SCOTT D Miller - For the latest and greatest information on Feedback Informed Treatment

scottdmiller@ talkingcure.com +1.773.454.8511

Error-centric Practice: How Getting it Wrong can Help you Get it Right

By 1 Comment

It’s an idea that makes intuitive sense but is simultanesouly unappealing to most people. I, for one, don’t like it.  What’s more, it flies in the face of the “self-esteem” orientation that has dominated much of educational theory and practice over the last several decades.  And yet, research summarized in a recent issue of Scientific American Mind is clear: people learn the most when conditions are arranged so that they have to make mistakes.   Testing prior to learning, for example, improves recall of information learned after failing the pre-test regarding that same information.  As is well known, frequent testing following learning and/or skill acquisition significantly enhances retention of knowledge and abilities.  In short, getting it wrong can help you get it right more often in the future.

So, despite the short term risk to my self-esteem, “error-centric learning” is an evidence-based practice that I’m taking to heart.  I’m not only applying the approach in the trainings I offer to mental health professionals–beginning all of my workshop with a fun, fact-filled quiz–but in my attempts to master a completely new skill in my personal life: magic and mind reading.  And if the number of mistakes I routinely make in these pursuits is a reliable predictor of future success, well…I should be a master mind reading magician in little more than a few days.

Enough for now–back to practicing.  Tonight, in my hotel room in Buffalo, New York, I’m working on a couple of new card tricks.  Take a look at the videos of two new effects I recorded over the weekend.  Also, don’t miss the interview with Cindy Voelker and John Catalino on the implementation of Feedback-Informed Treatment (FIT) at Spectrum Human Services here in Buffalo.

The Impact of Mentors

By Leave a Comment

Brendan Madden   Scott D. Miller   Jeffrey K. Zeig

A little over month ago, I blogged about how the outcome and session rating scales were originally conceived of and developed.  A few days prior to that, I wrote about where the whole idea of using measures to solicit feedback had started.  In both instances, my teachers and supervisors played a significant role. Immediately following a two day workshop I’d given in Israel, psychologist Haim Omer suggested developing a visual analog scale that could be used in lieu of the longer Outcome Questionnaire 45.2–an idea that literally changed the entire arc of my professional career.  Drs. Lynn Johnson and Michael Lambert–a supervisor and professor I met and worked with as a graduate student–were the first to pioneer feedback-informed treatment (FIT).  Some twenty plus years into my career, I remain in contact with both, calling, seeking input, discussing ideas, and soliciting feedback.

“Professional coaches,” says the noted “expert on experts” K. Anders Erickson, “…play an essential role in guiding…future experts in a safe and effective manner” (p. 698).   Needless to say, I’ve been very fortunate to have such visionary mentors.  One more story.

In 1984, I wrote a letter to Dr. Jeffrey K. Zeig, the director of the Milton H. Erickson Institute.  I was in my second year of a Ph.D. program in psychology and, like many graduate students, dead broke.  While taking a course on hypnosis as part of my studies, I’d become interested in the work of Milton Erickson.

“I’d like to learn more,” I wrote at the time, “Would it be possible for me to visit the Institute, watch some videos and have a chance to talk with you?”  I wasn’t too far away.  I could drive to Phoenix where the Institute was located.  I could even arrange to stay with friends to save money.  “Dr. Zeig,” I continued, “I’m a graduate student and don’t have much money, but I’d be willing to do some work in kind.”  I’d pasted mailing labels on thousands of brochures for the local hypnosis and therapy organizations, for example, in exchange for being able to attend professional continuing education events.  “I’ll vacuum and clean the office, wash vehicles, do filing.  Whatever might be helpful to you or the Institute.”

Within a couple of weeks, an envelop from the Milton H. Erickson Institute arrived.  In it was a letter that was brief and to the point.  “Please call me,” it said, and was signed Jeffrey K. Zeig, Ph.D.  Needless to say, I called straight away.  We chatted for a few minutes.  He told me that I was welcome to visit the Institute, watch videos, talk with some of the staff and even spend some time with him.  And then he asked, “Do you think you could afford five dollars?”  I was floored.

Ever since meeting him on that hot summer day in Phoenix, he’s been an important teacher and mentor.  It’s particularly noteworthy that whenever we talk–by phone, email, or in chance meetings on airplanes while criss-crossing the globe–he invariably asks, “What are you learning?”  And then he listens, intently.

Last week, we were catching up on the phone and Jeff told me that his long-held desire to open an international psychotherapy training and research facility had finally been fulfilled.  Briefly, The Institute for Applied Therapeutic Change is a real clinic where professionals and students can learn the latest in behavioral healthcare from leading experts in the field and while working with real clients (click on the text above for the complete press release).

“I can hardly wait to attend some of the events,” I said.  “And when are you available to teach?” he responded.   Stunned again.  I’m so fortunate and can hardly wait to participate in the Institute activities as both a presenter and student.  Stay tuned to the Foundation website for more details!

So you want to be a better therapist? Take a hike!

By Leave a Comment

How best to improve your performance as a clinician?  Take the continuing education multiple-choice quiz:

a. Attend a two-day training;
b. Have an hour of supervision from a recognized expert in a particular treatment approach;
c. Read a professional book, article, or research study;
d. Take a walk or nap.

If you chose a, b, or c, welcome to the world of average performance!  As reviewed on my blog (March 2010), there is exactly zero evidence that attending a continuing education event improves performance.  Zero.  And supervision?  In the most recent review of the research, researchers Beutler et al. (2005) concluded, “Supervision of psychotherapy cases has been the major method of ensuring that therapists develop proficiency and skill…unfortunately, studies are sparse…and apparently, supervisors tend to rate highly the performance of those who agree with them” (p. 246).  As far as professional books, articles, and studies are concerned–including those for which a continuing education or “professional development” point may be earned–the picture is equally grim.  No evidence.  That leaves taking a walk or nap!

K. Anders Ericsson–the leading researcher in the area of expertise and expert performance–points out the type and intensity of practice required to improve performance, “requires concentration that can be maintained only for limited periods of time.”  As a result, he says, “expert performers from many domains engage in practice without rest for only around an hour…The limit…holds true for a wide range of elite performers in difference domains…as does their increased tendency to recperative take naps”  (p.699, Erickson, 2006).  By the way, Ericsson will deliver a keynote address at the upcoming “Achieving Clinical Excellence” conference.  Sign up now for this event to reserve your space!


Two recently released studies add to the evidence base on rest and expertise.  The first, conducted at the University of California, Berkeley by psychologist Matthew Walker found that a midday nap markedly improved the brain’s learning capacity.  The second, published last week in the European Journal of Developmental Psychology, found that simply taking a walk–one where you are free to choose the speed–similarly improved performance on complex cognitive tasks.

So, there you go.  I’d say more but I’m feeling sleepy.

Feedback Informed Treatment (FIT): A Worldwide Trend in Behavioral Health

By Leave a Comment

In my prior blogpost, I reviewed exciting developments taking place throughout Canada regarding “feedback-informed treatment” (FIT).  For those following me on Twitter–and if you’re not, please do so by clicking on the link–you already know that last week I was in Tunbridge, England for a two day training sponsored by the Kent-Medway National Healthcare Trust on “Supershrinks: Learning from the Fields Most Effective Practitioners.”  Interest in outcomes is growing exponentially, becoming a worldwide phenomenon.

It was a real pleasure being asked to work with the dedicated–and I must say, long-suffering–physicians, psychologists, counselors, social workers, and nurses of the NHS Trust.  I say “long-suffering” because these healthcare professionals, like others around the globe, are laboring to provide effective services while contending with a back breaking amount of paperwork, oversight, mandated treatment protocols, and regulation.

Much of the mess that behavioral health practitioners find themselves in is due to the way “good practice” is and has been conceptualized.  Simply put, the field–it’s researchers, visionaries, policy makers and sadly, many clinicians–are still stuck in the penicillin era, promoting specific treatments for specific disorders.  The result has been a growing list of protocols, fidelity and adherence measures, and other documentation requirements.  As pointed Bohanske and Franzcak point out in their excellent chapter on transforming behavioral health in the latest edition of The Heart and Soul of Change: Delivering What Works in Therapy, “The forms needed to obtain a marriage certificate, buy a new home, lease an automobile, apply for a passport, open a bank account, and die of natural causes…altogether…weigh 1.4 ounces.  By contrast, the paperwork required for enrolling a single mother in counseling to talk about difficulties her child [is] experiencing [weigh] 1.25 pounds” (p. 300).

Something has to change, and that something is the incessant focus on controlling the process–or “how”– of treatment.  Instead, as the video interview below illustrates, emphasis can be placed on outcome.  Doing so will not only simplify oversight and regulation but, as an increasing number of studies show, result in improved “FIT” and effect of services offered.

 

O Canada! Leading the Way to Improved Behavioral Health Services

By Leave a Comment

Last month, I traveled back and forth between the United States and Canada several times.  First, I was in Edmonton working with several hundred dedicated social workers, case managers, and therapists at The Family Centre.  A week later I traveled to Saskatoon, spending two days talking about outcome-informed clinical work at the Addiction Professionals Association of Saskatchewan annual conference (Photos below are from the APASK meeting.  The first during the presentation, the second with Ruth and Laurel).

The evening following this event, I flew to Calgary where I spent the day with the clinical crew at Calgary Counseling Center.  I caught a red-eye home to Chicago and then returned to Canada the following week stopping over first in Vancouver for a workshop on drug and alcohol treatment sponsored by Jack Hirose & Associates and then continued on to Calgary where I met with the staff and managers of each program that comprises Aspen Family and Community Network Society.

