The Camberwell Assessment of Need (CAN): comparison of assessments by staff and patients of the needs of the severely mentally ill

Slade, Mike; Phelan, Michael; Thornicroft, Graham; Parkman, Sue

doi:10.1007/bf00785756

Cited by 220 publications

(145 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

128

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…l The total number of unmet needs was measured using the Camberwell Assessment of Need Short Appraisal Schedule (CANSAS), patient-rated version, 58 which consists of 22 health and social needs domains rated as no need, met need or unmet need. l Treatment satisfaction was measured with the total score on the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8), 59 which consists of eight items self-rated from 1 to 4 (higher scores indicating greater satisfaction).…”

Section: Secondary Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effective patient–clinician interaction to improve treatment outcomes for patients with psychosis: a mixed-methods design

Priebe

Golden

Kingdon

et al. 2017

Programme Grants Appl Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

et al. Effective patient-clinician interaction to improve treatment outcomes for patients with psychosis: a mixed-methods design. Programme Grants Appl Res 2017;5(6). Programme Grants for Applied ResearchISSN 2050-4322 (Print) ISSN 2050-4330 (Online) This journal is a member of and subscribes to the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (www.publicationethics.org/).Editorial contact: nihredit@southampton.ac.ukThe full PGfAR archive is freely available to view online at www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/pgfar. Print-on-demand copies can be purchased from the report pages of the NIHR Journals Library website: www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk Criteria for inclusion in the Programme Grants for Applied Research journalReports are published in Programme Grants for Applied Research (PGfAR) if (1) they have resulted from work for the PGfAR programme, and (2) they are of a sufficiently high scientific quality as assessed by the reviewers and editors. Programme Grants for Applied Research programmeThe Programme Grants for Applied Research (PGfAR) programme, part of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), was set up in 2006 to produce independent research findings that will have practical application for the benefit of patients and the NHS in the relatively near future. The Programme is managed by the NIHR Central Commissioning Facility (CCF) with strategic input from the Programme Director.The programme is a national response mode funding scheme that aims to provide evidence to improve health outcomes in England through promotion of health, prevention of ill health, and optimal disease management (including safety and quality), with particular emphasis on conditions causing significant disease burden.For more information about the PGfAR programme please visit the website: http://www.nihr.ac.uk/funding/programme-grants-forapplied-research.htm This reportThe research reported in this issue of the journal was funded by PGfAR as project number RP-PG-0108-10023. The contractual start date was in April 2010. The final report began editorial review in October 2015 and was accepted for publication in August 2016. As the funder, the PGfAR programme agreed the research questions and study designs in advance with the investigators. The authors have been wholly responsible for all data collection, analysis and interpretation, and for writing up their work. The PGfAR editors and production house have tried to ensure the accuracy of the authors' report and would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive comments on the final report document. However, they do not accept liability for damages or losses arising from material published in this report.This report presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). The views and opinions expressed by authors in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NHS, the NIHR, CCF, NETSCC, PGfAR or the Department of Health. If there are verbatim quotations included in this publicatio...

show abstract

Section: Secondary Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effective patient–clinician interaction to improve treatment outcomes for patients with psychosis: a mixed-methods design

Priebe

Golden

Kingdon

et al. 2017

Programme Grants Appl Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…• the Camberwell Assessment of Need Short Appraisal Schedule, patient-rated version (CANSAS) (Slade et al,1996) which assesses health and social needs across 22 domains, the CANSAS produces two subtotal scores: 'total unmet needs' and 'total met needs'.…”

Section: Assessmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cost of treatment of schizophrenia in six European countries

Salize

McCabe

Bullenkamp

et al. 2009

Schizophrenia Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and aims:As part of a RCT in six European sites, the direct mental health care cost for 422 patients with schizophrenia was analysed according to how total, and medication costs differed across sites and which variables were likely to predict total or service-specific costs.Method: Service use was recorded continuously during a 12-month follow-up. Prescribed psychotropic medication was recorded at baseline and 12 months later. Service use data were transformed into EURO, log-transformed and analysed using linear regression models. Results:Although samples were homogeneous, large inter-site cost differences were found (annual means ranging from 2,958 € in Spain up to 36,978 € in Switzerland). Psychopharmacologic costs were much more constant across sites than costs for other services. Total costs were associated more with region or socio-demographic characteristics than with disorder related parameters. Conclusions:The findings confirm remarkable differences in direct costs of patients wit schizophrenia across Europe. However, the relative stability of medication costs suggests a need to analyse mechanisms that influence service specific costs for schizophrenia.

show abstract

“…Tape recorded interviews every three months for 15 months then took place with 15 of those CPNs, purposively sampled as working with service users with severe mental illness and complex needs as identified by local CPA criteria (tier three/enhanced). CPNs also completed the Camberwell Assessment of Need research questionnaire (Slade et al, 1996) once every three months. Additional interviews were conducted with all CMHT managers and a number of psychiatrists, social workers, occupational therapists and carers.…”

Section: Sample and Data Collectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Community psychiatric nurses and the care co‐ordinator role: squeezed to provide ‘limited nursing’

Simpson

2005

Journal of Advanced Nursing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Citation: Simpson, A. (2005). Community psychiatric nurses and the care co-ordinator role: squeezed to provide 'limited nursing'.. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 52(6), pp. 689-699. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03636.x This is the accepted version of the paper.This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. Background: The Care Programme Approach (CPA) is the key policy underpinning community-focused mental health services but has been unevenly implemented and is associated with increased inpatient bed use. The care co-ordinator role is central to the CPA and is most often held by Community Psychiatric Nurses (CPNs), but there has been little research into how this role is conducted or how it impacts on the work of CPNs and their ability to meet the needs of service users. Permanent Aim:The study aimed to identify and illuminate the factors that either facilitated or constrained the ability of CPNs, in their role as care co-ordinators, to meet service users' and carers' needs.2 Methods: A multiple case study of seven sectorised community mental health teams was employed over two years using predominantly qualitative methods of participant observation, semi-structured interviews and document review.Findings: Additional duties and responsibilities specifically associated with the care co-ordinator role and multidisciplinary working, combined with heavy workloads, combined to produce 'limited nursing', whereby CPNs are unable to provide evidence-based psychosocial interventions that are recognised to reduce relapse amongst people with severe mental illness. Conclusions

show abstract

The Camberwell Assessment of Need (CAN): comparison of assessments by staff and patients of the needs of the severely mentally ill

Cited by 220 publications

References 8 publications

Effective patient–clinician interaction to improve treatment outcomes for patients with psychosis: a mixed-methods design

Effective patient–clinician interaction to improve treatment outcomes for patients with psychosis: a mixed-methods design

Cost of treatment of schizophrenia in six European countries

Community psychiatric nurses and the care co‐ordinator role: squeezed to provide ‘limited nursing’

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About