The CORE‐OM and CORE‐OM (SV) in secure settings: a template analysis of the experiences of male patients and their staff
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/14636641311299068 |
| Pages | 32-43 |
| Date | 08 February 2013 |
| Published date | 08 February 2013 |
| Author | Tina Perry,Michael Barkham,Chris Evans |
| Subject Matter | Health & social care,Public policy & environmental management,Sociology |
The CORE-OM and CORE-OM (SV) in
secure settings: a template analysis of the
experiences of male patients and their staff
Tina Perry, Michael Barkham and Chris Evans
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to establish staff and patient opinions on the acceptability,
feasibility, and utility of using the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluations – Outcome Measure
(CORE-OM) in secure hospitals.
Design/methodology/approach – Patients and nurses (male patients and their key workers) from high,
medium and low secure hospitals participated in semi-structured interviews after completing CORE-OM
or CORE-OM (SV).
Findings – Template themes were acceptability,feasibility, relevance, suitability, changes to treatment,
and understanding. Findings suggest that the CORE-OM is acceptable and potentially useful in secure
settings.
Practical implications – This paper suggests that the CORE-OM is acceptable to patients and staff in
secure settings and appears to be a feasible measure for such settings. Further research and
accumulation of a referential database of item scores is needed for PROMS, including the CORE-OM, to
be fully useful in secure settings.
Originality/value – This paper will be of use to cliniciansworking with forensicmental health settings. It
is one of only two papers which investigate the use of the CORE-OM in forensic settings.
Keywords Mental health, Patients, Hospitals, Forensic practice, CORE-OM, CORE-OM (SV),
Outcome measures, PROMS, Patient views, Utility, Feasibility
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
This study aimed to establish staff and patient opinions on the acceptability, feasibility, and
utility of using the clinical outcomes in routine evaluations – outcome measure (CORE-OM)
in secure hospitals from male patients and their key workers. Routine change and outcome
measurement have long been sought in mental health (NIMHE, 2002) and their use has
strengthened development of evidenced-based practice and its necessary complement,
practice-based evidence (Margison et al., 2000). Patient reported outcome measure
(PROM) development has culminated in calls for their adoption in all routine clinical practice
(Fonagy et al., 2004; Office of Health Economics, 2008; Sederer et al., 1997) and it is now UK
Department of Health (2008, 2010) policy that PROMs be used in all physical and mental
health settings by April 2011. Research has shown that PROMS can improve therapeutic
alliance, quality of life, and satisfaction with care (Eisen et al., 2000; Horvath and Symonds,
1991; Priebe et al., 2007). They have also been seen to reduce financial costs (Wanless,
2002) and improved patient outcomes (Fremont et al., 2001). However, while the empirical
evidence for the use of PROMS is strong, is it not clear how they have an impact. The theory
of change (Weiss, 1995) reinforces the need to determine not only that an intervention has an
impact but also how and why. This theory recommends the need for outcomes to be clearly
measured prior to, during and after an intervention.
PAGE 32
j
JOURNAL OF FORENSIC PRACTICE
j
VOL. 15 NO. 1 2013, pp. 32-43, QEmerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 2050-8794 DOI 10.1108/14636641311299068
Tina Perry is based at the
Pennine Care NHS
Foundation Trust,
Manchester, UK.
Michael Barkham is based
at the Centre for
Psychological Services
Research, University of
Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Chris Evans is based at the
Nottinghamshire NHS Trust
and Nottingham University,
Nottingham, UK.
To continue reading
Request your trial