Steps 5 and 6 of EBP: Finalizing the Treatment Plan and Practice Evaluation

  • James W. Drisko
  • Melissa D. Grady
Part of the Essential Clinical Social Work Series book series (ECSWS)


Step 5 of the EBP process is to finalize the treatment plan with the client and to formally document it in the client’s record. Step 5 builds on the collaborative exploration of relevant and potentially effective treatments done in Step 4. Step 6 of the EBP process is to implement the treatment, including monitoring and evaluation of the client’s progress. This chapter explores several issues related to finalizing the treatment plan. Clinical expertise is often required to ensure the treatment plan is feasible. Further, differences between the research designs most often found in systematic reviews and prioritized in the EBM/EBP hierarchy of evidence are compared and contrasted with research designs most often used in evaluating individual client progress. Several approaches to qualitative and quantitative clinical practice evaluation are also described and critically examined.


Evidence-based practice The steps of evidence-based practice Treatment planning Documenting treatment plans Practice evaluation versus EBP Models of practice evaluation 


  1. Amedeo, G. (1997). The theory, practice, and evaluation of the phenomenological method as a qualitative research procedure. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 28(2), 235–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barlow, D., Nock, M., & Hersen, M. (2008). Single case experimental designs: Strategies for studying behavior change (3rd ed.). New York: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  3. Bateman, A. & Fonagy, P. (1999). The effectiveness of partial hospitalization in the treatment of borderline personality disorder: A randomized controlled trial. American Journal of Psychiatry, 156, 1563–1569.Google Scholar
  4. Bateman, A. & Fonagy, P. (2001). Treatment of borderline personality disorder with psychoanalytically oriented partial hospitalization: An 18-month follow-up. American Journal of Psychiatry, 158, 36–42.Google Scholar
  5. Binks, C., Fenton, M., McCarthy, L., Lee, T., Adams, C., & Duggan, C. (2009). Psychological therapies for people with borderline personality disorder. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue 1. Art. No.: CD005652. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005652.Google Scholar
  6. Bringhurst, D. L., Watson, C. W., Miller, S. D., & Duncan, B. L. (2006). The reliability and validity of the Outcome Rating Scale: A replication study of a brief clinical measure. Journal of Brief Therapy, 5(1), 23–30.Google Scholar
  7. Cameron, M., & Keenan, E. K. (2010). The common factors model: Implications for transtheoretical clinical social work practice. Social Work, 55(1), 63–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Campbell, A., & Hemsley, S. (2009). Outcome Rating Scale and Session Rating Scale in psychological practice: Clinical utility of ultra-brief measures. Clinical Psychologist, 13(1), 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Campbell, M., Fitzpatrick, R., Haines, A., Kinmouth, A., Sandercock, P., Spiegelhalter, D., et al. (2000). Framework for design and evaluation of complex interventions to improve health. British Medical Journal, 321, 694. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chambon, A. (1994). The dialogical analysis of case materials. In W. Reid & E. Sherman (Eds.), Qualitative research in social work (pp. 205–215). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Chorpita, B. F., Becker, K., & Daleiden, E. (2007). Understanding the common elements of evidence-based practice: Misconceptions and clinical examples. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 46, 647–652.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chorpita, B. F., Bernstein, A., & Daleiden, E. (2008). Driving with Roadmaps and Dashboards: Using information resources to structure the decision models in service organizations. Administration Policy Mental Health, 35, 114–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cochrane, A. (1972). Effectiveness and efficiency: Random reflections on health services. London: Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust.Google Scholar
  14. Davis, I. (1994). Integrating qualitative and quantitative methods in practice evaluation in clinical research. In W. Reid & E. Sherman (Eds.), Qualitative research in social work (pp. 423–434). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Dean, R., & Reinherz, H. (1986). Psychodynamic practice and single system designs: The odd couple. Journal of Social Work Education, 22, 71–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Drisko, J. (2004). Common factors in psychotherapy effectiveness: Meta-analytic findings and their implications for practice and research. Families in Society, 85(1), 81–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Drisko, J. (2011). Researching clinical practice. In J. Brandell (Ed.), Theory and practice in clinical social work (2nd ed., pp. 717–738). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  18. Drisko, J. (2013). Research evidence and social work practice: The place of evidence-based practice. Clinical Social Work, 42(2), 123–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Duncan, B., Miller, S., Sparks, J., Claud, D., Reynolds, L., Brown, J., et al. (2003). The Session Rating Scale: Preliminary psychometric properties of a “working” alliance measure. Journal of Brief Therapy, 3(1), 3–12.Google Scholar
  20. Frank, J. D., & Frank, J. B. (1991). Persuasion and healing: A comparative study of psychotherapy (3rd ed.). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Gibbs, L. (2002). Evidence-based practice for the helping professions: A practical guide. New York: Brooks-Cole.Google Scholar
  22. Gilgun, J. (2005). The four cornerstones of evidence-based practice. Research on Social Work Practice, 15(1), 52–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gray, G. (2004). Concise guide to evidence-based psychiatry. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing.Google Scholar
