Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-9pm4c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T17:11:14.024Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Exploring the use of Routine Outcome Monitoring in the treatment of patients with a psychotic disorder

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 March 2020

M. Tasma ,
E.J. Liemburg ,
H. Knegtering ,
P.A.E.G. Delespaul ,
A. Boonstra  and
S. Castelein
M. Tasma*
Affiliation:
Lentis Psychiatric Institute, Lentis Research, Groningen, The Netherlands University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen, Rob Giel Research Centre, Groningen, The Netherlands
E.J. Liemburg
Affiliation:
Lentis Psychiatric Institute, Lentis Research, Groningen, The Netherlands University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen, Rob Giel Research Centre, Groningen, The Netherlands
H. Knegtering
Affiliation:
Lentis Psychiatric Institute, Lentis Research, Groningen, The Netherlands University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen, Rob Giel Research Centre, Groningen, The Netherlands
P.A.E.G. Delespaul
Affiliation:
Maastricht University, Faculty of Psychiatry & Psychology, Maastricht, The Netherlands Mondriaan Mental Health Trust, Heerlen-Maastricht, The Netherlands
A. Boonstra
Affiliation:
University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business, Groningen, The Netherlands
S. Castelein
Affiliation:
Lentis Psychiatric Institute, Lentis Research, Groningen, The Netherlands University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen, Rob Giel Research Centre, Groningen, The Netherlands
*
*Corresponding author. Lentis Psychiatric Institute, Lentis Research, Hereweg 80, 9725 AG, Groningen, The Netherlands. Tel.: +31657937671. E-mail address:m.tasma@lentis.nl (M. Tasma).
Get access

Abstract

Background

Routine Outcome Monitoring (ROM) has become part of the treatment process in mental health care. However, studies have indicated that few clinicians in psychiatry use the outcome of ROM in their daily work. The aim of this study was to explore the degree of ROM use in clinical practice as well as the explanatory factors of this use.

Methods

In the Northern Netherlands, a ROM-protocol (ROM-Phamous) for patients with a psychotic disorder has been implemented. To establish the degree of ROM-Phamous use in clinical practice, the ROM results of patients (n = 204) were compared to the treatment goals formulated in their treatment plans. To investigate factors that might influence ROM use, clinicians (n = 32) were asked to fill out a questionnaire about ROM-Phamous.

Results

Care domains that were problematic according to the ROM-Phamous results were mentioned in the treatment plan in 28% of cases on average (range 5–45%). The use of ROM-Phamous in the treatment process varies considerably among clinicians. Most of the clinicians find ROM-Phamous both useful and important for good clinical practice. In contrast, the perceived ease-of-use is low and most clinicians report insufficient time to use ROM-Phamous.

Conclusions

More frequent ROM use should be facilitated in clinicians. This could be achieved by improving the fit with clinical routines and the ease-of-use of ROM systems. It is important for all stakeholders to invest in integrating ROM in clinical practice. Eventually, this might improve the diagnostics and treatment of patients in mental health care.

Keywords

SchizophreniaCliniciansMental health careEase-of-useUsefulness
Type
Original article
Information
European Psychiatry , Volume 42 , May 2017 , pp. 89 - 94
Copyright
Copyright © European Psychiatric Association 2017

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Abbreviations: ROM, Routine Outcome Monitoring; ROM-Phamous, Routine Outcome Monitoring Pharmacotherapy Monitoring and Outcome Survey; UMCG, University Medical Centre Groningen; EPR, Electronic Patient Record.