The reason for all the frenetic activity?  A perfect storm has been brewing for some time that is culminating in a tidal wave of interest in using outcomes to inform and improve behavioral health services.  First and foremost: vision.  Specifically, key thought and action leaders not only embraced the idea of seeking feedback from consumers but worked hard to implement outcome-informed work in the settings in which they work: Bill Smiley at  The Family Centre, Robbie Babbins-Wagner at Calgary Counseling Center, and Kim Ruse at Aspen Family and Community Network Society.  Second, as I’ve been warning about for over a decade, one province in Canada–Alberta–passed an initiative which links future agency funding to “the achievement of outcomes.”  Indeed, “outcome” is identified as “the central driver for both case work practice and allocation of resources.”  Third, and finally, economic times are tough.  Payers–be they clients, insurance companies, or government bodies–want proof of a “return on investment” for the money spent on behavioral health services.

Needless to say, it was an inspiring month.  I managed to capture some of that in an interview I did with the director of the Calgary Counseling Center, Robbie Babbins-Wagner.  In it, she describes “why” she and CCC staff are committed to measuring outcomes as well as reviews the challenges involved.  Take a look:

Implementing Consumer-Driven, Outcome-Informed (CDOI) Behavioral Health Services: The ICCE and 2010 Training of Trainers Event

By Leave a Comment

This week I’m in Calgary, Canada. Last week, I was in Charleston, South Carolina. Next week, I’ll be in Marion, Ohio and Bay City, Michigan. In each instance, I’m working with the management and staff of public behavioral health agencies that are busy implementing consumer-driven, outcome-informed clinical work.

Some of the groups are just beginning the process.  Others, as reported here on my blog, have been at it long enough to document significant improvements in outcome, retention, and productivity (i.e., in Ohio and Virginia).  All have told me that implementing the seemingly simple ideas of outcome-informed practice is incredibly hard work–impacting nearly every aspect of agency life.  Being able to access the expertise and experience of fellow clinicians and agency directors in real time when questions and challenges arise is, I’ve also learned, critical in maintaining the momentum necessary for successful implementation.

Enter the ICCE: The International Center for Clinical Excellence.  Briefly, the ICCE is a web-based community of clinicians, researchers, agency managers, and policy makers dedicated to excellence in behavioral health.  Many of the groups I’m working with have joined the site providing them with 24/7/365 access to a deeply knowledgeable world-wide community.  In addition to the numerous topic-specific discussion groups and member-generated videos, organizations can set up private forums where management and clinicians can have confidential discussions and coordinate implementation efforts.

If you are a clinician or agency director and are not already a member, you and/or your organization can access the ICCE community today by visiting the website at: www.centerforclinicalexcellence.com.  Membership is free.  In the video below, I talk with Arjan Van der Weijde, about groups in Holland that are meeting on on the ICCE for practitioners to discuss their implementation of feedback-informed work in the Netherlands.  Check it out.

I’ve also included a brief video about the upcoming “Training of Trainers” course, held each year in August in Chicago.  As in prior years, professionals from all over the world will be joining me and the state-of-the-art faculty for four intensive days of training.  Agencies both public and private, in the U.S. and abroad, are sending staff to the event to learn the skills necessary to lead transformation projects.  Space is already limited so register soon.

The Training of Trainers

The Road to Clinical Excellence is Paved with Practice, Mistakes, & Hard Work

By Leave a Comment

Last week, I received an email from David Claud.  I’ve known Dave for the better part of a decade, having met–I believe–at a Ericksonian Conference in Florida where he lives and works.  He and the crew at the Center for Family Service in Palm Beach County figure prominently in the history of routine outcome measure and feedback.  After hearing me speak, Dave took the measures back to the center and, together with the staff, became one of the first agencies in the country to formally adopt and use the ORS and SRS.  Additionally, data gathered at CFS was used in some of the initial validation studies of the measures.  Finally, their own research, cited in the second edition of The Heart and Soul of Change document dramatic improvements in outcome as well as decreased lengths of stay, cancellation and no show rates (40, 40, and 25% respectively).

Anyway, in his email, Dave included a link to a recent article by Ann Hulbert in Slate magazine.  I’m lucky to have friends like Dave and others who keep me informed and up-to-date.  The title of the piece certainly got my attention: “The Dark Side of the New Theories of Success: What the New Success Books Don’t tell you about Superachievement.”

As readers of my blog know, I’ve been pouring through the literature on excellence over this last year in an attempt to understand why some clinicians achieve reliably better outcomes than others.  I first wrote about our findings in an article titled, “Supershrinks: Learning from the Field’s Most Effective Practitioners” that appeared in the Psychotherapy Networker.  Since then, I’ve continued to work and research, together with senior associates at the International Center for Clinical Excellence, to deepen and refine the “steps to clinical excellence” that any therapist could follow to improve performance.

Alas, I’m not alone in my interest in the literature on expertise.  A number of books, starting with Gladwell’s delightfully engaging Outliers, have appeared in the last year or so on the subject, including: The Talent Code, Bounce: The Science of Success, The Genius in All of Us: Why Everything You’ve Been Told About Genetics, Talent, and IQ Is Wrong and my personal favorite Talent Is Overrated: What Really Separates World-Class Performers from Everybody Else.  The appearance of so many books is interesting.  With few exceptions (i.e., sports psychology), K. Anders Erickson and colleagues labored in viritual academic obscurity for decades formulating hypotheses, conducting research and assembling evidence.  And then suddenly: boom!  EVERYBODY is talking about their work.

Always wanting to “hear” both sides of the story, I immediately clicked on the link in Dave’s email and read the article.  I was dumbfounded.  Hulbert’s gripe about the recent spate of books is in fact the central point of each: achieving superior performance in any field is bloody hard work.  “They don’t always do realistic justice to the grunt work they champion,” whines Hulbert, tending instead to, “gloss over the sweaty specifics….distracting us from how arduous, tedious, and dependent on adult pushiness it can be…[and] glamorizing its intensity.”

My response: “Oh, contraire mon fraire!”

All of the books and research studies point to the years of dedicated and painstaking work involved in achieving world class levels of performance across a variety of domains (sports, music, medicine, computer programming, and psychology).  K. Ander’s Erickson–who will, by the way, be one of the keynote presenters at the upcoming “Achieving Clinical Excellence” conference–is fond of saying, “Unlike play, deliberate practice is not inherently motivating; and unlike work, it does not lead to immediate social and monetary rewards…and actually generates costs…”.  Little wonder few of us–myself included–engage in it on any regular basis.

The question that begs an answer is, “why would anyone do it?”  Consider the brief video clip below:

Impressive, huh?  I can’t imagine the amount of time it must have taken to master such a performance.  No camera tricks. Just plain old fashioned trial-and-error, practice, and hard work.

We are finding the same pattern among top performing therapists.  In short, they have an “error-centric” approach to practice–constantly looking for what they do that doesn’t work and taking time to plan, identify and try alternatives, and then reflect and refine their process-improvement efforts.  Such activity is cognitively taxing and, in most instances, not immediately rewarding (financially or otherwise).  But there is more to the story.  It turns out that superior performance is not a matter of working harder.  Most of us work hard at our jobs.  Rather, becoming a better clinician is about working smarter.   Here, the literature on expertise provides clear, empirically-supported guidelines.

If you’re feeling inspired, why not pick up one of the books?  Also, be sure and join us at the upcoming “Achieving Clinical Excellence” conference where the ideas and steps will be discussed in detail.

After the Thrill is Gone: Sustaining a Commitment to Routinely Seeking Feedback

By Leave a Comment


Helsingor Castle (the setting for Shakespeare’s Hamlet)

Dateline: May 8th, 2010, Helsingor, Denmark

This weekend I’m in Denmark doing a two-day workshop on “Supershrinks” sponsored by Danish psychologist and ICCE Senior Associate and Trainer Susanne Bargmann.  Just finished the first day with a group of 30 talented clinicians working diligently to achieve their personal best.  The challenge, I’m increasingly aware, is sustaining a commitment to seeking client feedback over time once the excitement of a workshop is over.  On the surface, the idea seems simple: ask the consumer.  In practice however, it’s not easy.  The result is that many practitioners who are initially enthusiastic lose steam, eventually setting aside the measures.  It’s a serious concern given that available evidence documents the dramatic impact of routine outcome and alliance monitoring on outcome and retention in behavioral health.

Support of like-minded colleagues is one critical key for sustaining commitment “after the thrill is gone.”  Where can you find such people?  As I blogged about last week, over a thousand clinicians are connecting, sharing, and supporing each other on the web-based community of the International Center for Clinical Excellence (If you’re not already a member, click here to request your own personal (and free) invitation to join the conversation).

In the brief interview above, Susanne identifies a few additional steps that practitioners and agencies can take for making the process of seeking feedback successful over the long haul.  By the way, she’ll be covering these principles and practices in detail in an afternoon workshop at the upcoming Achieving Clinical Excellence conference.  Don’t miss it!

Finding Feasible Measures for Practice-Based Evidence

By Leave a Comment

Let’s face it.  Clinicians are tired.  Tired of paperwork (electronic or othrwise).  When I’m out and about training–which is every week by the way–and encouraging therapists to monitor and measure outcomes in their daily work few disagree in principle.  The pain is readily apparent however, the minute the paper version of the Outcome Rating Scale flashes on the screen of my PowerPoint presentation.

It’s not uncommon nowadays for clinicians to spend 30-50% of their time completing intake, assessment, treatment planning, insurance, and other regulatory forms.  Recently, I was in Buffalo, New York working with a talented team of children’s mental health professionals.  It was not uncommon, I learned, to spend most of two outpatient visits doing the required paperwork.  When one considers that the modal number of sessions consumers attend is 1 and the average approximately 5 its hard not to conclude that something is seriously amiss.

Much of the “fear and loathing” dissipates when I talk about the time it usually takes to complete the Outcome and Session Ratings Scales.  On average, filling out and scoring the measures takes about a minute a piece.  Back in January, I blogged about research on the ORS and SRS, including a summary in PDF format of all studies to date.  The studies make clear that the scales are valid and reliable.  Most important, however, for day-to-day clinical practice, the ORS and SRS are also the most clinically feasible measures available.

