Abstract
With increasing pressure from third-party payers to assess client outcomes, clinical programs want to know how to implement outcome systems. This article focuses on practical and logistic questions involved in implementing an outcome assessment system in ambulatory behavioral healthcare settings. Study questions addressed outcome systems in general and the use of the Behavior and Symptom Identification Scale (BASIS-32) and the Short Form Health Status Profile (SF-36) in particular. General questions focused on obtaining provider buy-in, client consent and confidentiality, data collection methods, sampling, time points, maximizing client participation, clinical utility of outcome data, and resources needed for outcome assessment. Measure-specific questions focused on client acceptability of the instruments and applicability of measures to diverse populations. The article suggests several strategies for enhancing outcome assessment efforts and concludes that there remains a need for further understanding of ways to maximize the utility and value of outcome measurement.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Feldman JL, Fitzpatrick R (Eds.):Managed Mental Health Care: Administrative and Clinical Issues. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press, 1992.
Chamberlin J:On Our Own: Patient Controlled Alternatives to the Mental Health System. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1978.
Shortell SM, O'Brien JL, Carman JM, et al.: Assessing the impact of continuous quality improvement/total quality management: Concept versus implementation.Health Services Research 1995; 30:378–398.
Ware JE, Sherbourne CD: The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36): I. Conceptual framework and item selection.Medical Care 1992; 30:473–483.
Eisen SV, Grob MC, Dill DL: Outcome measurement: Tapping the patient's perspective. In: Mirin SM, Gossett J, Grob MC (Eds.):Psychiatric Treatment: Advances in Outcome Research. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press, 1991, pp. 213–235.
Eisen SV, Dickey B: Mental health outcome assessment: The new agenda.Psychotherapy 1996; 33:181–189.
Burlingame GM, Lambert MJ, Reisinger CW, et al.: Pragmatics of tracking mental health outcomes in a managed care setting.Journal of Mental Health Administration 1995; 22:226–236.
Eisen SV, Dill DL, Grob MC: Reliability and validity of a brief patient-report instrument for psychiatric outcome evaluation.Hospital & Community Psychiatry 1994; 45:242–247.
Wilcox M, Eisen SV:Outcomes Measurement across Settings: The BASIS-32 for Both Inpatient and Outpatient Assessment. Paper presented at the Seventh Annual National Conference on State Mental Health Agency Services Research, Program Evaluation, and Policy, Arlington, VA, February 3, 1997.
Eisen SV, Wilcox M, Schaefer E, et al.:Use of BASIS-32 for Outcome Assessment of Recipients of Outpatient Mental Health Services. Technical Report prepared for the Evaluation Center at the Human Services Research Institute, March 1997.
Report Card Pilot Project: Technical Report. Washington, DC: National Committee for Quality Assurance, 1994.
Oryx Outcomes: The Next Revolution in Accreditation. Oakbrook Terrace, IL: Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations, 1997.
Dickey B, Hermann RC, Eisen SV: Assessing the quality of psychiatric care: Research methods and application in clinical practice.Harvard Review of Psychiatry 1998; 6:88–96.
Cohen J:Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1988.
Howard KL, Kopta SM, Krause MS, et al.: The dose-effect relationship in psychotherapy.American Psychologist 1986; 41:159–164.
Harris LE, Weinberger M, Tierney WM: Assessing inner-city patients' hospital experiences: A controlled trial of telephone interviews versus mailed surveys.Medical Care 1997; 35:7–76.
Eisen SV: Behavior and Symptom Identification Scale (BASIS-32). In: Sederer LI, Dickey B (Eds.):Outcomes Assessment in Clinical Practice. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins, 1996, pp. 65–69.
Epstein A: Performance reports on quality: Prototypes, problems and prospects.New England Journal of Medicine 1995; 333:57–62.
Health Care Forum: Report Cards Are Useful, but Significant Issues Need to Be Addressed. Publication No. GAO/HEHS-94-219. Washington DC: General Accounting Office, 1994.
PERMS 1.0 Performance Measures for Managed Behavioral Healthcare Programs. Washington, DC: American Managed Behavioral Healthcare Association, 1995.
The MHSIP Consumer-Oriented Mental Health Report Card: The Final Report of the Mental Health Statistics Improvement Program (MHSIP) Task Force on a Consumer-Oriented Mental Health Report Card. Washington, DC: Center for Mental Health Services, 1996.
Nelson EC, Batalden PB, Plume SK, et al.: Report cards or instrument panels: Who needs what?Journal of Quality Improvement 1995; 21:155–165.
Iezzoni LI: Data sources and implications: Administrative databases. In: Iezzoni LI (Ed.):Risk Adjustment for Measuring Health Care Outcomes. Ann Arbor, MI: Health Administration Press, 1994, pp. 119–175.
Ciarlo JA, Brown TR, Edwards DW, et al.:Assessing Mental Health Treatment Outcome Measurement Techniques. Series FN, No. 9, DHHS Publication No. (ADM)86-1301. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1986.
Beck AT, Steer RA:Manual for the Beck Depression Inventory. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation, 1993.
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Fourth ed. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association, 1994.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Eisen, S.V., Leff, H.S. & Schaefer, E. Implementing outcome systems: Lessons from a test of the BASIS-32 and the SF-36. The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research 26, 18–27 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02287791
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02287791