Doing More With Less": Optimizing Psychotherapeutic Services in the Mental Health System
Trial Snapshot
- Phase
- Not Applicable
- Enrollment
- 100
- Primary Endpoint
- OQ-45 (outcome measure)
Study Overview
Brief Summary
Psychotherapy is one of the cornerstones of mental health services. It is provided by psychiatrist, psychologists and psychiatric social worker in both hospital and out-patient services, and is assumed to require massive manpower and training inputs.
Internationally, the clinical outcomes of routine mental health services are rarely recorded or reported. However, a rough estimation is that half (40-60%) of all psychotherapies have a favorable clinical outcome. Recently (Clark et al, 2017), the English Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) Program, which delivers psychotherapies to more than 537 000 patients in the UK each year, indicated that 44% of the patients recovered, and 62%- improved. Consistent with a causal model, most organizational factors also predicted between-year changes in outcome, together accounting for 33% of variance in reliable improvement and 22% for reliable recovery.
The proposed study aims at dramatically improving the yield of psychotherapies in the Mental Health Services by combining monitoring and patient-therapist matching strategies. The first will be achieved by implementing Routine Outcome Monitoring (ROM), and the second- by applying a patient-therapist match-re-match procedure during psychotherapy
Detailed Description
Routine Outcome Monitoring Routine Outcome Monitoring (ROM) enables systematic assessment of treatment outcomes at regular intervals for monitoring the progress of patients during treatment. ROM was originally developed for clinical studies, thus providing quality feedback for research and clinical purposes. There is accumulated evidence that ROM has positive effects for supporting care, for research and for management.
As of the beginning of the previous decade, ROM projects have developed and integrated into national health systems (e.g. Australia and New Zealand, England, etc.) and in various research groups around the world (e.g. Holland, Italy, USA, Canada, (Ruggeri, 2002; Burgess et al., 2012; Mellor-Clarket al., 2006) .In recent years, computer software has been widely used to collect, analyze and manage information in a secure, efficient and accessible manner, providing ongoing feedback to caregivers (Barkham et al., 2001; Barkham & Mellor-Clark, 2003; Margison et al., 2000).
Routine outcome monitoring can enable achieving several goals that directly contribute to treatment (De Beurs et al., 2011). It provides quality feedback to clinicians and patients in real time about the progress of the treatment and the early identification of various problems such as negative response to therapy. This increases the positive response to the treatment, balances the therapist's biases in an optimistic or pessimistic direction, supports decisions in treatment and improves the cooperation between the therapist and the patient. Hence, patients' involvement in the therapeutic process, their commitment to it, and their satisfaction (Whipple & Lambert, 2011), Lambert, 2010 (Priebe et al., 2002) also improve. A group of studies has shown that frequent monitoring of the evaluation of the therapeutic relationship during psychotherapy enables better real-time identification of therapeutic ruptures that can be corrected (Muran et al. 2009; Safran et al., 2011). In psychiatric work with more severe patients, it was demonstrated that there was a correlation between ROM and a significant reduction in the number and duration of hospitalizations, a finding that has a significant economic significance (Slade et al., 2006). In a meta-analysis review published in 2009 (12 studies, 2001-2006) a significant short-term symptomatic improvement and some long-term improvements was shown in monitored therapies. In another review (Shimokawa et al., 2010), a weekly measure of personal well-being measures had a significant positive impact on the quality, duration and outcome of treatment, especially in patients prone to dropout. Despite initial objections among teams to introduce quantitative measurements into their work, various attempts have shown that after assimilation, staff satisfaction from the systems is great and serves as a complement to individual work and staff meetings (de Beurs et al., 2011).
The collection of the broad information in the ROM is also used for managerial purposes (Trauer, 2010). For example, the accumulated information can be used for ongoing epidemiological research of treatments as they actually occur in a heterogeneous clinical environment and may maximize resources utilization (Coombs et al., 2011). The information produced (on the organizational, local, regional or national levels) is more likely to have higher predictive validity than information extracted from incidental questioning patients for improvement. Effective evaluations of various treatment approaches have also been made, and it is important to consider that treatments are indeed effective in the particular clinical setting they are provided, and not only in controlled studies under very different conditions (Stiles et al., 2008). Applying ROM appears to be more effective when integrated in a formalized and structured manner (Krägeloh, 2015). In such terms, it may be a powerful managerial tool, balancing between the patient's expectations and needs and the mental health care capacity. It is thus surprising, as recently noted by Jensen-Doss (2018), that ROM rarely used in practice, even though it is viewed favorably.
Despite current enthusiasm, advances in implementation, and the growing belief among some proponents and policymakers that ROM represents a major revolution in the practice of psychotherapy, other research has suggested that the focus on measurement and monitoring is in danger of missing the point (Miller et al., 2015). Research from the field of expertise and expert performance provides guidance for realizing the full potential of ROM. One crucial element in optimizing the effect of the ROM is that the decisions derived from continuously collecting the outcome measures will be taken with the patient (and not just shared with him/her). As shown by Clarke et al. (2015), more active involvement in decision-making than the patient stated as desired was associated with higher satisfaction. A clinical orientation towards empowering, rather than shared, decision-making may maximize satisfaction and optimize the effect ROM may have on clinical practice.
Study Design
- Study Type
- Interventional
- Allocation
- Randomized
- Intervention Model
- Parallel
- Primary Purpose
- Health Services Research
- Masking
- None
Masking Description
not relevant
Eligibility Criteria
- Ages
- 18 Years to 65 Years (Adult, Older Adult)
- Sex
- All
- Accepts Healthy Volunteers
- No
Inclusion Criteria
- •All enrolled patients must have a mobile phone capable of hosting the ROM-on-mobile system.
- •patients with anxiety/ affective (depressive and bi-polar)/ personality disorders
Exclusion Criteria
- •Patients exceeding 65 years at their date of admission,
- •Patients with impaired Hebrew fluency (difficulties in either reading or writing),
- •Evidence of organic brain syndrome or mental retardation,
- •Patients with psychotic disorders (e.g. - schizophrenia, delusional disorders)
- •Evidence of probable need for hospitalization,
- •Patients admitted only for diagnostic purposes,
- •Patients unwilling to be enrolled in the study.
Arms & Interventions
study group
after monitoring treatment outcomes for 4 weeks, treatment plan or psychotherpist will be changed according to scoring by the director of department.
Intervention: questionnaires (Other)
control group
treatment as usual. treatment counitunes as usual without depending on monitoring treatment outcomes.
Intervention: questionnaires (Other)
Outcomes
Primary Outcomes
OQ-45 (outcome measure)
Time Frame: up to 14 months
is the most commonly-used outcome measure in psychotherapy. It provides both a measure of weekly change on which the feedback to therapists and patients was based and the criterion measure for classification of a patient into an outcome group on a scale of 0 ("never") to 4 ("always")
SEQ (session outcome)
Time Frame: up to 14 months
The SEQ-4 validates the WAI-6, and allows the better identification of sessions in which ruptures and repairs occurred. The questionnaire includes 20 bipolar statements ranges on a 7 degrees Likert scale (e.g.:, 1 "sad" to 7 "happy"). the statements refers to 2 dimensions: the dimension of the meeting itself ("the current meeting was ...") and the dimension of feeling ("I feel now ...").
WAI (working alliance)
Time Frame: up to 14 months
To measure alliance at the end of each session, we will use the patient-version of the Session Alliance Inventory. The SAI is a 6-item short-short version of the Working Alliance Inventory. the questionnaire includes 6 items on a scale of 1 ("does not describe how I feel") to 7("exactly describes how I feel").
HSCL-11 (symptoms)
Time Frame: up to 14 months
The HSCL-11 will be filled by the patient at the beginning of study and thereafter- every two weeks. it includes 11 items on a scale of 1 ("not at all") to 4("a lot").
Secondary Outcomes
- PWB (psychological well-being)(up to 14 months)
- Satisfaction from therapy (CSQ)(up to 14 months)