Unfortunately, many of the measures currently in use were never designed for routine clinical practice–certainly few therapists were consulted.  In order to increase “complaince” with such time consuming outcome tools, many agencies advise clinicians to complete the scales occasionally (e.g., “prime numbers” [5,7, 11 and so on]) or only at the beginning and end of treatment.  The very silliness of such ideas will be immediately apparent to anyone who ever actually conducted treatment.  Who can predict a consumer’s last session?  Can you imagine a similar policy ever flying in medicine?  Hey Doc, just measure your patient’s heart rate at the beginning and end of the surgery!  Inbetween? Fahgetabotit.  Moreover, as I blogged about from behind the Icelandic ash plume, the latest research strongly favors routine measurement and feedback.  In real-world clinical settings feasibility is every bit as important as reliability and validity.  Agency managers, regulators, and policy makers ignore it at their own (and their data’s) peril.

How did the ORS and SRS end up so brief and without any numbers?  When asked at workshops, I usually respond, “That’s an interesting story.”  And then continue, “I was in Israel teaching.  I’d just finished a two day workshop on ‘What Works.'” (At the time, I was using and recommending the 10-item SRS and 45-item OQ).

“The audience was filing out of the auditorium and I was shutting down my laptop when the sponsor approached the dais.  ‘Scott,’ she said, ‘one of the participants has a last question…if you don’t mind.'”

“Of course not,” I immediately replied.

“His name is Haim Omer.  Do you know of him?”


Dr. Haim Omer

“Know him?” I responded, “I’m a huge fan!”  And then, feeling a bit weak in the knees asked, “Has he been here the w h o l e time?”

Haim was as gracious as ever when he finally made it to the front of the room.  “Great workshop, Scott.  I’ve not laughed so hard in a long time!”  But then he asked me a very pointed question.  “Scott,” he said and then paused before continuing, “you complained a bit about the length of the two measures you are using.  Why don’t you use a visual analog scale?”

“That’s simple Haim,” I responded, “It’s because I don’t know what a visual analog measure is!”

Haim described such scales in detail, gave me some examples (e.g., smiley and frowny faces), and even provided references.  My review on the flight home reminded me of a simple neuropsychological assessment scale I used on internship called “The Line Bisection Task”–literally a straight line (a measure developed by my neuropsych supervisor, Dr. Tom Schenkenberg).   And the rest is, as they say, history.

Feedback, Friends, and Outcome in Behavioral Health

By Leave a Comment


My first year in college, my declared major was accounting.  What can I say?  My family didn’t have much money and my mother–who chose my major for me–thought that the next best thing to wealth was being close to money.

Much to her disappointment I switched from accounting to psychology in my sophomore year.  That’s when I first met Dr. Michael Lambert.


Michael J. Lambert, Ph.D.

It was 1979 and I was enrolled in a required course taught by him on “tests and measures.”  He made an impression to be sure.  He was young and hip–the only professor I met while earning my Bachelor’s degree who insisted the students call him by his first name.  What’s more, his knowledge and passion made what everyone considered the “deadliest” class in the entire curriculum seem positively exciting.  (The text, Cronbach’s classic Essentials of Psychological Testing, 3rd Edition, still sits on my bookshelf–one of the few from my undergraduate days).  Within a year, I was volunteering as a “research assistant,” reading and then writing up short summaries of research articles.

Even then, Michael was concerned about deterioration in psychotherapy.  “There is ample evidence,” he wrote in his 1979 book, The Effects of Psychotherapy (Volume 1), “that psychotherapy can and does cause harm to a portion of those it is intended to help” (p. 6).  And where the entire field was focused on methods, he was hot on the trail of what later research would firmly establish as the single largest source of variation in outcome: the therapist.  “The therapist’s contribution to effective psychotherapy is evident,” he wrote, “…training and selection on dimensions of…empathy, warmth, and genuineness…is advised, although little research supports the efficacy of current training procedures.”  In a passage that would greatly influence the arc of my own career, he continued, “Client perception…of the relationship correlate more highly with outcome that objective judges’ ratings” (Lambert, 1979, p. 32).

Fast forward 32 years.  Recently, Michael sent me a pre-publication copy of a mega-analysis of his work on using feedback to improve outcome and reduce deterioration in psychotherapy.  Mega-analysis combines original, raw data from multiple studies–in this case 6–to create a large, representative data set of the impact of feedback on outcome.  In his accompanying email, he said, “our new study shows what the individual studies have shown.”  Routine, ongoing feedback from consumers of behavioral health services not only improves overall outcome but reduces risk of deterioration by nearly two thirds!    The article will soon appear in the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology.

Such results were not available when I first began using Lambert’s measure–the OQ 45–in my clinical work.  It was late 1996.  My colleagues and I had just put the finishing touches on Escape from Babel, our first book together on the “common factors.”

That’s when I received a letter from my colleague and mentor, Dr. Lynn Johnson.


Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D.

In the envelop was a copy of an article Lynn had written for the journal, Psychotherapy entitled, “Improving Quality in Psychotherapy” in which he argued for the routine measurement of outcome in psychotherapy.  He cited three reasons: (1) providing proof of effectiveness to payers; (2) enabling continuous analysis and improvement of service delivery; and (3) giving consumers voice and choice in treatment.  (If you’ve never read the article, I highly recommend it–if for no other reason than its historical significance.  I’m convinced that the field would be in far better shape now had Lynn’s suggestions been heeded then).

Anyway, I was hooked.  I soon had a bootleg copy of the OQ and was using it in combination with Lynn’s Session Rating Scale with every person I met.

It wasn’t always easy.  The measure took time and more than a few of my clients had difficulty reading and comprehending the items on the measure.  I was determined however, and so persisted, occasionally extending sessions to 90 minutes so the client and I could read and score the 45-items together.

Almost immediately, routinely measuring and talking about the alliance and outcome had an impact on my work.  My average number of sessions began slowly “creeping up” as the number of single-session therapies, missed appointments, and no shows dropped.  For the first time in my career, I knew when I was and was not effective.  I was also able to determine my overall success rate as a therapist.  These early experiences also figured prominently in development of the Outcome Rating Scale and revision of the Session Rating Scale.

More on how the two measures–the OQ 45 and original 10-item SRS–changed from lengthy Likert scales to short, 4-item visual analog measures later.  At this point, suffice it to say I’ve been extremely fortunate to have such generous and gifted teachers, mentors, and friends.

Bringing up Baseline: The Effect of Alliance and Outcome Feedback on Clinical Performance

By 1 Comment

Not long ago, my friend and colleague Dr. Rick Kamins was on vacation in Hawaii.  He was walking along the streets of a small village, enjoying the warm weather and tropical breezes, when the sign on a storefront caught his eye.  Healing Arts Alliance, it read.  The proprietor?  None other than, “Scott Miller, Master of Oriental Medicine.”

“With all the talking you do about the alliance,” Rick emailed me later, “I wondered, could it be the same guy?!”

I responded, “Ha, the story of my life.  You go to Hawaii and all I get is this photo!”

Seriously though, I do spend a fair bit of time when I’m out and about talking about the therapeutic alliance.  As reviewed in the revised edition of The Heart and Soul of Change there are over 1100 studies documenting the importance of the alliance in successful psychotherapy.  Simply put, it is the most evidence-based concept in the treatment literature.

At the same time, whenever I’m presenting, I go to great lengths to point out that I’m not teaching an “alliance-based approach” to treatment.  Indeed–and this can be confusing–I’m not teaching any treatment approach whatsoever.  Why would I?  The research literature is clear: all approaches work equally well.  So, when it comes to method, I recommend that clinicians choose the one that fits their core values and preferences.  Critically, however, the approach must also fit and work for the person in care–and this is where research on the alliance and feedback can inform and improve retention and outcome.


Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D.

Back in 1994, my long time mentor Dr. Lynn Johnson encouraged me to begin using a simple scale he’d developed.  It was called…(drum roll here)…”The Session Rating Scale!”  The brief, 10-item measure was specifically designed to obtain feedback on a session by session basis regarding the quality of the therapeutic alliance.  “Regular use of [such] scales,” he argued in his book Psychotherapy in the Age of Accountability, “enables patients to be the judge of the…relationship.  The approach is…egalitarian and respectful, supporting and empowering the client” (Johnson, 1995, p. 44).  If you look at the current version of the SRS, you will see Lynn is listed on the copyright line–as Paul Harvey would say, “And now you know…the rest of the story.”  Soon, I’ll tell you how the measure went from a 10-item, Likert scale to a 4-item visual analog scale.

Anyway, some 17 years later, research has now firmly validated Lynn’s idea: formally seeking feedback improves both retention and outcome in behavioral health.  How does it work?  Unfortunately science, as Malcoln Gladwell astutely observes, “all too often produces progress in advance of understanding.”  That said, recent evidence indicates that routinely monitoring outcome and alliance establishes and serves to maintain a higher level of baseline performance.   In other words, regularly seeking feedback helps clinicians attend to core therapeutic principles and processes easily lost in the complex give-and-take of the treatment hour.

Such findings are echoed in the research literature on expertise which shows that superior performers across a variety of domains (physics, computer programming, medicine, etc.) spend more time than average performers reviewing basic core principles and practice.


At an intensive training in Antwerp, Belgium

The implications for improving practice are clear: before reaching for the stars, we should attend to the ground we stand on.  It’s so simple, some might think it stupid.  How can a four item scale given at the end of a session improve anything?  And yet, in medicine, construction, and flight training, there is a growing reliance on such “checklists” to insure that proven steps to success are not overlooked.  Atul Gawande reviews this practice in his new and highly readable book, The Checklist Manifesto: How to Get Things Right.  Thanks go to Dan Buccino, member of the International Center for Clinical Excellence, for bringing this work to my attention.  (By the way, you can connect with Dan and Lynn in the ICCE community.  If you’re not a member, click here to join.  It’s free).

The only question that remains is, I suppose, with all the workshops and training on “advanced methods and specialized techniques,” will practitioners interested in bringing up baseline?

