Session-by-session outcome monitoring in CAMHS: clinicians’ beliefs

Abstract

Session-by-session ROM in CAMHS 1 Session-by-session outcome monitoring in CAMHS: Clinicians beliefs. AbstractThe CYP-IAPT programme emphasises the meaningful contribution session-by-session routine outcome monitoring (ROM) can make to clinical practice and its importance in highlighting services' effectiveness. Two studies on issues related to the implementation of ROM in children's services were conducted. Study one was qualitative; twelve CAMHS professionals participated in focus groups. Themes identified included the idea that ROM could provide objectivity, could be collaborative and empowering. Concerns included how measures may adversely influence therapeutic sessions and how the information may be used by the service. These themes were used to develop a questionnaire about professional's experience of and views on session-by-session ROM. In study two, 59 professionals from four CAMHS teams completed the questionnaire. It was found that only 6.8% reported "almost always" utilising session-by-session ROM. Detailed analysis of questionnaire responses suggested two factors reflecting the perceived negative and positive impact of session-by-session ROM. It was found that clinicians who currently use session-by-session ROM hold stronger positive and negative beliefs than clinicians who do not. This study suggests that session-by-session ROM is not currently routine practice within CAMHS and highlights the importance of considering how this practice can be best implemented within this setting with reference to clinician attitudes. Session-by-session ROM in CAMHS 2 Learning Objectives 1) To understand CAMHS clinician's attitudes and beliefs about the use of session-bysession routine outcome monitoring (ROM) in clinical practice 2) To explore clinicians views about session-by-session ROM through focus groups 3) To assess the characteristics of a questionnaire developed to elicit information about professionals demographic characteristics, attitudes towards, and current use of, session-by-session ROM 4) To consider the impact clinicians beliefs may have on the implementation of ROM

Routine outcome monitoring in CAMHS: how can we enable implementation in practice?

“…Clinicians were more positive than negative about ROM throughout the implementation period, but key implementation challenges raised included concerns about the value and (mis)use of ROM data, poor technological support and the additional workload demands. These challenges are not unique to the CAMHS network under investigation here and are similar to the issues highlighted by previous research in this field (Boswell et al., ; Gleacher et al., ; Hall et al., ; James et al., ; Wolpert, Curtis‐Tyler, & Edbrooke‐Childs, ).…”

“…Figure provides an overview of the extent to which each of the 12 items taken from the James et al. () ROM beliefs questionnaire were endorsed by the clinicians participating in this study. Cronbach's alpha values at T1 were calculated as .93 for the full 12 items, .77 for the positive subscale and .72 for the negative subscale, demonstrating good internal consistency.…”

“…James et al. () reported a Cronbach's alpha of .89 for the negative subscale and .91 for the positive subscale, suggesting good internal consistency. Part 2 of the survey asked clinicians to rate the extent to which they were currently using ROM on a 5‐point Likert scale (1 = never, 3 = sometimes, 5 = almost always) and also provide open‐text answers to questions about their experiences of using ROM.…”

“…The clinician beliefs about ROM questionnaire developed by James, Elgie, Adams, Henderson, and Salkovskis () will be used to measure changes in attitudes towards ROM, and open‐text response questions will ask clinicians to share their experiences of using ROM.…”

Exploratory study of automated linguistic analysis for progress monitoring and outcome assessment

“…Additional paperwork and time burdens for both clinicians and clients are some of the main concerns clinicians have regarding implementing PMOA into their practice (Boswell, Kraus, Miller, & Lambert, ; Hatfield & Ogles, ; James, Elgie, Adams, Henderson, & Salkovskis, ). Given some clinicians’ resistance to PMOA measures, on the basis of necessary resources, developing easy to use PMOA instruments while maintaining the benefits of existing PMOA measures appears vital to adoption.…”