Driving with Roadmaps and Dashboards: Using Information Resources to Structure the Decision Models in Service Organizations

  • Bruce F. Chorpita
  • Adam Bernstein
  • Eric L. Daleiden
  • The Research Network on Youth Mental Health
Original Paper

Abstract

This paper illustrates the application of design principles for tools that structure clinical decision-making. If the effort to implement evidence-based practices in community services organizations is to be effective, attention must be paid to the decision-making context in which such treatments are delivered. Clinical research trials commonly occur in an environment characterized by structured decision making and expert supports. Technology has great potential to serve mental health organizations by supporting these potentially important contextual features of the research environment, through organization and reporting of clinical data into interpretable information to support decisions and anchor decision-making procedures. This article describes one example of a behavioral health reporting system designed to facilitate clinical and administrative use of evidence-based practices. The design processes underlying this system—mapping of decision points and distillation of performance information at the individual, caseload, and organizational levels—can be implemented to support clinical practice in a wide variety of settings.

Keywords

Organizational change Evidence-based Technology Clinical reasoning Feedback 

References

  1. Addis, M. E., & Krasnow, A. D. (2000). A national survey of practicing psychologists’ attitudes toward psychotherapy treatment manuals. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68, 331–339.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chambers, D., Ringeisen, H., & Hickman, E. (2005). Federal, state, and foundation initiatives around evidence-based practices child and adolescent mental health. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 14, 307–327.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chorpita, B. F. (2007). Modular cognitive-behavioral therapy for childhood anxiety disorders. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  4. Daleiden, E., & Chorpita, B. F. (2005). From data to wisdom: Quality improvement strategies supporting large-scale implementation of evidence based services. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 14, 329–349.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Edmondson, A. C., Bohmer, R. M., & Pisano, G. P. (2001). Disrupted routines: Team learning and new technology implementation in hospitals. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 685–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., Friedman, R. A., & Wallace, F. (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature. Tampa, FL: University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Research Institute, The National Implementation Research Network (FMHI Publication #231).Google Scholar
  7. Greenhalgh, T., Robert, G., Bate, P., Kyriakidou, O., & Peacock, R. (2004). How to spread good ideas. London, UK: National Coordinating Centre for National Health System Service Delivery and Organization Research and Development. Available via Internet at http://www.sdo.lshtm.ac.uk/files/project/38-final-report.pdf
  8. Hemmelgarn, A. L., Glisson, C., James, L. R. (2006). Organizational culture and climate: Implications for services and interventions research. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 13(1), 73–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kluger, A., & DeNisi A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 254–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lambert, M. J. (2001). Psychotherapy outcome and quality improvement: Introduction to the special section on patient-focused research. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 69, 147–149.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lambert, M. (2005). Emerging methods for providing clinicians with timely feedback on treatment effectiveness: An introduction. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 61, 141–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lambert, M., Harmon, C., Slade, K., Whipple, J., & Hawkins, E. (2005). Providing feedback to psychotherapists on their patients’ progress: Clinical results and practice suggestions. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 61, 165–174.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lambert, M. J., Whipple, J. L., Hawkins, E. J., Vermeersch, D. A., Nielsen, S. L., & Smart, D. W. (2003). Is it time for clinicians to routinely track patient outcome? A meta analysis. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 10, 288–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lehman, W. E. K., Greener, J. M., & Simpson, D. D. (2002). Assessing organizational readiness for change. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 22, 197–209.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lonigan, C. J., Elbert, J. C., & Bennett Johnson, S. (1998). Empirically supported psychosocial interventions for children: An overview. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 27, 138–145.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. National Advisory Mental Health Council Workgroup on Child, Adolescent Mental Health Intervention Development and Deployment. (2001). Blueprint for change: Research on child and adolescent mental health. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  17. Norquist, G., Lebowitz, B., & Hyman, S. (1999). Expanding the frontier of treatment research. Prevention & Treatment, 2, Article 0001a. Available on the World Wide Web: http://www.journals.apa.org/prevention/volume2/pre0020001a.html
  18. O’Donohue, W. T., Ferguson, K. E., & Cummings, N. A. (2002). Introduction: Reflections on the medical cost offset effect. In N. A. Cummings, W. T. O’Donohue, & K. E. Ferguson (Eds.), The impact of medical cost offset on practice and research: Making it work for you (pp. 11–25). Reno, NV: Context Press.Google Scholar
  19. Percevic, R. (2001). Adaptive-sequential testing in psychotherapy outcome monitoring. 32nd European Mathematical Psychology Group Meeting, Lisbon, Portugal. Retrieved from http://www.psyres-stuttgart.de/html/01/neuetech.html#testv
  20. Persevic, R., Lambert, M. J., & Kordy, H. (2004). Computer-supported monitoring of patient treatment response. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 60, 285–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Persons, J. B. (1991). Psychotherapy outcome studies do not accurately represent current models of psychotherapy: A proposed remedy. American Psychologist, 46, 99–106.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  23. Sapyta, J., Riemer, M., & Bickman, L. (2005). Feedback to clinicians: Theory, research, and practice. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 61, 145–153.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Simpson, D. D. (2002). A conceptual framework for transferring research to practice. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 22, 171–182.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Strum, R. (1999). Cost and quality trends under managed care: Is there a learning curve in behavioural health carve-out plans? Journal of Health Economics, 18, 593–604.Google Scholar
  26. U.S. Department of Health, Human Services. (1999). Mental Health: A Report of the Surgeon General. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Mental Health Services, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Mental Health.Google Scholar
  27. Weisz, J., Hawley, K., Jensen-Doss, A. (2004). Empirically tested psychotherapies for youth internalizing and externalizing problems and disorders. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 13, 729–815.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bruce F. Chorpita
    • 1
  • Adam Bernstein
    • 1
  • Eric L. Daleiden
    • 2
  • The Research Network on Youth Mental Health
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of Hawai’i at MānoaHonoluluUSA
  2. 2.Kismetrics, LLCSatellite BeachUSA
  3. 3.ChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations