Abstract
Objective: To study the relative contribution of consumer, clinician and service factors to whether or not consumers completed a self-rating measure in the context of routine outcome measurement.
Methods: Four Victorian mental health services commenced routine outcome measurement in their adult services in mid-2000. Clinician-completed measures (Health of the Nation Outcome Scales (HoNOS) and Life Skills Profile (LSP)) and a consumer self-rated measure (Behaviour and Symptom Identification Scale (BASIS)) were entered into specialized software. Analyses were restricted to assessments conducted at review in the community.
Results: Wide differences were observed between the four agencies in the rates of completion of the self-rating measure. Overall, consumer characteristics associated with greater likelihood of completion were lower age, non-organic diagnosis, lesser severity as measured by the HoNOS, and lesser disability as measured by the LSP. A more focused analysis showed that agency, lower age, and higher compliance were most reliably associated with completion. Significant proportions of clinicians had no recorded instances of consumer self-rating associated with their assessments.
Conclusions: Service and clinician factors appear to be equally important as consumer factors in whether or not a self-rating measure was completed. Information systems designed for outcomes measurement should include indications of whether or not a self-rating was invited, and, if not, why not. The results suggest that consumer self-rating is not yet firmly established in the outcomes measurement culture.