  24. Greene, J., Doughty, J., Marquart, J., Ray, M., & Roberts, L. (1988). Qualitative evaluation audits in practice. Evaluation Review, 12(4), 352–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hollis, F. (1964). Casework: A psychosocial therapy. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  26. Jagaroo, V., Maxwell, D., & Satake, E. (2008). Handbook of statistical methods: Single subject design. San Diego, CA: Plural Publishing.Google Scholar
  27. Jayaratne, S. (1978). Analytic procedures for single-subject designs. Social Work Research & Abstracts, 14(3), 30–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Johnson, L., Miller, S., & Duncan, B. (2000). The session rating scale [SRS] 3.0. Chicago: Author.Google Scholar
  29. Kazi, M. (1998). Single-case evaluation by social workers. Hants, UK: Avebury Publishing.Google Scholar
  30. Lambert, M. (1992). Implications of outcome research for psychotherapy integration. In J. Norcross & J. Goldstein (Eds.), Handbook of psychotherapy integration (pp. 94–129). New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  31. Lambert, M. J. (2010). Prevention of treatment failure: The use of measuring, monitoring, & feedback in clinical practice. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lambert, M. J., Hansen, N., & Harmon, S. (2010). Outcome Questionnaire System (The OQ System): Development and practical applications in healthcare settings. In M. Barkham, G. E. Hardy, & J. Mellor-Clark (Eds.), Developing and delivering practice-based evidence: A guide for the psychological therapies (pp. 141–154). New York: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  33. Lambert, M. J., Kahler, M., Harmon, C., Burlingame, G. M., Shimokawa, K., & White, M. (2013). Administration and scoring manual: Outcome questionnaire OQ-45.2. Salt Lake City, UT: OQMeasures.Google Scholar
  34. Lambert, M. J., Smart, D., Campbell, M., Hawkins, E., Harmon, C., & Slade, K. (2006). Psychotherapy outcome, as measured by the OQ-45, in African American, Asian/Pacific Islander, Latino/a, and Native American clients compared with matched Caucasian clients. Journal of College Student Psychotherapy, 20(4), 17–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lambert, M. J., & Vermeersch, D. (2008). Measuring and improving psychotherapy outcome in routine practice. In S. Brown & R. Lent (Eds.), Handbook of counseling psychology (pp. 233–248). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley Inc.Google Scholar
  36. Lang, N. (1994). Integrating the data processing of qualitative research and social work practice to advance the practitioner as knowledge builder: Tools for knowing and doing. In W. Reid & E. Sherman (Eds.), Qualitative research in social work (pp. 265–278). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Linehan, M. (1993). Skills training manual for treating borderline personality disorder. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  38. McDowell, T. (2000). Practice evaluation as a collaborative process: A client’s and a clinician’s perceptions of helpful and unhelpful moments in a clinical interview. Smith College Studies in Social Work, 70(2), 375–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Miller, S., & Duncan, B. (2000). The outcome rating scale. Chicago: Author.Google Scholar
  40. Miller, S., Duncan, B., Brown, J., Sorrell, R., & Chalk, M. (2006). Using formal client feedback to improve retention and outcome: Making ongoing, real-time assessment feasible. Journal of Brief Therapy, 5(1), 5–22.Google Scholar
  41. Miller, S., Duncan, B., Brown, J., Sparks, J., & Claud, D. (2003). The Outcome Rating Scale: A preliminary study of the reliability, validity, and feasibility of a brief visual analog measure. Journal of Brief Therapy, 2, 91–100.Google Scholar
  42. National Association of Social Workers. (2016). NASW standards for social work practice in health care settings. Washington, DC: NASW Press.Google Scholar
  43. National Association of Social Workers (NASW). (2017). Code of ethics. Washington, DC: NASW Press.Google Scholar
  44. Nugent, W. (1992). Psychometric characteristics of self-anchored scales in clinical application. Journal of Social Service Research, 15(3–4), 137–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Nye, C. (1994). Discourse analysis methods and clinical research: A single case study. In W. Reid & E. Sherman (Eds.), Qualitative research in social work (pp. 216–227). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Orme, J., & Combs-Orme, T. (2012). Outcome-informed evidence-based practice. Boston: pearson.Google Scholar
  47. Percevic, R., Lambert, M. J., & Kordy, H. (2006). What is the predictive value of responses to psychotherapy for its future course? Empirical explorations and consequences for outcome monitoring. Psychotherapy Research, 16(3), 364–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. PracticeWise (2018). The PracticeWise services. Retrieved from Scholar
  49. Reese, R., Toland, M., Slone, N., & Norsworthy, L. (2010). Effect of client feedback on couple psychotherapy outcomes. Psychotherapy, 47, 616–630.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Ruckdeschel, R., Earnshaw, P., & Firrik, A. (1994). The qualitative case study and evaluation: issues, methods and examples. In W. Reid & E. Sherman (Eds.), Qualitative research in social work (pp. 251–264). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Shaw, I., & Lishman, J. (1999). Evaluation and social work practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  52. Thyer, B., & Myers, L. (2007). A social worker’s guide to evaluating practice outcomes. Alexandria, VA: Council on Social Work Education.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • James W. Drisko
    • 1
  • Melissa D. Grady
    • 2
  1. 1.School for Social WorkSmith CollegeNorthamptonUSA
  2. 2.School of Social ServiceCatholic University of AmericaWashington, DCUSA

Personalised recommendations