Measuring Case Management Activity

Hargreaves, William A.; Shaw, Richard E.; Shadoan, Richard; Walker, Ellen; Surber, Robert W.; Gaynor, Jessica

doi:10.1097/00005053-198405000-00008

Cited by 31 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although research has shown that consumer record review is an adequate method of ascertaining case manager activities (Hargreaves et al 1984) and determining the status of consumer living environment and employment (Widlak et al 1992), the validity of case manager reports of progress in employment and living domains is unknown. Examining progress in the areas of employment and living situation can be a valuable method of documenting the small steps that may occur that do not actually result in a change in employment or living status.…”

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Relationship Between Case Manager Expectations and Outcomes of Persons Diagnosed with Schizophrenia

O’Connell¹,

Stein

2010

Community Ment Health J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study examined the relationship between case managers' expectations about the abilities of persons diagnosed with schizophrenia and the outcomes (as indicated via chart review) of a randomly selected sample of clients diagnosed with schizophrenia on their caseload. Results indicate that clients of case managers with higher expectations averaged significantly more months of progress in employment than clients of case managers with lower expectations. Case manager expectations were also better predictors of the number of days employed than other case manager and consumer characteristics, however the type of expectation was a critical determinant of the direction of the effect. Case manager expectations were not related to outcomes in living situation.

show abstract

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Relationship Between Case Manager Expectations and Outcomes of Persons Diagnosed with Schizophrenia

O’Connell¹,

Stein

2010

Community Ment Health J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, they do not produce a quantitative reading of a program that can be used in cross-program analysis. Implementation analysis (Brekke, 1987(Brekke, , 1988Brekke & Test, 1987;Brekke & Wolkon, 1988;Hargreaves et al, 1984;Rezmovic, 1984;Scheirer & Rezmovic, 1983) focuses on service delivery and does not measure program atmosphere and relationships, nor does it assess client perceptions of the scope of services available. Work by Brekke and Hargreaves has produced quantitative measures of service delivery or case management activity, which might be used profitably in conjunction with the PES' reading of how clients perceive and appreciate that same activity.…”

Section: Where the Program Environment Scale Fits Among Available Meamentioning

confidence: 99%

The Program Environment Scale: Assessing Client Perceptions of Community‐Based Programs for the Severely Mentally Ill

Burt

Duke

Hargreaves

1998

American J of Comm Psychol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Program Environment Scale (PES) was developed for use with clients of community-based programs for the severely mentally ill. It is intended to fill the gap in available tools for assessing clients' perceptions of program functioning as it affects their "quality of life" in a program. Formal pretests were conducted with 121 clients at 12 randomly selected programs near Washington, DC. The final field test used a revised form (29 domains; 129 items) with 221 clients in 22 programs selected randomly throughout the U.S., including Clubhouse, day treatment, psychosocial rehabilitation, and social club programs. Twenty-three subscales met at least five of eight psychometric criteria for internal consistency and discriminant validity. A 24th subscale was retained because of its substantive importance. Successful subscales cover program atmosphere and interactions (program cares about me, energy level, friendliness, openness, staff-client and client-client respect, reasonable rules, availability of positive physical contact, protection from bad touch, staff investment in their jobs, and confidentiality), client empowerment/staff-client equality (program and treatment empowerment, egalitarian space use), and service components (support for paid work, work importance, emergency access, family activities, housing, public benefits, community activities, medications, substance abuse, and continuity). Subscale validity is indicated by associations of specific service offerings with scores on scales measuring client perceptions of those services, and by an ability to differentiate among program models (i.e., Clubhouses, day treatment programs, and psychosocial rehabilitation programs look different from each other). Subscale scores were not influenced by client characteristics (gender, race, age, diagnosis, number of hospitalizations, length of time in program). The final scale has 97 items and takes about 25 minutes to complete. The PES succeeds in measuring different aspects of programs as clients perceive them. In the programs we visited, directors felt the PES covers the important things they want to know about how clients perceive their program. The PES should become a useful tool both for researchers interested in how client responses to programs may influence their therapeutic outcomes, and for practitioners interested in improving their clients' program experiences and/or increasing convergence of staff and client views of their program.

show abstract

“…Although the origins, definition, principles and tasks of CM seem to be well-established in the United States and in Europe, CM has had to adapt over time, thus evolving from more traditional models to new ones (Bachrach, 1988; Hargreaves et al., 1984; Lamb, 1980; Marshall & Lockwood, 1998; Marshall, Gray, Lockwood, & Green, 1998; Mueser et al., 1998; Solomon, 1992; Thornicroft, 1991). Moreover, the efficacy of CM has primarily been understood through two Cochrane reviews (Marshall & Lockwood, 1998; Marshall et al., 1998); however, in actual fact, eight meta-analytic reviews have been conducted on the topic.…”

Section: Depicting Current Case Management Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Depicting current case management models

Mas-Expósito

Campos

Gómez-Benito

et al. 2013

Journal of Social Work

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Case management (CM) is one of the principal components of service delivery in mental health services. Over time, it has evolved into new models, and various meta-analytic studies have been carried out to establish its effects. Those studies have yielded non-homogeneous results, which might be related in part to the progress of case management models. Therefore, there is a need to understand the relationship between CM models and CM effects. This paper deals with this issue by reviewing and updating the literature regarding case management models and effects in order to help understand its current role and suggest how CM could be reorganized.Findings: Assertive community treatment and any other case management model seem to have fused and turned into two models that differ mainly with regard to the intensity of care provided to patients. The results of the meta-analyses on the efficacy/ effectiveness of case management are not homogeneous across all studies, which seems to be related to the case management model used and the strictness of the

show abstract

Measuring Case Management Activity

Cited by 31 publications

References 0 publications

The Relationship Between Case Manager Expectations and Outcomes of Persons Diagnosed with Schizophrenia

The Relationship Between Case Manager Expectations and Outcomes of Persons Diagnosed with Schizophrenia

The Program Environment Scale: Assessing Client Perceptions of Community‐Based Programs for the Severely Mentally Ill

Depicting current case management models

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About