Learning, Mastery, and Achieving One’s Personal Best

By Leave a Comment


Dateline: Sunday, April 25th, 2010 Chicago, IL

There’s a feeling I get whenever I’m learning something new.  It’s a combination of wonder and possibility.  Even though I’ve been traveling and teaching full time for over 18 years, I still feel that get that feeling of excitement whenever I step on a plane: What will I see?  Who will I meet?  What will I learn?  Move over Indiana Jones, you’ve got nothing on me!

On my desk right now are stacks of books on the subject of expertise and expert performance: The Talent Code: Greatness Isn’t Born. It’s Grown. Here’s How, The Genius in All of Us: Why Everything You’ve Been Told About Genetics, Talent, and IQ Is Wrong, The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity, The Psychology of Abilities, Competencies, and Expertise, Why We Make Mistakes: How We Look Without Seeing, Forget Things in Seconds, and Are All Pretty Sure We Are Way Above Average, and many, many more.

On the floor, arranged in neat little piles, are reams of research articles, newspaper clippings, and pages torn out of magazines.  Literally, all on the same subject: how can we clinicians reliably achieve better results?

I’ve never been one to “settle” for very long.  It’s the journey not the destination I find appealing.  Thus, I began exploring the common factors when it became clear that treatment models contributed little if anything to outcome (click here to read the history of this transition).  When I became convinced that the common factors held little promise for improving results in psychotherapy, I followed the lead of two my mentors, professor Michael Lambert (who I worked with as an undergraduate) and psychologist Lynn Johnson (who trained and supervised me), and began measuring outcome and seeking feedback.  Now that research has firmly established that using measures of the alliance and outcome to guide service delivery significantly enhances performance (see the comprehensive summary of research to date below), I’ve grown restless again.

In truth, I find discussions about the ORS and SRS a bit, well, boring.  That doesn’t mean that I’m not using or teaching others to use the measures.  Learning about the tools is an important first step.  Getting clinicians to actually use them is also important.  And yet, there is a danger if we stop there.

Right now, we have zero evidence that measurement and feedback improves the performance of clinicians over time.  More troubling, the evidence we do have strongly suggests that clinicians do not learn from the feedback they receive from outcome and alliance measures.  Said another way, while the outcome of each particular episode of care improves, clinicians overall ability does not.   And that’s precisely why I’m feeling excited–the journey is beginning…

…and leads directly to Kansas City where, on October 20-22nd, 2010, leading researchers and clinicians will gather to learn the latest, evidence-based information and skills for improving performance in the field of behavioral health.  As of today, talented professionals from Australia, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Germany, England, Israel, and the United States have registered for the international “Achieving Clinical Excellence” conference.  Some common questions about the event include:

1. What will I learn?

How to determine your overall effectiveness and what specifically you can do to improve your outcomes.

2. Is the content new?

Entirely.  This is no repeat of a basic workshop or prior conferences.  You won’t hear the same presentations on the common factors, dodo verdict, or ORS and SRS.   You will learn the skills necessary to achieve your personal best.

3. Are continuing education credits available?

Absolutely–up to 18 hours depending on whether you attend the pre-conference “law and ethics” training.  By the way, if you register now, you’ll get the pre-conference workshop essentially free!  Three days for one low price.

4. Will I have fun?

Guaranteed.  In between each plenary address and skill building workshop, we’ve invited superior performers from sports, music, and entertainment to perform and inspire .  If you’ve never been to Kansas City, you’ll enjoy the music, food, attractions, and architecture.

Feel free to email me with any questions or click here to register for the conference.  Want a peak at some of what will be covered?  Watch the video below, which I recorded last week in Sweden while “trapped” behind the cloud of volcanic ash.  In it, I talk about the “Therapists Most Likely to Succeed.”

More Eruptions (in Europe and in Research)

By Leave a Comment

Dateline: Tuesday, 8:21pm, April 20th, 2010, Skellefteå, Sweden

What an incredible week.  Spent the day today working with 250 social workers, case managers, psychologists, psychiatrists, and agency directors in the far nothern town of Skellefteå, Sweden.  Many practitioners here are already measuring outcomes on an ongoing basis and using the information to improve the results of their work with consumers of behavioral health services.  Today, I presented the latest findings from ICCE’s ongoing research on “Achieving Clinical Excellence.”

I’ve been coming to the area to teach and consult since the early 1990’s, when I was first invited to work with Gun-Eva Langdahl and the rest of the talented crew at Rådgivningen Oden (RO).  As in previous years, I spent my first day (Monday) in Skellefteå watching sessions and working with clients at RO clinic.  Frankly, getting to Skellefteå from Goteborg had been a bit of ordeal.  What usually took a little over an hour by plane ended up being a 12-hour combination of cars, trains, and buses–all due to volcanic eruptions on Iceland.  (I shudder to think of how I will get from Skellefteå to Amsterdam on Wednesday evening if air travel doesn’t resume).

Anyway, the very first visit of the day at Rådgivningen Oden was with an adolescent and her parents.  Per usual, the session started with the everyone completing and discussing the Outcome Rating Scale.  The latest research reported in the April 2010 edition of Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (JCCP) confirms the wisdom of this practice: measuring and discussing progress with consumers at every visit results in better outcomes.

It turns out that adolescents are at greater risk for deteriorating in treatment than adults (20% versus 10%).  Importantly, the study in JCCP by Warren, Nelson, Mondragon, Baldwin, and Burlingame found that the more frequently measures are used the less likely adolescents are to worsen in care.  Indeed, as ICCE Senior Associate Susanne Bargmann pointed out in a series of recent emails about this important study, “routinely tracking and discussing progress led to 37% higher recovery rates and 38% lower rates of deterioration!”

Skellefteå is a hotbed of feedback-informed practice in Sweden.  Accompanying the family at Rådgivningen Oden, for example, were professionals from a number of other agencies involved in the treatment and wanting to learn more about outcome-informed practice.  As already noted, 250 clinicians took time away from their busy schedules to hear the latest information and finesse their use of the measures.  And tomorrow, Wednesday, I meet with managers and directors of behavioral health agencies to discuss steps for successfully implementing routine measurement of progress and feedback in their settings.  You can download a video discussing the work being done by the team at Odin in Northern Sweden, by clicking here.

Stay tuned for more.  If all goes well, I’ll be in Amsterdam by Wednesday evening.

Eruptions in Europe and in Research

By 3 Comments

Dateline: 11:20 am, April 18th, 2010

Today I was supposed to fly from Stockholm, Sweden to the far northern town of Skelleftea–a flight that takes a little over an hour.  Instead, I’m sitting on a train headed for Sundsvall, the first leg of a 12 hour trip that will include a 6 hour bus ride and then a short stint in a taxi.

If you’ve been following the news coming out of Europe, you know that all flights into, out of, and around Europe have been stopped. Eyjafjallajokull–an Icelandic volcano–erupted the day after I landed in Goteborg spewing an ash cloud that now covers most of Europe disrupting millions of travellers.  People are making due, sleeping on cots in airline, train, and bus terminals and using Facebook and Twitter to connect and arrange travel alternative.

In the meantime, another eruption has taken place with the publication of the latest issue of the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology that threatens to be equally disruptive to the field of psychotherapy–and to proponents of the narrow, specific-treatments-for-specific-disorders or “evidence-based treatments” movement.   Researchers Webb, DeRubeis, and Barber conducted a meta-analysis of studies examining the relationship between adherence to and competence in delivering a particular approach and outcome.  The authors report finding that, “neither adherence nor competence was…related to patient (sic) outcome and indeed that the aggregate estimates of their effects were very close to zero.”

Zero!  I’m not sure what zero means to everyone else, but where I come from it’s pretty close to nothing.  And yet, the romance with the EBT movement continues among politicians, policy makers, and proponents of specific treatment models.  Each year, millions and millions of dollars of scarce resources are poured into an approach to behavioral health that accounts for exactly 0% of the results.

Although it was not a planned part of their investigation, the must-read study by Webb, DeRubeis, and Barber also points to the “magma” at the heart of effective psychotherapy: the alliance, or quality of the relationship between consumer and provider.  The authors report, for example, finding “larger competence-outcome effect size estimates [in studies that]…did not control for the influence of the alliance.”

The alliance will take center stage at the upcoming, “Achieving Clinical Excellence” and “Training of Trainers” events.  Whatever you thought you knew about effective therapeutic relationships will be challenged by the latest research from our study of top performing clinicians worldwide.  I hope you’ll join our international group of trainers, researchers, and presenters by clicking on either of the links above.  And, if you’ve not already done so, be sure and visit the International Center for Clinical Excellence home page and request an invitation to join the community of practitioners and researchers who are learning and sharing their expertise.

Where Necessity is the Mother of Invention: Forming Alliances with Consumers on the Margins

By 3 Comments

Spring of last year, I traveled to Gothenburg, Sweden to provide training GCK–an top notch organization led by Ulla Hansson and Ulla Westling-Missios providing cutting-edge training on “what works” in psychotherapy.  I’ll be back this week again doing an open workshop and an advanced training for the group.

While I’m always excited to be out and about traveling and training, being in Sweden is special for me.  It’s like my second home.  My family roots are Swedish and Danish and, it just so happens, I speak the language.  Indeed, I lived and worked in the country for two years back in the late seventies.  If you’ve never been, be sure and put it on your short list of places to visit…

AND IMPORTANTLY, go in the Summer!  (Actually, the photos above are from the famous “Ice Hotel”–that’s right, a hotel completely made of icc.  The lobby, bar, chairs, beds.  Everything!  If you find yourself in Sweden during the winter months, it’s a must see.  I promise you’ll never forget the experience).

