Do routine outcome monitoring results translate to clinical practice? A cross-sectional study in patients with a psychotic disorder

Abstract

Background

The use of Routine Outcome Monitoring (ROM) in mental health care has increased widely during the past decade. Little is known, however, on the implementation and applicability of ROM outcome in daily clinical practice. In the Netherlands, an extensive ROM-protocol for patients with psychotic disorders has been implemented over the last years (ROM-Phamous). The current study investigated to what extent ROM results translate to daily clinical practice. Therefore, we investigated whether clinical problems as identified with ROM were detected and used in the treatment of patients with psychotic disorders.

Methods

Out of the ROM database of 2010 (n = 1040), a random sample of 100 patients diagnosed with a psychotic disorder was drawn. ROM-data used in this study included a physical examination, laboratory tests, interviews and self-report questionnaires. Based on these data, the prevalence of positive and negative symptoms, psychosocial problems and cardiovascular risk factors was determined. Next, we investigated whether these problems, as identified with ROM, were reflected in the treatment plans of patients, as an indication of the use of ROM in clinical practice.

Results

The sample consisted of 63 males and 37 females. The mean age was 44 and the mean duration of illness was 17.7 years. The prevalence of positive and negative symptoms, psychosocial problems and cardiovascular risk factors ranged from 11 to 86 %. In the majority of cases, problems as identified with ROM were not reflected in the treatment plans of patients.

Conclusions

We found a substantial discrepancy between the ROM measurements and the treatment plans, i.e. low rates of detection of symptoms, psychosocial problems and cardiovascular risk factors in the treatment plans, even though these problems were identified with ROM. The opposite occurred as well, where problems were reflected in the treatment plans but not identified with ROM. Thus, ROM and daily clinical practice appear to be two separate processes, whereas ideally they should be integrated. Strong efforts should be made to integrate ROM and consequent treatment activities. Such integration may help to provide patients with adequate and customized care and simultaneously minimize under- and over-treatment.