Implementation of outcome measurement (HoNOS) in an outpatient psychiatric clinic in Sligo/Leitrim mental health service
- 9 Downloads
Routine clinical outcome monitoring (RCOM) is the standardised gathering of measures of clinical outcomes in everyday practice. HoNOS (Health of the Nation Outcome Scales) is a tool used in RCOM.
To examine (a) agreement between HoNOS and Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF), (b) HoNOS changes over time/attendance and (c) clinical parameters affecting HoNOS scores.
Data from outpatient clinics were collected at each contact over 2 years until June 2016 including: gender, age, diagnosis (ICD-10) and HoNOS scores. In a subsample, the GAF also were completed by community psychiatric nurses blind to HoNOS scores.
A number of 470 outpatients have undergone 1125 HoNOS assessments during the study period. Mean age of the attendants was 43.12; SD 14.6. Male = 220 (46.8%). Longitudinal analysis demonstrated that lower HoNOS scores are independently significantly associated to number of assessments and diagnosis in ICD-10 categories of F20–F29 (Schizophrenia, schizotypal and delusional disorders) F30–F39 (mood disorders) F40–F48 (neurotic, stress-related and somatoform disorders) and F50–F59 (behavioural disorders associated with physiological disturbances). Gender and age were not significantly associated with decline of HoNOS scores. Neither were other diagnostic categories. Agreement between HoNOS and GAF was excellent (N = 261, rho = − 0.919, p < 0.001).
This study shows that HoNOS is a feasible instrument which can be potentially used in ROCM in mental health services in Ireland and supports further the need for implementation of routine measurements in Mental Health Services. It adds longitudinal data which is lacking in similar previous studies.
KeywordsHoNOS Ireland Outcomes Outpatient Psychiatry
We would like to thank the Doctors and CPNs working in this Mental Health Team for completion of the scales.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.
The project was approved by the Ethics Committee of Sligo University Hospital.
- 2.Quality and Effectiveness Section Mental Health & Suicide Prevention Branch Department of Health and Ageing (2003) Mental health national outcomes and case mix collection: overview of clinician related and consumer self-report measuresGoogle Scholar
- 3.New Zealand Ministry of Health (2012), Rising to the challenge: the Mental Health and Addiction Service Development Plan 2012–2017Google Scholar
- 4.Mental Health Commission Ireland (2006) Mental Health Commission Ireland Quality Framework for Mental Health ServicesGoogle Scholar
- 9.American Psychiatric Association (1994) Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-IV. American Psychiatric AssociationGoogle Scholar
- 11.Microsoft Corporation. SQL Server (2008) R2. Redmond. Microsoft Corporation, Washington, p 2010Google Scholar
- 12.IBM Corp (2014) IBM SPSS statistics for Windows. In: Version 23, vol 0. NY, ArmonkGoogle Scholar
- 14.Meagher D, O’Brien S, Pullela et al (2009) Multidisciplinary activities in a community mental health service: relationship to Health of the Nation Outcome Scale scores and diagnosis. Psychiatrist 33(5):172–175Google Scholar
- 18.Phuaphanprasert B, Srisurapanont M, SilpakitMD C et al (2007) Reliability and validity of the Thai version of the Health of the Nation Outcome Scales (HoNOS). J Med Assoc Thail 90(11):2487–2493Google Scholar
- 21.Trauer T (2003) Analysis of outcome measurement data from the four Victorian round one agencies. In: Mental health branch. Department of Human Services, VictoriaGoogle Scholar
- 23.Macdonald AJ, Adamis D, Craig, et al. (2018) Continuity of care and clinical outcomes in thecommunity for people with severe mental illness. The British Journal of Psychiatry(2018): 1-6. Published online: 05 December 2018 Google Scholar
- 28.Walter G, Cleary M, Rey JM (1998) Attitudes of mental health personnel towards rating outcome. J Qual Clin Pract 18(2):109–115Google Scholar