References

Lambert, M.J., Harmon, C., Slade, K., Whipple, J.L., Hawkins, E.J.Providing feedback to psychotherapists on their patients’ progress: clinical results and practice suggestions. J Clin Psychol 2005;61(2):165–174.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gilbody, S.M., House, A.O., Sheldon, T.A.Outcome measures and needs assessment tools for schizophrenia and related disorders. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2003;(1):CD003081.Google ScholarPubMed
de Beurs, E., den Hollander-Gijsman, M.E., van Rood, Y.R., van der Wee, N.J., Giltay, E.J., van Noorden, M.S.et al.Routine outcome monitoring in the Netherlands: practical experiences with a web-based strategy for the assessment of treatment outcome in clinical practice. Clin Psychol Psychother 2011;18(1):1–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Trauer, T.Outcome measurement in chronic mental illness. Int Rev Psychiatry 2010;22(2):99–113.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nugter, M.A., Buwalda, V.J.Background and possible use of ROM in mental health care. Tijdschr Psychiatr 2012;54(2):111–120.Google ScholarPubMed
Carlier, I.V., Meuldijk, D., van Vliet, I.M., van Fenema, E.M., van der Wee, N.J., Zitman, F.G.Empirical evidence for the effectiveness of routine outcome monitoring. A study of the literature. Tijdschr Psychiatr 2012;54(2):121–128.Google ScholarPubMed
Parabiaghi, A., Rapisarda, F., D’Avanzo, B., Erlicher, A., Lora, A., Barbato, A.Measuring clinical change in routine mental health care: differences between first time and longer term service users. Aust N Z J Psychiatry 2011;45(7):558–568.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Knaup, C., Koesters, M., Schoefer, D., Becker, T., Puschner, B.Effect of feedback of treatment outcome in specialist mental healthcare: meta-analysis. Br J Psychiatry 2009;195(1):15–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Slade, M., McCrone, P., Kuipers, E., Leese, M., Cahill, S., Parabiaghi, A.et al.Use of standardised outcome measures in adult mental health services: randomised controlled trial. Br J Psychiatry 2006;189:330–336.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cradock-O’Leary, J., Young, A.S., Yano, E.M., Wang, M., Lee, M.L.Use of general medical services by VA patients with psychiatric disorders. Psychiatr Serv 2002;53(7):874–878.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nasrallah, H.A., Meyer, J.M., Goff, D.C., McEvoy, J.P., Davis, S.M., Stroup, T.S.et al.Low rates of treatment for hypertension, dyslipidemia and diabetes in schizophrenia: data from the CATIE schizophrenia trial sample at baseline. Schizophr Res 2006;86(1–3):15–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Hert, M., Schreurs, V., Vancampfort, D., Van Winkel, R.Metabolic syndrome in people with schizophrenia: a review. World Psychiatry 2009;8(1):15–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gilbody, S.M., House, A.O., Sheldon, T.A.Psychiatrists in the UK do not use outcomes measures. National survey. Br J Psychiatry 2002;180:101–103.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zimmerman, M., McGlinchey, J.B.Why don’t psychiatrists use scales to measure outcome when treating depressed patients?. J Clin Psychiatry 2008;69(12):1916–1919.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tasma, M., Swart, M., Wolters, G., Liemburg, E., Bruggeman, R., Knegtering, H.et al.Do routine outcome monitoring results translate to clinical practice? A cross-sectional study in patients with a psychotic disorder. BMC Psychiatry 2016;16(1):107.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Davis, F.D.Perceived usefulness, perceived ease-of-use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quart 1989;13(3):319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norman, S., Dean, S., Hansford, L., Ford, T.Clinical practitioner's attitudes towards the use of routine outcome monitoring within child and adolescent mental health services: a qualitative study of two child and adolescent mental health services. Clin Child Psychol Psychiatry 2014;19(4):576–595.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boswell, J.F., Kraus, D.R., Miller, S.D., Lambert, M.J.Implementing routine outcome monitoring in clinical practice: benefits, challenges, and solutions. Psychother Res 2015;25(1):6–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Jong, K.The role of the therapist: the ‘forgotten’ factor in ROM. Tijdschr Psychiatr 2012;54(2):197–201.Google ScholarPubMed
Veerbeek, M.A., Voshaar, R.C., Pot, A.M.Clinicians’ perspectives on a web-based system for routine outcome monitoring in old-age psychiatry in the Netherlands. J Med Internet Res 2012;14(3):e76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
IBM Corp.. IBM SPSS statistics for Windows. 2011; 20.Google Scholar
Van Offenbeek, M., Boonstra, A., Seo, D.Towards integrating acceptance and resistance research: evidence from a telecare case study. Eur J Inf Syst 2013;22:434–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willis, A., Deane, F.P., Coombs, T.Improving clinicians’ attitudes toward providing feedback on routine outcome assessments. Int J Ment Health Nurs 2009;18(3):211–215.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stinckens, N., Smits, D., Claes, L., Soenen, S.Meaningful ‘romming’ (routine outcome monitoring): seeking a balance between user friendliness and clinical relevance. Tijdschr Psychiatr 2012;54(2):161–165.Google ScholarPubMed
Laane, R., Luijk, R.ROM and the position of the health insurance companies. Tijdschr Psychiatr 2012;54(2):135–139.Google ScholarPubMed
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(6):302–307.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Metz, M.J., Franx, G.C., Veerbeek, M.A., de Beurs, E., van der Feltz-Cornelis, C.M., Beekman, A.T.Shared decision making in mental health care using routine outcome monitoring as a source of information: a cluster randomised controlled trial. BMC Psychiatry 2015;15:313.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.