Optimizing clinical care through implementation of outcome monitoring systems

References

• Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW). Guidelines for the NMDS for alcohol and other drug treatment services 2001–2002. AIHW cat. No. HSE 16, AIHW, Canberra 2001
   Google Scholar
• Blankertz L, Cook JA. Choosing and using outcome measures. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal 1998; 22: 167–174
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown TG, Topp JT, Ross D. Rationales, obstacles and strategies for local outcome monitoring systems in substance abuse treatment settings. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 2003; 24: 31–42
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Centre for Health Service Development, University of Wollongong (CHSD) (2006). Designing and implementing measurement suites: Screening, assessment, outcomes, evaluation and service benchmarking. Health Outcomes 2006: Twelfth Annual National Conference on Health Outcomes, 8–10 August 2006, Canberra.
   Google Scholar
• Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) (1995). Developing state outcome monitoring systems for alcohol and other drug abuse treatment: Treatment Improvement Protocol (TIP) Series 14. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration, Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. DHHS Publication No. (SMA) 95-3031.
   Google Scholar
• Copeland J, Rush B, Reid A, Clement N, Conroy A. Alcohol and other drug treatment: Predictors of outcome and routine monitoring systems. National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre Monograph No. 45. Sydney 2000
   Google Scholar
• Desmond DP, Maddux JF, Johnson TH, Confer BA. Obtaining follow up interviews for treatment evaluation. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 1995; 12: 95–102
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dunn G. Statistical methods for measuring outcomes. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 1994; 29: 198–204
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA). (2000) EMCDDA Scientific Report: Treatment demand indicator, Standard protocol 2.0. Lisbon: European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction.
   Google Scholar
• Gilbody SM, House AO, Sheldon TA. Outcomes research in mental health. British Journal of Psychiatry 2002; 181: 8–16
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hansten WB, Downey L, Rosengren DB, Donovan DM. Relationship between follow-up rates and treatment outcomes in substance abuse research: More is better but when is ‘enough’ enough?. Addiction 2000; 95: 1403–1416
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harrison PA, Asche MA. Outcomes monitoring in Minnesota: Treatment implications, practical limitations. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 2001; 21: 173–183
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hermann RC, Palmer RH. Common ground: A framework for selecting core quality measures for mental health and substance abuse care. Psychiatric Services 2002; 53: 281–287
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hser YI, Evans E, Teruya C, Hardy M, Urada D, Huang Y, et al. The California Treatment Outcome Project (CalTOP) Final Report. 2002, Submitted to the California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs
   Google Scholar
• Jackson RT. Treatment Practice and Research Issues in Improving Opioid Treatment Outcomes. Science & Practice Perspectives July, 2002; 1, 22–28
   Google Scholar
• Koch JR, Lewis A, McCall D. A multistakeholder-driven model for developing an outcome management system. The Journal of Behavioral Health Services and Research 1998; 25: 151–162
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lawrinson P, Copeland J, Indig D. The brief treatment outcome measure: Opioid maintenance pharmacotherapy (BTOM) manual. NDARC Technical Report no. 156. University of New South Wales, Sydney 2003
   Google Scholar
• Lawrinson P, Copeland J, Indig D. Development and validation of a brief instrument for routine outcome monitoring in opioid maintenance pharmacotherapy services: The Brief Treatment Outcome Measure (BTOM). Drug and Alcohol Dependence 2005; 80: 125–133
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lawrinson P, Copeland J, Indig D. Regional differences in injecting practices and other substance use-related behaviour among opioid maintenance pharmacotherapy treatment entrants in New South Wales, Australia. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 2006; 82(Suppl 1)S95–S102
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Marinelli-Casey P, Domier MA, Rawson RA. The gap between research and practice in substance abuse treatment. Psychiatric Services 2002; 53: 984–987
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rock D, Combrinck J, Groves A. Issues associated with the implementation of routine outcome measures in public mental health services. Australasian Psychiatry 2001; 9: 43–46
   Google Scholar
• Roth K. Outcome monitoring system–Iowa Project: Year Five Report. Iowa Consortium for Substance Abuse Research and Evaluation. University of Iowa, Iowa City 2003
   Google Scholar
• Rush B. Client characteristics and patterns of service utilization with Ontario's specialized addiction treatment agencies: A provincial report from DATIS. Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto 2002
   Google Scholar
• Rush B. The evaluation of treatment services and systems for substance use disorders. Revista de Psiquiatria do Rio Grande do Sul 2003; 25: 393–411
   Google Scholar
• Rush B, Hobden K, Harris JA, Moxam RS. Client outcomes within the Ontario substance abuse treatment system: Results of a provincial pilot study. Centre for Addition and Mental Health, Toronto Ontario 2000
   Google Scholar
• Slade M. Routine outcome assessment in mental health services. Psychological Medicine 2002; 32: 1339–1343
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Slade M, Thornicroft G, Glover G. The feasibility of routine outcome measures in mental health. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 1999; 34: 243–249
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saxon AJ. Transporting efficacious treatments from academia to community: Barriers and opportunities. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 2003; 70: 127–129
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), Office of Applied Studies. (2006). Treatment Episode Dataset (TEDS): 1994–2004. National Admissions to Substance Abuse Treatment Services, DASIS Series S-33, DHHS Publication No. (SMA) 06-4180, Rockville, MD.
   Google Scholar
• United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime (UNODC). Drug abuse treatment and rehabilitation: A practical planning and implementation guide. United Nations, New York 2003
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organization (WHO). Evaluation of substance abuse treatment–Workbook Series (No.7: Outcome Evaluations). World Health Organization, Geneva 2000
   Google Scholar