Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorV. Catts, Stanley
dc.contributor.authorD.J. Frost, Aaron
dc.contributor.authorI. O'Toole, Brian
dc.contributor.authorJ. Carr, Vaughan
dc.contributor.authorLewin, Terry
dc.contributor.authorL. Neil, Amanda
dc.contributor.authorG. Harris, Meredith
dc.contributor.authorW. Evans, Russell
dc.contributor.authorCrissman, Belinda
dc.contributor.authorEadie, Kathy
dc.date.accessioned2017-05-03T12:52:44Z
dc.date.available2017-05-03T12:52:44Z
dc.date.issued2011
dc.identifier.issn00048674
dc.identifier.doi10.3109/00048674.2010.524621
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10072/44421
dc.description.abstractAim: Clinical practice improvement carried out in a quality assurance framework relies on routinely collected data using clinical indicators. Herein we describe the development, minimum training requirements, and inter-rater agreement of indicators that were used in an Australian multi-site evaluation of the effectiveness of early psychosis (EP) teams. Methods: Surveys of clinician opinion and face-to-face consensus-building meetings were used to select and conceptually define indicators. Operationalization of definitions was achieved by iterative refinement until clinicians could be quickly trained to code indicators reliably. Calculation of percentage agreement with expert consensus coding was based on ratings of paper-based clinical vignettes embedded in a 2-h clinician training package. Results: Consensually agreed upon conceptual definitions for seven clinical indicators judged most relevant to evaluating EP teams were operationalized for ease-of-training. Brief training enabled typical clinicians to code indicators with acceptable percentage agreement (60% to 86%). For indicators of suicide risk, psychosocial function, and family functioning this level of agreement was only possible with less precise 'broad range' expert consensus scores. Estimated kappa values indicated fair to good inter-rater reliability (kappa > 0.65). Inspection of contingency tables (coding category by health service) and modal scores across services suggested consistent, unbiased coding across services. Conclusions: Clinicians are able to agree upon what information is essential to routinely evaluate clinical practice. Simple indicators of this information can be designed and coding rules can be reliably applied to written vignettes after brief training. The real world feasibility of the indicators remains to be tested in field trials.
dc.description.peerreviewedYes
dc.description.publicationstatusYes
dc.languageEnglish
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherInforma Healthcare
dc.publisher.placeUnited Kingdom
dc.relation.ispartofstudentpublicationN
dc.relation.ispartofpagefrom63
dc.relation.ispartofpageto75
dc.relation.ispartofissue1
dc.relation.ispartofjournalAustralian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry
dc.relation.ispartofvolume45
dc.rights.retentionY
dc.subject.fieldofresearchHealth, Clinical and Counselling Psychology
dc.subject.fieldofresearchMedical and Health Sciences
dc.subject.fieldofresearchPsychology and Cognitive Sciences
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode170106
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode11
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode17
dc.titleClinical indicators for routine use in the evaluation of early psychosis intervention: development, training support and inter-rater reliability
dc.typeJournal article
dc.type.descriptionC1 - Articles
dc.type.codeC - Journal Articles
gro.date.issued2015-06-01T23:35:36Z
gro.hasfulltextNo Full Text
gro.griffith.authorCrissman, Belinda R.


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • Journal articles
    Contains articles published by Griffith authors in scholarly journals.

Show simple item record