Anyway, the last time I was in Gothenburg, I met a clinician whose efforts to deliver consumer-driven and outcome-informed services to people on the margins of society were truly inspiring.   During one of the breaks at the training, therapist Jan Larsson introduced himself, told me he had been reading my books and articles, and then showed me how he managed to seek and obtain feedback from the people he worked with on the streets.  “My work does not look like ‘traditional’ therapeutic work since I do not meet clients at an office.  Rather, I meet them where they live: at home, on a bench in the park, or sitting in the library or local activity center.”

Most of Jan’s clients have been involved with the “psychiatric system” for years and yet, he says, continue to struggle and suffer with many of the same problems they entered the system with years earlier.  “Oftentimes,” he observed, “a ‘treatment plan’ has been developed for the person that has little to do with what they think or want.”

So Jan began asking.  And each time they met, they also completed the ORS and SRS–“just to be sure,” he said.  No computer.  No I-phone app.  No sophisticated web-based adminsitration system.  With a pair of scissors, he simply trimmed copies of the measures to fit in his pocket-sized appointment book.

His experience thusfar?  In Swedish Jan says, “Det finns en livserfarenhet hos klienterna som bara väntar på att bli upptäckt och bli lyssnad till. Klienterna är så mycket mer än en diagnos. Frågan är om vi är nyfikna på den eftersom diagnosen har stulit deras livberättelse.”  Translated: “There is life experience with clients that is just waiting to be noticed and listened to.  Clients are so much more than their diagnosis.  The question is whether we are curious about them because the diagnosis has stolen their life story.”

I look forward to catching up Jan and the crew at GKC this coming week.  I also be posting interviews with Ulla and Ulla as well as ICCE certified trainers Gun-Eva Langdahl (who I’ll be working with in Skelleftea) and Gunnar Lindfeldt (who I’ll be meeting in Stockholm).  In the meantime, let me post several articles he sent by Swedish research Alain Topor on developing helpful relationships with people on the margins.  Dr. Topor was talking about the “recovery model” among people considered “severely and persistently mentally ill long before it became popular here in the States. Together with others, such as psychologist Jan Blomqvist (who I blogged about late last year), Alain’s work is putting the consumer at the center of service delivery.

Improving Outcomes in the Treatment of Obesity via Practice-Based Evidence: Weight Loss, Nutrition, and Work Productivity

By 4 Comments

Obesity is a large and growing problem in the United States and elsewhere.  Data gathered by the National Center for Health Statistics indicate that 33% Americans are obese.  When overweight people are added to the mix, the figure climbs to a staggering 66%!   The problem is not likely to go away soon or on its own as the same figures apply to children.

Researchers estimate that weight problems are responsible for over 300,000 deaths annually and account for 12% of healthcare costs or 100 billion–that’s right, $100,000,000,000–in the United States alone.   The overweight and obese have higher incidences of arthritis, breast cancer, heart disease, colorectal cancer, diabetes, endometrial cancer, gallbladder disease, hypertension, liver disease, back pain, sleeping problems, and stroke–not to mention the tremendous emotional, relational, and social costs.  The data are clear: the overweight are the target of discrimination in education, healthcare, and employment.  A study by Brownell and Puhl (2003), for example, found that: (1) a significant percentage of healthcare professionals admit to feeling  “repulsed” by obese person, even among those who specialize in bariatric treatment; (2) parents provide less college support to their overweight compared to “thin” children; and (3) 87% of obese individuals reported that weight prevented them from being hired for a job.

Sadly, available evidence indicates that while weight problems are “among the easiest conditions to recognize,” they remain one of the “most difficult to treat.”  Weight loss programs abound.  When was the last time you watched television and didn’t see an ad for a diet pill, program, or exercise machine?  Many work.  Few, however, lead to lasting change.

What might help?

More than a decade ago, I met Dr. Paul Faulkner, the founder and then Chief Executive Officer of Resources for Living (RFL), an innovative employee assistance program located in Austin, Texas.  I was teaching a week-long course on outcome-informed work at the Cape Cod Institute in Eastham, Massachusetts.  Paul had long searched for a way of improving outcomes and service delivery that could simultaneously be used to provide evidence of the value of treatment to purchasers–in the case of RFL, the large, multinational companies that were paying him to manage their employee assistance programs.  Thus began a long relationship between me and the management and clinical staff of RFL.  I was in Austin, Texas dozens of times providing training and consultation as well as setting up the original ORS/SRS feedback system known as ALERT, which is still in use at the organization today.  All of the original reliability, validity, norming, and response trajectories were done together with the crew at RFL.

Along the way, RFL expanded services to disease management, including depression, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, and obesity.  The “weight management” program delivered coaching and nutritional consultation via the telephone informed by ongoing measurement of outcomes and the therapeutic alliance using the SRS and ORS.  The results are impressive.  The study by Ryan Sorrell, a clinician and researcher at RFL, not only found that the program and feedback led to weight loss, but also significant improvements in distress, health eating behaviors (70%), exercise (65%), and presenteeism on the job (64%)–the latter being critical to the employers paying for the service.

Such research adds to the growing body of literature documenting the importance of “practice-based” evidence, making clear that finding the “right” or “evidence-based” approach for obesity (or any problem for that matter) is less important than finding out “what works” for each person in need of help.  With challenging, “life-style” problems, this means using ongoing feedback to inform whatever services may be deemed appropriate or necessary.  Doing so not only leads to better outcomes, but also provides real-time, real-world evidence of return on investment for those footing the bill.

Neurobabble Redux: Comments from Dr. Mark Hubble on the Latest Fad in the World of Therapy Spark Comment and Controversy

By 2 Comments

 


Last week, my long time colleague and friend, Dr. Mark Hubble blogged about the current interest of non-medically trained therapists in the so-called “neurobiology of human behavior.”  In my intro to his post, I “worried” out loud about the field’s tendency to search for legitimacy by aligning with the medical model.  Over the years, psychotherapy has flirted with biology, physics, religion, philosophy, chaos, and “energy meridians” as both the cause of what ails people and and the source of psychotherapy’s effectiveness.

For whatever reason, biological explanations have always had particular cachet in the world of psychotherapy.  When I first entered the field, the “dexamethasone suppression test” was being touted as the first “blood test” for depression.  Some twenty years on, its hard to remember the hope and excitement surrounding the DST.

Another long-time friend and colleague, psychologist Michael Valentine is fond of citing the many problems–social, physical, and otherwise–attributed to genetics (including but not limited to: anxiety, depression, addictions, promiscuity, completed suicides, thrill seeking obscene phone calls, smoking, gambling, and the amount of time one spends watching TV) for which there is either: (a) precious little or inconsistent evidence; or (b) the variance attributable to genetics is small and insignificant compared to size and scope of the problem.

In any event, I wanted to let readers know that response to Mark’s post has been unusually strong.  The numerous comments can be found on the syndicated version of my blog at the International Center for Clinical Excellence.  Don’t miss them!

Problems in Evidence-Based Land: Questioning the Wisdom of "Preferred Treatments"

By Leave a Comment

This last week, Jeremy Laurance, Health Editor for the U.K. Independent published an article entitled, “The big question: Does cognitive therapy work? And should the NHS (National Health Service) provide more of it?” Usually such questions are limited to professional journals and trade magazines. Instead, it ran in the “Life and Style” section of one of Britain’s largest daily newspapers. Why?

In 2007, the government earmarked £173,000,000 (approximately 260,000,000 U.S. dollars) to train up an army of new therapists. Briefly, the money was allocated following an earlier report by Professor Richard Layard of the London School of Economics which found that a staggering 38% of illness and disability claims were accounted for by “mental disorders.” The sticking point—and part of the reason for the article by Laurance—is that training was largely limited to a single treatment approach: cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT).  And research released this week indicates that the efficacy of the method has been seriously overestimated due to “publication bias.”
Researchers Cuijpers, Smith, Bohlmeijer, Hollon, and Andersson (2010) examined the “effect sizes” of 117 trials and found that the tendency of journals to accept trials that showed positive results and reject those with null or negative findings reduced the reported effectiveness of CBT by as much as 33 percent!
Combine such findings with evidence from multiple meta-analyses showing no difference in outcome between treatment approaches intended to be therapeutic and one has to wonder why CBT continues to enjoy a privileged position among policy makers and regulatory bodies.  Despite the evidence, the governmental body in the UK that is responsible for reviewing research and making policy recommendations—National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE)–continues to advocate for CBT.  It’s not only unscientific, its bad policy. Alas, when it comes to treatment methods, CBT enjoys what British psychologist Richard Wiseman calls, the “get out of a null effect free” card.
What would work? If the issue is truly guaranteeing effective treatment, the answer is measurement and feedback.  The single largest contributor to outcome is who provides the treatment and not what treatment approach is employed.  More than a dozen randomized clinical trials—the design of choice of NICE and SAMSHA—indicate that outcomes and retention rates are improved while costs are decreased—in many cases dramatically so.
I respectfully ask, “What is the hold up?”

Neurobabble: Comments from Dr. Mark Hubble on the Latest Fad in the World of Therapy

By Leave a Comment


Rarely does a day go by without hearing about another “advance” in the neurobiology of human behavior.  Suddenly, it seems, the world of psychotherapy has discovered that people have brains!  And now where the unconscious, childhood, emotions, behaviors, and cognitions once where…neurons, plasticity, and magnetic resonance imagining now is.  Alas, we are a field forever in search of legitimacy.  My long time colleague and friend, Mark Hubble, Ph.D., sent me the following review of recent developments.  I think you’ll enjoy it, along with video by comedian John Cleese on the same subject.

Mark Hubble, Ph.D.

Today, while contemplating the numerous chemical imbalances that are unhinging the minds of Americans — notwithstanding the longstanding failure of the left brain to coach the right with reason, and the right to enlighten the left with intuition — I unleashed the hidden power of my higher cortical functioning to the more pressing question of how to increase the market share for practicing therapists. As research has dismantled once and for all the belief that specific treatments exist for specific disorders, the field is left, one might say, in an altered state of consciousness. If we cannot hawk empirically supported therapies or claim any specialization that makes any real difference in treatment outcome, we are truly in a pickle. All we have is ourselves, the relationships we can offer to our clients, and the quality of their participation to make it all work. This, of course, hardly represents a propitious proposition for a business already overrun with too many therapists, receiving too few dollars.

