+ Site Statistics
References:
54,258,434
Abstracts:
29,560,870
PMIDs:
28,072,757
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Use and interpretation of routine outcome measures in forensic mental health



Use and interpretation of routine outcome measures in forensic mental health



International Journal of Mental Health Nursing 24(1): 11-18



The present study aimed to both pilot a method of monitoring mental health nurses' use of routine outcome measures (ROM) and to examine the precision of ratings made with these tools within a forensic mental health environment. The audit protocol used in the present study was found to be effective in evaluating both the accuracy with which nurses were able to interpret ROM items and their degree of adherence with local procedures for completing such instruments. Moreover, the results suggest that despite these ROM having been developed for use in general mental health settings, they could be interpreted and rated with an adequate degree of reliability by nurses in a forensic mental health context. However, difficulties were observed in the applicability of several components of these tools within a forensic environment. Recommendations for future research and implications for practice are discussed.

Please choose payment method:






(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 056789866

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 25196647

DOI: 10.1111/inm.12092


Related references

A Review and Analysis of Routine Outcome Measures for Forensic Mental Health Services. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health 13(3): 252-271, 2014

Current practices for measuring mental health outcomes in the USA: International overview of routine outcome measures in mental health. International Review of Psychiatry 27(4): 296-305, 2016

The feasibility of routine outcome measures in mental health. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 34(5): 243-249, 1999

Are routine outcome measures feasible in mental health?. Quality in Health Care 9(2): 84, 2000

Outcome measures used in forensic mental health research: a structured review. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health 19(1): 9-27, 2009

Performance of routine outcome measures in adult mental health care. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 39(8): 713-718, 2005

A systematic review of outcome measures used in forensic mental health research with consensus panel opinion. Health Technology Assessment 14(18): 1-94, 2010

Issues associated with the implementation of routine outcome measures in public mental health services. Australasian Psychiatry 9(1): 43-46, 2001

Defining outcome measures of hospitalization for assessment in the Japanese forensic mental health scheme: a Delphi study. International Journal of Mental Health Systems 9: 7, 2015

The multiple uses of routine mental health outcome measures in Australia and New Zealand: experiences from the field. Australasian Psychiatry 19(3): 247-253, 2011

The use of routine outcome measures in two child and adolescent mental health services: a completed audit cycle. Bmc Psychiatry 13: 270, 2015

Routine outcome measurement in youth mental health: a comparison of two clinician rated measures, HoNOSCA and HoNOS. Psychiatry Research 200(2-3): 884-889, 2013

Routine use of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) for improving treatment of common mental health disorders in adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 7: Cd011119, 2016

Pitfalls in the Assessment, Analysis, and Interpretation of Routine Outcome Monitoring (Rom) Data; Results from an Outpatient Clinic for Integrative Mental Health. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine 20(5): A127-A128, 2014

Pitfalls in the assessment, analysis, and interpretation of routine outcome monitoring (ROM) Data: results from an outpatient clinic for integrative mental health. Administration and Policy in Mental Health 41(5): 647-659, 2016