Journal
CRIMINAL BEHAVIOUR AND MENTAL HEALTH
Volume 31, Issue 6, Pages 372-386Publisher
WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/cbm.2221
Keywords
forensic psychiatry; outcome measurement; quality of life; risk assessment
Categories
Funding
- National Institute for Health Research [DRF-2017-10-019]
- National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR) [DRF-2017-10-019] Funding Source: National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR)
Ask authors/readers for more resources
The study surveyed clinicians on outcome measurement tools in forensic mental health services, revealing concerns regarding comprehensiveness, ease of use, and patient involvement. There is a need for the development of comprehensive, easy-to-use outcome measurement tools that actively involve patients in their development and assessment.
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.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available