IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/socpsy/v54y2008i4p317-327.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Value of Routine Outcome Measurement for Consumers of Mental Health Services: Master or Servant?

Author

Listed:
  • Brenda Happell

    (Department of Health Innovation, Mental and Psychosocial Health, CQU Healthy Communities, Centre for Social Science Research, Central Queensland University, Bruce Highway, Rockhampton, Queensland 4702, Australia, b.happell@cqu.edu.au)

Abstract

Background: Standardized instruments have been introduced for routine use within Victorian mental health services. The aim of routine outcome measurement (ROM) is to ensure the highest standard of service delivery as demonstrated through quality and accountability processes. Aims: The aim is to determine the extent to which ROM measure against the 12 principles of outcome measurement described by Smith et al . (1997). Method: The three ROM currently used in Victoria were critiqued according to the 12 principles, with the support of a review of the literature regarding outcome measurement. Results: Of the 12 principles articulated, nine are not met by ROM currently used in Victoria. Only one is fully met, one partially met and one cannot be conclusively decided either way in light of current knowledge. Conclusions: ROM currently utilized in Victoria do not reflect the areas considered of most relevance and importance to consumers of mental health services. Priority should therefore be given to developing an alternative consumer-derived approach to determining the effectiveness of mental health services according to those most affected by them.

Suggested Citation

  • Brenda Happell, 2008. "The Value of Routine Outcome Measurement for Consumers of Mental Health Services: Master or Servant?," International Journal of Social Psychiatry, , vol. 54(4), pages 317-327, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:socpsy:v:54:y:2008:i:4:p:317-327
    DOI: 10.1177/0020764008090285
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0020764008090285
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0020764008090285?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:socpsy:v:54:y:2008:i:4:p:317-327. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.