Routine measurement of outcomes in Australia's public sector mental health services

OBJECTIVE: This paper describes the Australian experience to date with a national 'roll out' of routine outcome measurement in public sector mental health services. METHODS: Consultations were held with 123 stakeholders representing a range of roles. RESULTS: Australia has made an impressive start to nationally implementing routine outcome measurement in mental health services, although it still has a long way to go. All States/Territories have established data collection systems, although some are more streamlined than others. Significant numbers of clinicians and managers have been trained in the use of routine outcome measures, and thought is now being given to ongoing training strategies. Outcome measurement is now occurring 'on the ground'; all States/Territories will be reporting data for 2003-04, and a number have been doing so for several years. Having said this, there is considerable variability regarding data coverage, completeness and compliance. Some States/Territories have gone to considerable lengths to 'embed' outcome measurement in day-to-day practice. To date, reporting of outcome data has largely been limited to reports profiling individual consumers and/or aggregate reports that focus on compliance and data quality issues, although a few States/Territories have begun to turn their attention to producing aggregate reports of consumers by clinician, team or service. CONCLUSION: Routine outcome measurement is possible if it is supported by a co-ordinated, strategic approach and strong leadership, and there is commitment from clinicians and managers. The Australian experience can provide lessons for other countries.

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.

Outcome measurement in Australian rehabilitation environments

Objective: To determine the frequency and pattern of methods of outcome assessment used in Australian physical rehabilitation environments. Design: Postal survey. Methods: A questionnaire on service type, staffing, numbers of adults treated and outcome measures used for 7 conditions related to injury and road trauma as well as stroke and neuromuscular disorders was sent to 973 services providing adult physical rehabilitation treatment. Results: Questionnaires were completed by 440 service providers for a response rate of 45%, similar to that reported in a recent European survey reported in this journal. A small number of measures were reported as in use by most respondents, while a large number of measures were used by a few respondents. Measures of physical changes were used more frequently than those of generic well-being or quality of life. Ease of use and reporting to other professionals were cited as the most important reasons in selection of outcome measures. Conclusion: This Australian-wide survey detected considerable heterogeneity in outcome measurement procedures used in rehabilitation environments. While the goal of measurement may vary between providers and differ between conditions, the results highlight opportunities for harmonization, benchmarking and measurement of health-related quality of life.

The WOMAC knee and hip osteoarthritis indices: Development, validation, globafization and influence on the development of the AUSCAN hand osteoarthritis indices

Clinical measurement in both clinical research and clinical practice requires tools and techniques that are valid, reliable and responsive. Patient-centred self-reported measures provide opportunity to evaluate consequences of osteoarthritis, that are important and relevant to patients with the condition. The WOMAC and AUSCAN Indices are health status measurement questionnaires that are valid, reliable and responsive, easy to complete, simple to score and available in multiple language forms and scaling formats. They provide opportunities to capture patient relevant information, relating to the impact of interventions, in clinical research and clinical practice environments. WOMAC data have also contributed to the development of proposed definitions for responder criteria and state-attainment criteria in osteoarthritis.

Attributes and skills of an effective musculoskeletal consumer

The OMERACT 7 Effective Musculoskeletal Consumer Workshop brought together people with rheumatoid arthritis, healthcare professionals, and researchers to discuss what they thought made a musculoskeletal consumer effective at managing their disease. Preliminary work before OMERACT provided a draft list of potential characteristics of an effective consumer. Participants at the workshop provided feedback about the list including relevance, missing items, format, and language. The feedback provided was useful and will be incorporated into a revised list to aid in the development of an instrument to measure health consumer effectiveness.

Measurement of strain and strain rate by echocardiography - Ready for prime time?

Strain and strain rate (SR) are measures of deformation that are basic descriptors of both the nature and the function of cardiac tissue. These properties may now be measured using either Doppler or two-dimensional ultrasound techniques. Although these measurements are feasible in routine clinical echocardiography, their acquisition and analysis nonetheless presents a number of technical challenges and complexities. Echocardiographic strain and SR imaging has been applied to the assessment of resting ventricular function, the assessment of myocardial viability using low-dose dobutamine infusion, and stress testing for ischemia. Resting function assessment has been applied in both the left and the fight ventricles, and may prove particularly valuable for identifying myocardial diseases and following up the treatment response. Although the evidence base is limited, SR imaging seems to be feasible and effective for the assessment of myocardial viability. The use of the technique for the detection of ischemia during stress echocardiography is technically challenging and likely to evolve further. The clinical availability of strain and SR measurement may offer a solution to the ongoing need for quantification of regional and global cardiac function. Nonetheless, these techniques are susceptible to artifact, and further technical development is necessary.