Fortunately, the more energetic and enterprising among us, undeterred by the demise of psychotherapy as we know it, are ushering the age of neuro-mythology and the new language of neuro-babble.   Seemingly accepting wholesale the belief that the brain is the final frontier, some are determined to sell us the map thereto and make more than a buck while they are at it. Thus, we see terms such as “Somatic/sensorimotor Psychotherapy,” “Interpersonal Neurobiology,” “Neurogenesis and Neuroplasticity,”  “Unlocking the Emotional Brain,” “NeuroTherapy,” “Neuro Reorganization,” and so on.  A moment’s look into this burgeoning literature quickly reveals the existence of an inverse relationship between the number of scientific sounding assertions and actual studies proving the claims made. Naturally, this finding is beside the point, because the purpose is to offer the public sensitive, nuanced brain-based solutions for timeless problems. Traditional theories and models, are out, psychotherapies-informed-by-neuroscience, with the aura of greater credibility, are in.

Neurology and neuroscience are worthy pursuits. To suggest, however, that the data emerging from these disciplines have reached the stage of offering explanatory mechanisms for psychotherapy, including the introduction of “new” technical interventions, is beyond the pale. Metaphor and rhetoric, though persuasive, are not the same as evidence emerging from rigorous investigations establishing and validating cause and effect, independently verified, and subject to peer review.

Without resorting to obfuscation and pseudoscience, already, we have a pretty good idea of how psychotherapy works and what can be done now to make it more effective for each and every client. From one brain to another, to apply that knowledge, is a good case of using the old noggin.

"What Works" in Holland: The Cenzo Experience

By 1 Comment

When it comes to healthcare, it can be said without risk of exaggeration that “revolution is in the air.”  The most sweeping legislation in history has just been passed in the United States.  Elsewhere, as I’ve been documenting in my blogs, countries, states, provinces, and municipalities are struggling to maintain quality while containing costs of the healthcare behemoth.

Back in January, I talked about the approach being taken in Holland where, in contrast to many countries, the healthcare system was jettisoning their government-run system in favor of private insurance reimbursement.  Believe me, it is a change no less dramatic in scope and impact than what is taking place in the U.S.  At the time, I noted that Dutch practitioners were, in response “’thinking ahead’, preparing for the change—in particular, understanding what the research literature indicates works as well as adopting methods for documenting and improving the outcome of treatment.” As a result, I’ve been traveling back and forth—at least twice a quarter–providing trainings to professional groups and agencies across the length and breadth of the country.

Not long ago, I was invited to speak at the 15th year anniversary of Cenzo—a franchise organization with 85 registered psychologist members.  Basically, the organization facilitates—some would say “works to smooth”–the interaction between practitioners and insurance companies.  In addition to helping with contracts, paperwork, administration, and training, Cenzo also has an ongoing “quality improvement” program consisting of routine outcome monitoring and feedback as well as client satisfaction metrics.  Everything about this forward-thinking group is “top notch,” including a brief film they made about the day and the workshop.  Whether you work in Holland or not, I think you’ll find the content interesting!  If you understand the language, click here to download the 15th year Anniversary Cenzo newsletter.

Outcomes in New Zealand

By Leave a Comment

Made it back to Chicago after a week in New Zealand providing training and consultation.  As I blogged about last Thursday, the last two days of my trip were spent in Christchurch providing a two-day training on “What Works” for Te Pou–New Zealand’s National Centre of Mental Health Research, Information, and Workforce Development.  Last year around this same time, I provided a similar training for Te Pou for managers and policy makers in Auckland.  News spread and this year my contact at Te Pou, Emma Wood brought the training to the south island.  It is such a pleasure to be involved with such a forward thinking organization.

Long before I arrived, leadership at Te Pou were promoting outcome measurement and feedback.  Here’s a direct quote from their website:

Outcomes information can assist:

  • service users to use their own outcomes data to reflect on their wellbeing and circumstances, talk to clinicians about their support needs and inform their recovery plans
  • clinicians to use outcomes information to support their decision-making in day-to-day practice, monitoring change, better understanding the needs of the service user, and also to begin evaluating the effectiveness of different interventions
  • planners and funders to assess population needs for mental health services and assist with allocation of resources policy and mental health strategy developments through nationally aggregated data.

Indeed, using outcome to inform mental health service delivery is a key aspect of the Past, Present, and Future: Vision Paper–a review of “what works” in care and a plan for improving treatment in the future.  The site even publishes a quarterly newsletter Outcomes Matter.  Take a few minutes and explore the Te Pou website.  While you are there, be sure and download the pamphlet entitled, “A Guide to Talking Therapies.”  As the title implies, this brief, easy-to-read text provides a non-nonsense guide to the various “talk therapies” for consumers (I took several copies home with me from the workshop).

Before ending, let me say a brief hello to the Clinical Practice Leaders from the Problem Gambling Foundation of New Zealand who attended the two-day training in Christchurch.    The dedicated staff use an integrated public health and clinical model and are working to implement ongoing measurement of outcome and consumer feedback into service delivery.  The website contains a free online library including fact sheets, research, and books on the issue of problem gambling that is an incredible resource to professionals and the public.  Following the workshop, the group sent a photo that was taken of us together.  From left to right, they are Wenli Zhang, me, Margaret Sloan, and Jude West.

Is Professional Training a Waste of Time?

By 6 Comments

readerEvery year, thousands of students graduate from professional programs with degrees enabling them to work in the field of behavioral health. Many more who have already graduated and are working as a social worker, psychologist, counselor, or marriage and family therapist attend—often by legal mandate—continuing education events. The costs of such training in terms of time and money are not insignificant.

Most graduates enter the professional world in significant debt, taking years to pay back student loans and recoup income that was lost during the years they were out of the job market attending school. Continuing professional education is also costly for agencies and individuals in practice, having to arrange time off from work and pay for training.

To most, the need for training seems self-evident. And yet, in the field of behavioral health the evidence is at best discouraging. While in traveling in New Zealand this week, my long-time colleague and friend, Dr. Bob Bertolino forwarded an article on the subject appearing in the latest issue of the Journal of Counseling and Development (volume 88, number 2, pages 204-209). In it, researchers Nyman and Nafziger reported results of their study on the relationship between therapist effectiveness and level of training.

First, the good news: “clients who obtained services…experienced moderate symptom relief over the course of six sessions.” Now the bad news: it didn’t matter if the client was “seen by a licensed doctoral –level counselor, a pre-doctoral intern, or a practicum student” (p. 206, emphasis added). The authors conclude, “It may be that researchers are loathe to face the possibility that the extensive efforts involved in educating graduate students to become licensed professionals result in no observable differences in client outcome” (p. 208, emphasis added).

In case you were wondering, such findings are not an anomaly.  Not long ago, Atkins and Christensen (2001) reviewed the available evidence in an article published in the Australian Psychologist and concluded much the same (volume 36, pages 122-130); to wit, professional training has little if any impact on outcome.  As for continuing professional education, you know if you’ve been reading my blog that there is not a single supportive study in the literature.

“How,” you may wonder, “could this be?” The answer is: content and methods.  First of all, training at both the graduate and professional level continues to focus on the weakest link in the outcome chain—that is, model and technique. Recall, available evidence indicates that the approach used accounts for 1% or less of the variance in treatment outcome (see Wampold’s chapter in the latest edition of the Heart and Soul of Change).  As just one example, consider workshops being conduced around the United States using precious resources to train clinicians in the methods studied in the “Cannabis Youth Treatment” (CYT) project–a study which found that the treatment methods used contributed zero to the variance in treatment outcome.  Let me just say, where I come from zero is really close to nothing!

Second, and even more important, traditional methods of training (i.e., classroom lecture, reading, attending conferences) simply do not work. And sadly, behavioral health is one of the few professions that continue to rely on such outdated and ineffective training methods.

The literature on expertise and expert performance provides clear, compelling, and evidence-based guidelines about the qualities of effective training. I’ve highlighted such data in a number of recent blogposts. The information has already had a profound impact on the way how the ICCE organizes and conducts trainings.   Thanks to Cynthia Maeschalck, Rob Axsen, and Bob, the entire curriculum and methods used for the annual “Training of Trainers” event have been entirely revamped. Suffice it to say, agencies and individuals who invest precious time and resources attending the training will not only learn but be able to document the impact of the training on performance.  More later.

Excellence on a Shoestring: The “Home for Good” Program

By Leave a Comment

Today I’m teaching in Christchurch, New Zealand. For the last two days, I’ve been in Nelson, a picturesque coastal town opposite Abel Tasman, working with the local DHB (District Health Board). If you’ve never visited, make a point of adding the country to your list of top travel destinations. The landscape and the people are second to none. (In Nelson, be sure and visit The Swedish Bakery. My 8-year old son, Michael, unequivocally states it has the best hot chocolate in the world—and, believe me, he’s an expert).

I’ve been traveling to New Zealand at least once a year for the last several years to provide training on using outcomes to inform behavioral healthcare. Interest is keen and providers and managers are working hard to deliver top-notch services. However, like many other places around the globe, economic factors are taking a toll.   On the day I arrived, one of the lead stories in the local paper (The Nelson Mail) focused on the economic crisis in healthcare.   “Complaints about money, shortages, overwork, stress and unsympathetic management…in the always-stretched hospital service,” the story began, “[indicate] a rapidly worsening situation” (p. 5, News Extra). Today, the headline of an article in section A5 of The Press Christchurch warns, “Health Ministry staff brace for job losses.”

A little over two weeks ago, I was in Richmond, Virginia working with managers and providers of public behavioral health agencies. There too, economic problems loom large. Over the last two years, for example, agencies have had to absorb across-the-board, double-digit cuts in funding. The result, in many instances, has been layoffs and the elimination of services and programs—with a few prominent exceptions.

