How mental health clinicians want to evaluate the care they give: a Western Australian studySophie Davison A B E , Yvonne Hauck A C , Philippa Martyr A B and Daniel Rock A B D
A Clinical Applications Unit, North Metropolitan Area Health Service (Mental Health), Gascoyne House, John XXIII Ave, Mt Claremont, WA 6010, Australia. Email: email@example.com, Philippa.Martyr@health.wa.gov.au, firstname.lastname@example.org
B School of Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia.
C Curtin Health Innovation Research Institute (CHIRI), Curtin University, GPO Box U1987, Perth, WA 6845, Australia.
D School of Population Health, University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia.
E Corresponding author. Email email@example.com
Australian Health Review 37(3) 375-380 http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/AH12171
Submitted: 11 April 2012 Accepted: 21 November 2012 Published: 22 April 2013
Objectives. To explore how Western Australian mental health clinicians want to evaluate their care.
Methods. Using a participatory action research framework, 10 senior psychiatrists and 11 clinical nurse specialists working in an inpatient mental health setting participated in individual interviews, focus groups and meetings. All interviews were de-identified during transcription and transcripts and field notes were analysed for common themes.
Results. Participants identified what they wanted to measure, how they wanted to measure it and how these changes could be implemented. Clinicians stressed the importance of measuring context (physical, clinical and service) and process as well as outcome, and of evaluating care at an individual and service level with consumer involvement.
What is known about the topic? Completion rates of mandatory national outcome measures in mental health in Australia are variable and clinicians have mixed views as to their value. Several barriers have been identified as to their use including clinical, resource and ownership issues.
What does this paper add? Some studies have identified areas of good practice and elicited practical suggestions for improvement but few have asked clinicians how they actually want to evaluate the care they provide. This study explored how mental health clinicians wanted to evaluate their care, using a participatory action research framework that encouraged participants to pinpoint problems and issues, account for their social context and develop actions to address them.
What are the implications for practitioners? Clinicians were enthusiastic for high quality care and evaluation, but pessimistic about their ability to introduce sustainable change. Establishing and supporting active and responsible leadership at service level may solve this, as may encouraging local standard setting and benchmarking in collaboration with consumers and carers.
Additional keywords: care-planning, outcome, quality.
References Jacobs R. Investigating patient outcome measures in mental health. CHE Research Paper 48. York, UK: Centre for Health Economics, University of York; 2009.
 Holloway F. Outcome measurement in mental health- welcome to the revolution. Br J Psychiatry 2002; 181 1–2.
| Outcome measurement in mental health- welcome to the revolution.CrossRef | 12091254PubMed |
 Coombs T, Stapley K, Pirkis J. The multiple uses of routine mental health outcome measures in Australia and New Zealand: experiences from the field. Australas Psychiatry 2011; 19 247–53.
| The multiple uses of routine mental health outcome measures in Australia and New Zealand: experiences from the field.CrossRef | 21682624PubMed |
 Australia DoHGoW. Western Australia’s clinician’s guide to outcome measurement: adult and older persons. Perth: Office of Mental Health, Department of Health; 2003.
 Gilbody S, House A, Sheldon T. Psychiatrists in the UK do not use outcome measures. Br J Psychiatry 2002; 180 101–3.
| Psychiatrists in the UK do not use outcome measures.CrossRef | 11823316PubMed |
 Meehan T, McCombes S, Hatzipetrouli L, Catchpoole R. Introduction of routine outcome measures: staff reactions and issues for consideration. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs 2006; 13 581–7.
| Introduction of routine outcome measures: staff reactions and issues for consideration.CrossRef | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD28rktFOnsw%3D%3D&md5=0413a51f6b764bb2bc32ee3417a6e8b9CAS | 16965478PubMed |
 Garland A, Kruse M, Aarons G. Clinicians and outcome measurement: what’s the use? J Behav Health Serv Res 2003; 30 393–405.
| Clinicians and outcome measurement: what’s the use?CrossRef | 14593663PubMed |
 Slade M. Routine outcome assessment in mental health services. Psychological Medicine 2002; 32 1339–43.
| 12455932PubMed |
 Callaly T, Hyland M, Coombs T, Trauer T. Routine outcome measurement in public mental health: results of a clinician survey. Aust Health Rev 2006; 30 164–73.
| Routine outcome measurement in public mental health: results of a clinician survey.CrossRef | 16646765PubMed |
 Black J, Lewis T, McIntosh P, Callaly T, Coombs T, Hunter A, et al It’s not that bad: the views of consumers and carers about routine outcome measurement in mental health. Aust Health Rev 2009; 33 93–9.
| It’s not that bad: the views of consumers and carers about routine outcome measurement in mental health.CrossRef | 19203338PubMed |
 Walter G, Cleary M, Rey JM. Attitudes of mental health personnel towards rating outcome. J Qual Clin Pract 1998; 18 109–15.
| 1:STN:280:DyaK1c3psVyjuw%3D%3D&md5=74ab81232afa46108d03ae3d98966793CAS | 9631348PubMed |
 Trauer T, Gill L, Pedwell G, Slattery P. Routine outcome measurement in public mental health- what do clinicians think? Aust Health Rev 2006; 30 144–7.
| Routine outcome measurement in public mental health- what do clinicians think?CrossRef | 16646762PubMed |
 Auditor General Western Australia. Adult community mental health teams: availability, accessibility and effectiveness of services. Report 10. Perth: Auditor general WA; 2009.
