Abstract
Background: Routine use of standardised outcome measures is not universal. Aims: To evaluate the effectiveness of standardised outcome assessment. Method: A randomised controlled trial, involving 160 representative adult mental health patients and paired staff (ISRCTNI6971059). The intervention group (n=101) (a) completed monthly postal questionnaires assessing needs, quality of life, mental health problem severity and therapeutic alliance, and (b) received 3-monthly feedback. The control group (n=59) received treatment as usual. Results: The intervention did not improve primary outcomes of patient-rated unmet need and of quality of life. Other subjective secondary outcome measures were also not improved. The intervention reduced psychiatric in-patient days (3.5 v. 16.4 mean days, bootstrapped 95% CI 1.6-25.7), and hence service use costs were £2586 (95% CI 102-5391) less for intervention-group patients. Net benefit analysis indicated that the intervention was cost-effective. Conclusions: Routine use of outcome measures as implemented in this study did not improve subjective outcomes, but was associated with reduced psychiatric in-patient admissions. Declaration of interest: None Funding by the Medical Research Council.
Cite
CITATION STYLE
Slade, M., McCrone, P., Kuipers, E., Leese, M., Cahill, S., Parabiaghi, A., … Thornicroft, G. (2006). Use of standardised outcome measures in adult mental health services: Randomised controlled trial. British Journal of Psychiatry, 189(OCT.), 330–336. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.105.015412
Register to see more suggestions
Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.