On March 5th, I blogged about the crew at Chesterfield CSB in Virginia that were serving 70% more people than they did in 2007 despite there being no increase in available staff resources in the intervening period and, at the same time, decreasing clinician caseloads by nearly 30%.  In January, I posted text and video about agencies in Ohio that had managed to improve outcome, retention, and productivity at the same time that cutbacks had forced the furlough of staff! The common denominator in both instances is outcomes; that is, measuring the “fit and effect” of treatment on an ongoing basis and then using the data in consultation with consumers to improve service delivery.

If you’re not yet convinced, I have one more example to add to the mix: the “Home for Good” program.  Vision, commitment, and drive are words that best capture the management and staff who work at this Richmond, Virginia-based in-home behavioral health services program. Some might question the wisdom of starting a private, primarily Medicaid-funded treatment program in the worst economic climate since the Great Depression. A commitment to helping families keep their children at home—preventing placement in residential treatment centers, foster care, and detention—is what drove founder and director Kathy Levenston to take up the challenge. The key to their success says Kathy is that “we take responsibility for the results.” As in Ohio and Chesterfield, Kathy and her crew routinely monitor the alliance and results of the work they do and then use the data to enhance retention and outcome. Listen to Kathy as she describes the “Home for Good” program. I’m sure her story will inspire you to push for excellence whatever the “shoestring” budget you may be surviving on at the moment.

Leading for a Change: The Training of Trainer’s (TOT) Chicago

By Leave a Comment

I’m writing tonight from my hotel room at the River Rock Inn in Rockland, Ontario, Canada.  For those of you who are not familiar with the area, it is a bilingual (French & English) community of around 9,000 located about 25 km west of Ottawa.

Today through Thursday, I’m working with the staff, supervisors, and agency administrators of Prescott-Russell Services to Children and Adults.  The goal?  Introduce the latest “cutting-edge” research on “what works” in behavioral health and initiate a system transformation project for this group that provides child protection, mental health, family violence, and development services in the area.  The time spent with the first cohort of 125 direct services providers and supervisors went by, as they say, in “the blink of an eye.”  Tomorrow, I’ll be repeating the same training for the rest of the crew.  On Wednesday and Thursday I’ll meet with supervisors and administrators.  Suffice it to say, it’s an incredible opportunity for me to take part in such a large and well executed service improvement project.  In these lean economic times, I’m inspired by both the time and resources being directed at improving services offered to this area’s most needy.  By the end of the week, I hope to have interviews posted with some of the providers and leaders working in the project.

While on the subject of training, let me share the brochure for this year’s “Training of Trainers” event in Chicago, Illinois during the second week of August.  As in prior years, professionals from all over the world will be joining me and the state-of-the-art faculty for four intensive days of training on feedback-informed treatment (FIT).  Please note: this is not an “advanced training” in FIT where time is spent reviewing the basics or covering content.  Rather, the TOT curriculum has been designed to prepare participants to train others.  Every day of the training, you will learn specific skills for training others, have an opportunity to practice those skills, and then receive detailed feedback from ICCE Senior Associates and Trainers Rob Axsen, Cynthia Maeschalck, and Jason Seidel.  Anyway, read for yourself.  Agencies both public and private, in the U.S. and abroad, are sending staff to the event to learn the skills necessary to lead transformation projects.  Space is already limited so register soon.

Click here to download the brochure to review or forward to colleagues

Addressing the Financial Crisis in Public Behavioral Healthcare Head On in Chesterfield, Virginia

By Leave a Comment

If you are following me on Twitter (and I hope you are), you know the last month has been extremely busy.  This week I worked with clinicians in Peterborough, Ontario Canada.  Last week, I was in Nashville, Tennessee and Richmond Virginia.  Prior to that, I spent nearly two weeks in Europe, providing training and consultations in the Netherlands and Belgium.

It was, as always, a pleasure meeting and working with clinicians representing a wide range of disciplines (social workers, case managers, psychologists, psychiatrists, professional counselors, alcohol and drug treatment professionals, etc.) and determined to provide the best service possible.  As tiring as “road work” can sometimes be, my spirits are always buoyed by the energy of the individuals, groups, and agencies I meet and work with around the world.

At the same time, I’d be remiss if I didn’t acknowledge the fear and hardship I’m witnessing among providers and treatment agencies each week as I’m out and about.  Frankly, I’ve never seen anything like it in my seventeen years “on the road.”  Being able to say that we predicted the current situation nearly 6 years ago provides little comfort (see The Heroic Client, 2004).

While nearly all are suffering, the economic crisis in the United States is hitting public behavioral health particularly hard.  In late January I blogged about the impact of budget cuts in Ohio.   Sadly, the situations in Virginia and Tennessee are no different.  Simply put, public behavioral health agencies are expected to do more with less, and most often with fewer providers.  What can be done?

Enter Chesterfield Community Service Board.  Several years ago, I met and began working with Larry Barnett,  Lyn Hill, and the rest of the talented clinical staff at this forward thinking public behavioral health agency.  Their goal?  According to the agency mission statement, “to promote improved quality of life…through exceptional and comprehensive mental health, mental retardation, substance abuse, and early intervention services.”  Their approach?  Measure and monitor the process and outcome of service delivery and use the resulting information to improve productivity and performance.

As Larry and Lynn report in the video below, the process was not easy.  Indeed, it was damn difficult–full of long hours, seemingly endless discussions, and tough, tough choices.  But that was then.  Some three years later, the providers at Chesterfield CSB are serving 70% more people than they did in 2007 despite there being no increase in available staff resources in the intervening period.  That’s right, 70%!  And that’s not all.  While productivity rates soared, clinician caseloads were reduced by nearly 30%.  As might be expected, the time consumers in need of services had to wait was also significantly reduced.

In short, everybody won: providers, agency managers, funders, and consumers.  And thanks to the two days of intensive training in Richmond, Virginia organized by Arnold Woodruff, many additional public behavioral health agencies have the information needed to get started.  It won’t be easy.  However, as the experience in Chesterfield demonstrates, it is possible to survive and thrive during these tumultuous times.  But don’t take my word for it, listen to how Larry and Lynn describe the process–warts and all–and the results:

Deliberate Practice, Expertise, & Excellence

By 2 Comments

Later today, I board United flight 908 on my way to workshops scheduled in Holland and Belgium.  My routine in the days leading up to an international trip is always the same.  I slowly gather together the items I’ll need while away: computer (check); european electric adapter (check); presentation materials (check); clothes (check).   And, oh yeah, two decks of playing cards and close up performance mat.

That’s me (pictured above) practicing a “ribbon spread” in my hotel room following a day of training in Marion, Ohio.  It’s a basic skill in magic and I’ve been working hard on this (and other moves using cards) since last summer.  Along the way, I’ve felt both hopeful and discouraged.  But I’ve kept on nonetheless taking heart from what I’m reading about skill acquisition.

Research on expertise indicates that the best performers (in chess, medicine, music, sports, etc.) practice every day of the week (including weekends) for up to four hours a day.  Sounds tiring for sure.  And yet, the same body of evidence shows that world class performers are able to sustain such high levels of practice because they view the acquisition of expertise as a long-term process.  Indeed, in a study of children, researcher Gary McPherson found that the answer to a simple question determined the musical ability of kids a year later: “how long do you think you’ll play your instrument?”  The factors that were shown to be irrelevant to performance level were: initial musical ability, IQ, aural sensitivity, math skills, sense of rhythm, income level, and sensorimotor skills.

The type of practice also matters.  When researchers Kitsantas and Zimmerman studied the skill acquisition of experts, they found that 90% of the variation in ability could be accounted for by how the performers described their practice; the types of goals they set, how they planned and executed strategies, self-monitored, and adapted their performance in response to feedback.

So, I take my playing cards and close-up mat with me on all of my trips (both domestic and international).  I don’t practice on planes.  Gave that up after getting some strange stares from fellow passengers as they watched me repeat, in obsessive fashion, the same small segment of my performance over, and over, and over again.  It only made matters worse if they found out I was a psychologist.  I’d get that “knowing look,” that seemed to say, “Oh yeah.”  Anyway, I also managed to lose a fair number of cards when the deck–because of my inept handling while trying to master some particular move–went flying all over the cabin (You can imagine why I’ve been less successful in keeping last year’s New Year resolution to learn to play the ukelele).

Once I’m comfortably situated in my room, the mat and cards come out and I work, practice a specific handling for up to 30 minutes followed by a 15-20 minute break.  Believe it or not, learning–or perhaps better said, attempting to learn–magic has really been helpful in understanding the acquisition of expertise in my chosen field: psychology and psychotherapy.  Together with my colleagues, we are translating our experience and the latest research on expertise into steps for improving the performance and outcome of behavioral health services.  This is, in fact, the focus of the newest workshop I’m teaching, “Achieving Clinical Excellence.”   It’s also the organizing theme of the ICCE Achieving Clinical Excellence conference that will be held in Kansas City, Kansas in October 2010.  Click on the photo below for more information.

In the meantime, check out the two videos I’ve uploaded to ICCETV featuring two fun magic effects.  And yes, of course, feedback is always appreciated!

The Future of Behavioral Health: Integrated Care & Entrepreneurship

By Leave a Comment


Nicholas Cummings, Ph.D.

Sometime in late 1986 I wrote a letter to Dr. Nicholas Cummings.  As a then student-member of the American Psychological Association (APA), I was automatically subscribed to and receiving the American Psychologist.  In the April issue, Dr. Cummings published an article, provocatively titled, “The Dismantling of Our Health System: Strategies for the Survival of Psychological Practice.”  Change was in the air. “Traditional psychology practice is both inefficient and ineffective,” he argued, and a “growing revolution in heath care” was a clear and present danger to the very survival of the field.

What can I say?  As someone at the beginning of his career (with large student loans to repay and a long time to go before retirement), the five page article spooked me.  So I did what I’d done before: I wrote a letter.  I’d been writing and calling prominent researchers and clinicians ever since I was an undergraduate.  During the 70’s, I’d exchanged letters and even phone calls with B.F. Skinner!

In all honesty, I didn’t know anything about Dr. Cummings–for example, that he was a former president of the APA, launched the Professional Schools of Psychology movement and founded four campuses of the California School of Professional Psychology, wrote the freedom-of-choice legislation requiring insurers to reimburse non-medical, behavioral health providers, and started American Biodyne in the hopes that psychologists could own rather than be owned–as eventually happened–by managed care (read a history here).  Neither did I know that he was a member of Psychology’s famed “Dirty Dozen.” Without a doubt, however, the decision to write him, changed the arc of my career.

Fast forward 25 years, and 86-year-old Nicholas Cummings is at it again–not only sounding a warning klaxon but identifying the opportunities available in the dramatically changing healthcare environment.  Sadly, the field (and professional psychology in particular) ignored the counsel he’d given back in 1986.  As a result, business interests took over managed care, resulting–just as he predicted–in low wages and the near complete lack of professional autonomy.

So, what can clinicians do now to survive and thrive?  According to Dr. Cummings, two words best capture the future of behavioral health: (1) integrated care; and (2) entrepreneurship.  Let’s face the unpleasant reality and say it out loud: independent practice is on life support.  Agency work is no picnic either given the constant threats to funding and never ending amount of regulation and paperwork.  Finally, when it comes to practitioner income, its a buyer’s market.

That said, it’s not all doom and gloom.  Far from it.  There is a tremendous need (and opportunity) in the present reform-driven healthcare marketplace for clinicians who are able to blend behavioral interventions, medical literacy, knowledge about healthcare delivery systems, and entrepreneurship skills.  Possibilities do exist.  The real question is, “Do we have the will to change?”  Here’s where the power of one simple action–in this instance, a phone call–can have such a profound effect on one’s life and success.

Though we never formally worked together, I’ve been calling and writing Nick off and on for the two and a half decades.  Late last fall, my partners and co-creators of the International Center for Clinical Excellence, Brendan Madden and Enda Madden, flew to Reno to seek his advice on our business plan.  We simply called him.  He said, “When can you get here?”  The result?  His sage counsel helped us win the InterTrade Seedcorn Regional Prize for “Best Emerging Company” as well as secure investors in the most restrictive venture capital environment since the Great Depression.  And that’s not all…

Chief Technology Officer Enda Madden    Chief Executive Officer Brendan Madden

Just last week, I flew to Phoenix, Arizona to give a presentation on using outcomes to improve behavioral healthcare service delivery at Arizona State University.  Nick was there to meet me, along with the director of an entirely new program for behavioral health entrepreneurs, Dr. Ron O’Donnell.  Briefly, the “Doctor of Behavioral Health” is the culmination of Nick’s vision of creating a doctoral training program tailored to the emerging need for innovative behavioral clinicians to practice in primary care and medical settings.  Response has been overwhelming to say the least.  Fifty plus post-graduate clinicians are enrolled.   That’s right, post-graduate.  In other words, these are practicing clinicians returning to add “integrated care expert and behavioral health entrepreneur” to their resume.


School of Letters and Sciences

As it turns out, I’ll be traveling from Chicago to Phoenix a fair amount in the future.  When he stood to introduce me, Nick announced that I’d be filling the “Cummings Professor of Behavioral Health” faculty position at ASU.  The power of a single call.

The Turn to Outcomes: A Revolution in Behavioral Health Practice

By Leave a Comment

Get ready.  The revolution is coming (if not already here).  Whether you are a direct service provider (psychologist, counselor, marriage and family therapist), agency, broker, or funder, you will be required to measure and likely report the outcomes of your clinical work.


Jay Lebow, Ph.D.

Just this month, Dr. Jay Lebow, a professor of psychology at the Family Institute at Northwestern University, published an article in the Psychotherapy Networker–the most widely circulated publication for practitioners in the world–where he claimed the field had reached a “tipping point.”  “Once a matter of interest only among a small circle of academics,” Dr. Lebow writes in his piece entitled, The Big Squeeze, “treatment outcome has now become a part of the national debate about healthcare reform.”


David Barlow, Ph.D.

The same sentiments were expressed in a feature article entitled, “Negative Effects from Psychological Treatments,” written by Dr. David Barlow in the January issue of the American Psychologist.  “Therapists,” he argues both eloquently and persuasively, “do not have to wait for the next clinical trial….[rather] clinicians [can act] as local clinical scientists…[using] outcome measures to track progress…rapidly becom[ing] aware of lack of progress or even deterioration” (p. 19).  What can I say, except that any practitioner with more than a few years to work before retirement, should read these articles and then forward them to every practitioner they know.

During the Holidays, and just before the turn of the New Year, I blogged about the trend toward outcome measurement.  As readers will recall, I talked about my experience on a panel at the Evolution of Psychotherapy conference where Dr. Barlow–who, in response to my brief remarks about the benefits of feedback– suprised me by stating unequivocally that all therapists would soon be required to measure and monitor the outcome of their clinical work. And even though my work has focused almost exclusively on measuring and using outcomes to improve both retention in and the results of behavioral health for the last 15 years, I said his pronouncement frightened me–which, by the way, reminds me of a joke.

A sheep farmer is out in the pasture tending his flock–I promise this is clean, so read on–when from over a small hill comes a man in a custom-tailored, three-piece business suit.  In one hand, the businessman holds a calculator; in the other, an expensive, leather brief case.  “I have a proposition for you,” the well-clad man says as he approaches the farmer, and then continues, “if I can tell you how many sheep are in your flock, to the exact number, may I have one of your sheep?”  Though initially startled by the stranger’s abrupt appearance and offer, the farmer quickly gathers his wits.  Knowing there is no way the man could know the actual number of sheep (since many in his flock were out of site in other pastures and several were born just that morning and still in the barn), the farmer quickly responded, “I’ll take that bet!”

Without a moment’s hesitation, the man calls out the correct number, “one thousand, three hundred and forty six,” then quickly adds, “…with the last three born this morning and still resting in the barn!”  Dumbfounded, the farmer merely motions toward his flock.  In response, the visitor stows his calculator, slings one of the animals up and across his shoulders and then, after retrieving his briefcase, begins making his way back up the hill.  Just as he nears the top of the embankment, the farmer finds his voice and calls out, “Sir, I have a counter proposal for you.”

“And what might that be?” the man replies, turning to face the farmer, who then asked, “If I can tell you, sir, what you do for a living, can I have my animal back?”

Always in the mood for a wager, the stranger replies, “I’ll take that bet!”  And then without a moment’s hesitation, the sheep farmer says, “You’re an accountant, a bureaucrat, a ‘bean-counter.'”  Now, it’s the businessman’s turn to be surprised.  “That’s right!” he says, and then asks, “How did you know?”

“Well,” the farmer answers, “because that’s my dog you have around your neck.”

The moral of the story?  Bureaucrats can count but they can’t tell the difference between what is and is not important.  In my blogpost on December 24th, I expressed concern about the explosion of “official interest” in measuring outcomes.  As the two articles mentioned above make clear, the revolution has started.  There’s no turning back now.  The only question that remains is whether behavioral health providers will be present to steer measurement toward what matters?  Here, our track record is less than impressive (remember the 80-90’s and the whole managed care revolution).  We had ample warning (and did, well, nothing.  If you don’t believe me, click here and read this article from 1986 by Dr. Nick Cummings).

As my colleague and friend Peter Albert is fond of saying, “If you’re not at the table, you’re likely to be on the menu.”  So, what can the average clinician do?  First of all, if you haven’t already done so, began tracking your outcomes.  Right here, on my website, you can download, free, simple-to use, valid and reliable measures.  Second, advocate for measures that are feasible, client-friendly, and have a empirical track record of improving retention and outcome.  Third, and lastly, join the International Center for Clinical Excellence.  Here, clinicians from all over the globe are connecting, learning, and sharing their experiences about how to use ongoing measures of progress and alliance.  Most importantly, all are determined to lead the revolution.

Behavioral Healthcare in Holland: The Turn Away from the Single-payer, Government-Based Reimbursement System

By Leave a Comment

Several years ago I was contacted by a group of practitioners located in the largest city in the north of the Netherlands–actually the capital of the province known as Groningen.  The “Platform,” as they are known, were wondering if I’d be willing to come and speak at one of their upcoming conferences.  The practice environment was undergoing dramatic change, the group’s leadership (Dorti Been & Pico Tuene) informed me.  Holland would soon be switching from government to a private insurance reimbursement system.  Dutch practitioners were “thinking ahead,” preparing for the change–in particular, understanding what the research literature indicates works in clinical practice as well as learning methods for documenting and improving the outcome of treatment.

I was then, and remain now, deeply impressed with the abilities and dedication of Dutch practitioners.  During that visit to Groningen, and the many that have followed (to Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Beilen, etc.), its clear that clinicians in the Netherlands are determined to lead rather than be led.  I’ve been asked to meet with university professors, practitioner organizations, training coordinators, and insurance company executives.  In a very short period of time, two Dutch therapists–physician Flip Van Oenen and psychologist Mark Crouzen–have completed the “Training of Trainers” course and become recognized trainers and associates for the International Center for Clinical Excellence.  And finally, a study will soon be published showing sound psychometric properties of the Dutch translations of the ORS and SRS.

I’ve also been working closely with the Dutch company Reflectum–a group dedicated to supporting outcome-informed healthcare and clinical excellence.  Briefly, Reflectum has organized several conferences and expert meetings between me and clinicians, agency managers, and insurance companies.  One thing for sure: we will be working closely together to train a network of trainers and consultants to promote, support, and train agencies and practitioners in outcome-informed methods in order to meet the demands of the changing practice climate.

Check out the videobelow filmed at Schipol airport during one of my recent trips to Holland: