Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T18:19:55.640Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Influence of Feedback From Routine Outcome Monitoring On Treatment Outcomes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 April 2020

V.J.A. Buwalda
Affiliation:
Psychiatry, Victas Addiction Institute/Free University, Amsterdam, Netherlands
S. Draisma
Affiliation:
Psychiatry, Free University, Amsterdam, Netherlands
J.H. Smit
Affiliation:
Psychiatry, Free University, Amsterdam, Netherlands
A.C.M. Vergouwen
Affiliation:
Psychiatry, Andreas Lucas ziekenhuis, Amsterdam, Netherlands
J.A. Swinkels
Affiliation:
Psychiatry, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
W. Van Tilburg
Affiliation:
Psychiatry, Free University, Amsterdam, Netherlands

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Background

Feedback is an essential part of Routine Outcome Monitoring. Little is known about the effect of feedback provided to the clinician and patient during treatment. A review of the available literature about feedback given to clinician and patient on treatment outcomes in general psychiatry showed a small, almost negligible effect of the provision of feedback. However, Lambert c.s. found that giving feedback about patient-progress that deviated from the expected outcome in a psychotherapeutic setting was associated with a significant improvement afterwards.

Aim

To investigate the effect of feedback on treatment outcomes in a general psychiatric outpatient clinic for mood and anxiety disorders in the Netherlands.

Method

a field study in which more attention was paid to the implementation of feedback than usual. Clinicians were trained in interpreting treatment outcomes and explaining them to their patients. The feedback procedure was then monitored. Three groups of patients were distinguished (1) a group of patients who received obligatory protocolled feedback, (2) a group of patients of whom their clinicians voluntary could view the received feedback and had to fill in GAF and CGI scores concerning te progress of their treatment and (3) a group that received neither feedback nor GAF or CGI scores. All three groups completed relevant outcome measures.

Results

from the 176 patients 26 % received feedback from their clinician. Their progress was measured regularly. Even with extra attention paid to the implementation, it appears that providing feedback to the clinician and patient has little effect on treatment outcomes.

Type
Article: 1914
Copyright
Copyright © European Psychiatric Association 2015
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.