
pubmed:
11
11
2021
medline:
15
12
2021
entrez:
10
11
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
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. 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. 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. 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%. 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.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
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
OBJECTIVE
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
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
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
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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34755402
doi: 10.1002/cbm.2221
pmc: PMC9299034
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
372-386Subventions
Organisme : National Institute for Health Research
ID : DRF-2017-10-019
Informations de copyright
© 2021 The Authors. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2019 Apr 11;17(1):60
pubmed: 30975153
BMC Psychiatry. 2015 Mar 28;15:61
pubmed: 25879459
Behav Sci Law. 2006;24(6):747-66
pubmed: 17171764
Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2008;17(2):111-20
pubmed: 18393263
Br J Psychiatry. 2018 Jan;212(1):42-49
pubmed: 29433611
J Forensic Nurs. 2020 Jul/Sep;16(3):161-168
pubmed: 31977515
Crim Behav Ment Health. 2018 Jun;28(3):255-269
pubmed: 29218747
BMC Res Notes. 2011 Jul 03;4:229
pubmed: 21722396
Int J Ment Health Nurs. 2015 Feb;24(1):11-8
pubmed: 25196647
Patient Prefer Adherence. 2015 Jun 24;9:831-5
pubmed: 26150703
Front Psychiatry. 2019 Oct 18;10:733
pubmed: 31681042
Health Technol Assess. 1998;2(14):i-iv, 1-74
pubmed: 9812244
Crim Behav Ment Health. 2011 Dec;21(5):299-306
pubmed: 22113784
Int J Psychiatr Nurs Res. 1999 Oct;5(2):554-61
pubmed: 10734848
BMC Psychiatry. 2019 Apr 16;19(1):115
pubmed: 30991971
J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2019 Sep;26(7-8):212-222
pubmed: 31209980
Braz J Phys Ther. 2016 Jan 19;20(2):105-13
pubmed: 26786084
Can J Psychiatry. 2010 Sep;55(9):549-57
pubmed: 20840802
Br J Psychiatry. 2016 Jan;208(1):17-25
pubmed: 26729842
Adm Policy Ment Health. 2007 May;34(3):283-91
pubmed: 17211715
Eur Psychiatry. 2021 May 28;:1-40
pubmed: 34044901
J Eval Clin Pract. 2019 Jun;25(3):482-490
pubmed: 31037796
Psychiatr Serv. 2012 Nov;63(11):1089-94
pubmed: 22948947
Qual Life Res. 2018 May;27(5):1159-1170
pubmed: 29550964
Int J Ment Health Syst. 2020 Mar 30;14:25
pubmed: 32256688
Health Technol Assess. 2010 Mar;14(18):1-94
pubmed: 20350473
Qual Life Res. 2018 May;27(5):1147-1157
pubmed: 29435801
Crim Behav Ment Health. 2021 Dec;31(6):372-386
pubmed: 34755402