 Valenstein M, Mitchinson A, Ronis DL, Alexander JA, Duffy SA, Craig TJ, et al Quality indicators and monitoring of mental health services: what do frontline providers think? Am J Psychiatry 2004; 161 146–53.
| Quality indicators and monitoring of mental health services: what do frontline providers think?CrossRef | 14702263PubMed |
 Chenail R, St George S, Wulff D. Action research: the methodologies. In: Munhall P, editor. Nursing research: a qualitative perspective. Sudbury: Jones and Bartlett; 2007. pp. 447–61.
 Charmaz K. Constructing grounded theory: a practical guide through qualitative analysis. London: Sage; 2006.
 Jupp V. Methods in criminological research. Bulmer M, editor. London: Routledge; 1989.
 MacNee CL, McCabe S. Understanding nursing research: reading and using research in evidence-based practice. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2008.
 Thornicroft G, Tansella M. The mental health matrix. A manual to improve services. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1999.
 Donabedian A. The quality of care. How can it be assessed? JAMA 1988; 260 1743–8.
| The quality of care. How can it be assessed?CrossRef | 1:STN:280:DyaL1czhslajsA%3D%3D&md5=7ee7ee4f6fb378b85bef702b3ed5ebbcCAS | 3045356PubMed |
 Richardson A, Cotton R. No health without mental health: developing an outcomes-based approach. London: Mental Health Network NHS Confederation; 2011.
 Hansson L. Outcome assessment in psychiatric service evaluation. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 2001; 36 244–8.
| Outcome assessment in psychiatric service evaluation.CrossRef | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD3MvntVyitQ%3D%3D&md5=d6133ffc697f3eac7a00fd6f435bb4faCAS | 11515702PubMed |
 Drake RE, Deegan PE, Rapp C. The promise of shared decision making in mental health. Psychiatr Rehabil J 2010; 34 7–13.
| The promise of shared decision making in mental health.CrossRef | 20615839PubMed |
 Henderson C, Flood C, Leese M, Thornicroft G, Sutherby K, Szmukler G. Effect of joint crisis plans on use of compulsory treatment in psychiatry: Single blind randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2004; 329 136–8.
| Effect of joint crisis plans on use of compulsory treatment in psychiatry: Single blind randomised controlled trial.CrossRef | 15240438PubMed |
 Lawn S, Battersby MW, Pols RG, Lawrence J, Parry T, Urukalo M. The mental health expert patient: findings from a pilot study of a generic chronic condition self-management programme for people with mental illness. Int J Soc Psychiatry 2007; 53 63–74.
| The mental health expert patient: findings from a pilot study of a generic chronic condition self-management programme for people with mental illness.CrossRef | 17333952PubMed |
 Gagliardi AR, Lemieux-Charles L, Brown AD, Sullivan T, Goel V. Barriers to patient involvement in health service planning and evaluation: an exploratory study. Patient Educ Couns 2008; 70 234–41.
| Barriers to patient involvement in health service planning and evaluation: an exploratory study.CrossRef | 18023129PubMed |
 Restall G, Strutt C. Participation in planning and evaluating mental health services: building capacity. Psychiatr Rehabil J 2008; 31 234–8.
| Participation in planning and evaluating mental health services: building capacity.CrossRef | 18194951PubMed |
 Linhorst DM, Eckert A. Involving people with severe mental illness in evaluation and performance improvement. Eval Health Prof 2002; 25 284–301.
| Involving people with severe mental illness in evaluation and performance improvement.CrossRef | 12229070PubMed |
 Lakeman R.. Standardized routine outcome measurement: pot holes in the road to recovery. Int J Ment Health Nurs. 2004; 13 210–5.
| 15660588PubMed |
 Aoun S, Pennebaker D, Janca A. Outcome measurement in rural mental health care: a field trial of rooming-in models. Aust J Rural Health 2002; 10 302–7.
| Outcome measurement in rural mental health care: a field trial of rooming-in models.CrossRef | 12472612PubMed |
 Shields R. Use of mental health outcome measures in clinical practice. Australas Psychiatry 2012; 20 69
| Use of mental health outcome measures in clinical practice.CrossRef | 22357683PubMed |