Routine evaluation in first episode psychosis services: feasibility and results from the MiData project
- First Online:
- 310 Downloads
Early intervention services (EIS) for psychosis are becoming widespread. Structured methods of assessment are advocated in these services, but a consensus is still needed on a package of measures with good psychometric properties that is feasible and reliable for routine use in this setting.
A computerised assessment package (MiData) was designed to provide clinicians with easy-to-understand feedback about clients’ progress and to allow evaluation of the whole service for both audit and research purposes. Core areas include symptoms, duration of untreated psychosis (DUP), pathways into care, social functioning, and substance misuse at initial intake and annually thereafter.
MiData has been adopted by EIS throughout London and in some other centres. Baseline data are now available regarding 533 first-episode psychosis patients who presented to 8 London teams. The completeness of the data varied across teams and measures, with fullest completion for sociodemographic data (99% on some measures) and poorest for DUP. The average London EIS client is male, single, unemployed and comes from Black or Minority Ethnic group. Most (70%) demonstrated poor social functioning at intake, over a third (38%) reported substance abuse problems and 23% had harmed themselves or others in the previous 6 months.
MiData provides a clinician-friendly system of evaluating first-episode psychosis services but requires further refinement and dedicated resources to improve completion rates. This method of collecting routine data is of use to clinicians, managers, health service researchers and commissioners and potentially it may enable naturalistic comparisons between different models of care.
Keywordsfirst episode psychosis early intervention services audit outcome data feasibility
- 2.Department of Health (2000) The NHS plan: a plan for investment, a plan for reform. Department of Health, LondonGoogle Scholar
- 3.Department of Health (2001) The mental health policy implementation guide. Department of Health, LondonGoogle Scholar
- 4.Department of Health (2005) Delivering race equality in mental health care. Department of Health, LondonGoogle Scholar
- 5.Department of Health (2006) Back into work, back into society: more social inclusion for people with mental health problems. Department of Health, LondonGoogle Scholar
- 6.Drake RE, Mueser KT, McHugo GJ (1996) Clinician rating scales: alcohol use scale (AUS), drug use scale (DUS), and substance abuse treatment scale (SATS). In: Sederer LI, Dickery B (eds) Outcomes assessment in clinical practice. Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore, pp 113–116Google Scholar
- 12.Kay SR, Opler LA, Fiszbein A (1992) Positive and negative syndrome scale (PANSS): manual. Multi-Health Systems, Inc., New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 17.National Institute for Mental Health Evaluation (2005) Minimum fidelity standards for new EIP services. NIMHE, North East, Yorkshire and Humber, UKGoogle Scholar
- 18.Overall JE, Gorham DR (1988). The brief psychiatric rating scale (BPRS): recent developments in ascertainment and scaling. Psychopharmacol Bull 24:97–99Google Scholar
- 28.Thorup A, Petersen L, Jeppesen P, Øhlenschlaeger J, Christensen T, Krarup G, JØrgensen P, Nordentoft M (2006) Social network among young adults with first-episode schizophrenia spectrum disorders: results from the Danish OPUS trial. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 41:761–770PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar