
Outcome measurement is becoming an integral part of health-care delivery. The attitudes of staff towards this development are important as they may influence ratings themselves, improve the design of measures and indicate how outcome assessment should be introduced into services. In this preliminary study, we surveyed staff from Central Sydney Mental Health Services who had taken part in a Commonwealth-funded project which had required them to rate patient outcome. The major concern expressed by respondents was that rating outcome was too time-consuming. More than half were not in favor of measuring outcome routinely even if it meant providing a better service to patients. The study methodology had limitations. However, if our findings are corroborated, attention will need to be paid to staff attitudes to outcome assessment so that ratings are more reliable and valid, properly inform treatment and meaningfully influence resource allocation.
Mental Health Services, Logistic Models, Attitude of Health Personnel, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Humans, Reproducibility of Results, New South Wales
Mental Health Services, Logistic Models, Attitude of Health Personnel, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Humans, Reproducibility of Results, New South Wales
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 27 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
