Planning for community care: The Community Placement Questionnaire

Clifford, Paul; Charman, Tony; Webb, Yvonne; Craig, Tom; Cowan, David

doi:10.1111/j.2044-8260.1991.tb00938.x

Cited by 36 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A number of instruments have been developed to assess the LOC required. Some examples include the Community Placement Questionnaire (CPQ), 6 the Rehabilitation Evaluation Scale (REHAB), 7 and the St. Louis Inventory of Community Living Skills. 8,9 Placement instruments have also been developed that are focused on community residential options in a particular jurisdiction.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using the Resident Assessment Instrument-Mental Health (RAI-MH) to Determine Levels of Care for Individuals with Serious Mental Illness

Gibbons

Dubois

Ross

et al. 2007

J Behav Health Serv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper outlines the development of an algorithm to determine appropriate levels of care (LOC) for individuals with a serious mental illness (SMI). The algorithm, drew on several domains of the Resident Assessment Instrument-Mental Health (RAI-MH) to support a statistical model that would explain a maximum of variance with the gold standard, a consensus-based global rating of required LOC. The RAI-MH model explained 67.5% of the variance. The validity of the model was further examined by determining how the discrepancy between the current and predicted levels of care related to psychiatric outcomes. The results demonstrated that undersupported clients experienced significant negative psychiatric outcomes compared to clients receiving adequate care. Although the model based on the RAI-MH is not perfect, the results warrant further research to determine its usefulness in predicting required LOC.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using the Resident Assessment Instrument-Mental Health (RAI-MH) to Determine Levels of Care for Individuals with Serious Mental Illness

Gibbons

Dubois

Ross

et al. 2007

J Behav Health Serv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…available (e.g., Clifford, Charman, Webb, Craig, & Cowan, 1991;Durbin, Cochrane, Goering, & Macfarlane, 2001;Rothbard, Kuno, Schinnar, Hadley, & Turk, 1999;Seling & Johnson, 1990). As the number of state hospital beds has decreased over the past several decades, an array of residential programs have been developed with varying degrees of staffing support (Budson, 1990;Randolph, Ridgway, & Carling, 1991).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Service System Planning Model for Individuals With Serious Mental Illness

Kuno

Koizumi

Rothbard

et al. 2005

Ment Health Serv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An institutional-based care system in mental health has been replaced by a network of communitybased services with different levels of structure and support. This poses both an opportunity and a challenge to provide appropriate and effective care to persons with serious mental illnesses. This paper describes a simulation-based approach for mental health system planning, focused on hospital and residential service components that can be used as a decision support tool. A key feature of this approach is the ability to represent the current service configuration of psychiatric care and the client flow pattern within that framework. The strength of the simulation model is to help mental health service managers and planners visualize the interconnected nature of client flow in their mental health system and understand possible impacts of changes in arrival rates, service times, and bed capacity on overall system performance. The planning model will assist state mental health agencies to respond to requirements of the Olmstead decision to ensure that individuals with serious mental illness receive care in the least restrictive setting. Future plans for refining the model and its application to other service systems is discussed. (e.g., Clifford, Charman, Webb, Craig, & Cowan, 1991;Durbin, Cochrane, Goering, & Macfarlane, 2001;Rothbard, Kuno, Schinnar, Hadley, & Turk, 1999;Seling & Johnson, 1990). As the number of state hospital beds has decreased over the past several decades, an array of residential programs have been developed with varying degrees of staffing support (Budson, 1990;Randolph, Ridgway, & Carling, 1991). Additionally, assertive community treatment teams (ACT), intensive case management (ICM), as well as psychosocial rehabilitation programs, have become increasingly available for people with serious mental illness. The importance of implementing community-based services has been further highlighted by the recent Supreme Court decision in Olmstead v. L.C., 119 S. Ct. 2176Ct. (1999, which affirmed that unnecessary institutionalization of individuals with disabilities is discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). States are now required to have a comprehensive, effective working plan to establish compliance with the ADA (Fox-Grage, Folkemer, & Lewis, 2003). HHS Public AccessIn this era of advanced deinstitutionalization, mental health administrators and planners are faced with the challenge of providing an appropriate and effective mix of residential, ambulatory treatment and support services for persons with serious mental illness. This requires the ability to estimate demand for different levels of care given that severity of illness and accompanying social and instrumental disabilities vary across individuals and change over an individual's lifetime (Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry, 1992;Herman & Mowbray, 1991;Tessler, Bernstein, Rosen, & Goldman, 1982). Shifting away from an institutional-based care system has been a significant step toward implementing an opt...

show abstract

“…6 The CPQ is divided into two sections: 1) basic patient information, 2) factors associated with community placement, including the patient's social functioning, problem behaviours, physical disability, and daytime activity levels. An overall index of the patient's level of social functioning can be derived and patients can be classified into one of five categories ranging from very poor to high.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Only 2 5 % of patients were in the moderate to high social functioning category; this value is significantly lower than that reported in the UK research using the C P Q with both hospitalized and community-based psychiatric patients. 6 Patients were rated as posing a danger to self or others; nearly two thirds of the patients required containment in a secure environment in the past two years. In general, it appears as if the current sample are more dangerous to self and others than those reported in previous Irish studies using the C P Q .…”

Section: Hard To Place Scoresmentioning

confidence: 99%