A systematic review of clinician-rated instruments to assess adults’ levels of functioning in specialised public sector mental health services

Background: Functioning is one of the key domains emphasised in the routine assessment of outcomes that has been occurring in specialised public sector mental health services across Australia since 2002, via the National Outcomes and Casemix Collection. For adult consumers (aged 18–64), the 16-item...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 2017-04, Vol.51 (4), p.338-354
Main Authors: Burgess, Philip M, Harris, Meredith G, Coombs, Tim, Pirkis, Jane E
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Australia
Humans
Mental Disorders - diagnosis
Mental Disorders - therapy
Mental Health Services - organization & administration
Mental Health Services - standards
Outcome Assessment (Health Care) - standards
Psychiatric Status Rating Scales
Psychometrics
Public Sector
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Background: Functioning is one of the key domains emphasised in the routine assessment of outcomes that has been occurring in specialised public sector mental health services across Australia since 2002, via the National Outcomes and Casemix Collection. For adult consumers (aged 18–64), the 16-item Life Skills Profile (LSP-16) has been the instrument of choice to measure functioning. However, review of the National Outcomes and Casemix Collection protocol has highlighted some limitations to the current approach to measuring functioning. A systematic review was conducted to identify, against a set of pre-determined criteria, the most suitable existing clinician-rated instruments for the routine measurement of functioning for adult consumers. Method: We used two existing reviews of functioning measures as our starting point and conducted a search of MEDLINE and PsycINFO to identify articles relating to additional clinician-rated instruments. We evaluated identified instruments using a hierarchical, criterion-based approach. The criteria were as follows: (1) is brief (
ISSN:0004-8674
1440-1614
DOI:10.1177/0004867416688098