Introduction of routine outcome measures: staff reactions and issues for consideration

The aim of this study was to explore clinician reactions to (i) the introduction of routine outcome measures and (ii) the utility of outcomes data in clinical practice. Focus group discussions (n = 34) were conducted with mental health staff (n = 324) at approximately 8 months post implementation of routine outcome measures. A semi-structured interview schedule was used to collect data on two key issues; reactions to the introduction of outcome measures and factors influencing the utility of outcomes data in clinical practice. Data from the discussion groups were analysed using content analysis to isolate emerging themes. While the majority of participants endorsed the collection and utilization of outcomes data, many raised questions about the merits of the initiative. Ambivalence, competing work demands, lack of support from senior medical staff, questionable evidence to support the use of outcome measures, and fear of how outcomes data might be used emerged as key issues. At 8 months post implementation a significant number of clinical staff remained ambivalent about the benefits of outcome measurement and had not engaged in the process. The shift to a service model driven by outcomes and case-mix data will take time and resources to achieve. Implications for nursing staff are discussed.

Cluster analysis of self-awareness levels in adults with traumatic brain injury and relationship to outcome

The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between self-awareness, emotional distress, motivation, and outcome in adults with severe traumatic brain injury. A sample of 55 patients were selected from 120 consecutive patients with severe traumatic brain injury admitted to the rehabilitation unit of a large metropolitan public hospital. Subjects received multidisciplinary inpatient rehabilitation and different types of outpatient rehabilitation and community-based services according to availability and need, Measures used in the cluster analysis were the Patient Competency Rating Scale, Self-Awareness of Deficits Interview, Head Injury Behavior Scale, Change Assessment Questionnaire, the Beck Depression Inventory, and Beck Anxiety Inventory; outcome measures were the Disability Rating Scale, Community Integration Questionnaire, and Sickness Impact Profile. A three-cluster solution was selected, with groups labeled as high self-awareness (n = 23), low self-awareness (n = 23), and good recovery (n = 8). The high self-awareness cluster had significantly higher levels of self-awareness, motivation, and emotional distress than the low self-awareness cluster but did not differ significantly in outcome. Self-awareness after brain injury is associated with greater motivation to change behavior and higher levels of depression and anxiety; however, it was not clear that this heightened motivation actually led to any improvement in outcome. Rehabilitation timing and approach may need to be tailored to match the individual's level of self-awareness, motivation, and emotional distress.