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

scottdmiller@ talkingcure.com +1.773.454.8511

Accountability in Behavioral Health: Steps for Dealing with Cutbacks, Shortfalls, and Tough Economic Conditions

By 3 Comments

As anyone who follows me on Facebook knows, I get around.  In the past few months, I visited Australia, Norway, Sweden, Denmark (to name but a few countries) as well as criss-crossed the United States.  If I were asked to sum up the state of public behavioral health agencies in a single word, the word–with very few exceptions–would be: desperate.  Between the unfunded mandates and funding cutbacks, agencies are struggling.

Not long ago, I blogged about the challenges facing agencies and providers in Ohio.  In addition to reductions in staffing, those in public behavioral health are dealing with increasing oversight and regulation, rising caseloads, unrelenting paperwork, and demands for accountability.  The one bright spot in this otherwise frightening climate is: outcomes.  Several counties in Ohio have adopted the ORS and SRS and been using them to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of behavioral health services.

I’ve been working with the managers and providers in both Marion and Crawford counties for a little over two years.  Last year, the agencies endured significant cuts in funding.  As a result, they were forced to eliminate a substantial number of positions.  Needless to say, it was a painful process with no upsides–except that, as a result of using the measures, the dedicated providers had so improved the effectiveness and efficiency of treatment they were able to absorb the loss of staff without having to cut on services to clients.

The agencies cite four main findings resulting from the work we’ve done together over the last two years.  In their own words:

  1.  Use of FIT has enabled us to be more efficient, which is particularly important given Ohio’s economic picture and the impact of State budget cuts. Specifically, FIT is enabling service providers and supervisors to identify consumers much earlier who are not progressing in the treatment process. This allows us to change course sooner when treatment is not working, to know if changes work, to identify consumers in need of a different level of care, etc.  FIT also provides data on which the provider and consumer can base decisions about the intensity of treatment and treatment continuation (i.e. when to extend time between services or when the episode of service should end). In short, our staff and consumers are spending much less time “spinning their wheels” in unproductive activities.  As a result, we have noticed more “planned discharges versus clients just dropping out of treatment.
  2. FIT provides aggregate effect size data for individual service providers, for programs, and for services, based on data from a valid and reliable outcome scale. Effect sizes are calculated by comparing our outcome data to a large national data base. Progress achieved by individual consumers is also compared to this national data base. For the first time, we can “prove” to referral sources and funding sources that our treatment works, using data from a valid and reliable scale. Effect size data also has numerous implications for supervision, and supervision sessions are more focused and productive.
  3.  Use of the SRS (session rating scale) is helping providers attend to the therapeutic alliance in a much more deliberate manner. As a result, we have noticed increased collaboration between consumer and provider, less resistance and more partnership, and greater openness from consumers about their treatment experience. Consumer satisfaction surveying has revealed increased satisfaction by consumers. The implications for consumers keeping appointments and actually implementing what is learned in treatment are clear. The Session Rating Scale is also yielding some unexpected feedback from clients and has caused us to rethink what we assume about clients and their treatment experience.
  4. Service providers, especially those who are less experienced, appear to be more confident and purposeful when providing services. The data provides a basis for clinical work and there is much less ‘flying by the seat of their pants.’”Inspiring, eh?  And now, listen to Community Counseling Services Director Bob Moneysmith and Crawford-Marion ADAMH Board Associate Director Shirley Galdys describe the implementation:

Outcomes in the Artic: An Interview with Norwegian Practitioner Konrad Kummernes

By Leave a Comment

Dateline: Mosjoen, Norway

The last stop on my training tour around northern Norway was Mosjoen.  The large group of psychologists, social workers, psychiatrists, case managers, and physicians laughed uproariously when I talked about the bumpy, “white-knuckler” ride aboard the small twin-engine airplane that delivered me to the snowy, mountain-rimmed town. They were all to familiar with the peculiar path pilots must follow to navigate safely between the sharp, angular peaks populating the region.

Anyway, I’d been invited nearly two years earlier to conduct the day-long training on “what works in treatment.” The event was sponsored by Helgelandssykehuset-Mosjoen and organized by Norwegian practitioner Konrad Kummernes.  I first met Konrad at a conference held in another beautiful location in Norway (is there any other type in this country?!), Stavanger–best known for its breathtaking Fjordes.  The goal for the day in Mosjoen?  Facilitate the collaboration between the many different services providers and settings thereby enabling the delivery of the most effective and comprehensive clinical services.  Meeting Konrad again and working with the many dedicated professionals in Mosjoen was an inspiration. Here’s Konrad:

Practice-Based Evidence in Norway: An Interview with Psychologist Mikael Aagard

By Leave a Comment

For those of you following me on Facebook–and if you’re not, click here to start–you know that I was traveling above the arctic circle in Norway last week.  I always enjoy visiting the Scandinavian countries.  My grandparents immigrated from nearby Sweden.  I lived there myself for a number of years (and speak the language).  And I am married to a Norwegian!  So, I consider Scandinavia to be my second home.

In a prior post, I talked a bit about the group I worked with during my three day stay in Tromso.  Here, I briefly interview psychologist Mikael Aagard, the organizer of the conference.  Mikael works at KORUS Nord, an addiction technology transfer center, which sponsored the training.  His mission?  To help clinicians working in the trenches stay up-to-date with the research on “what works” in behavioral health.  Judging by the tremendous response–people came from all over the disparate regions of far northern Norway to attend the conference–he is succeeding.

Listen as he describes the challenges facing practitioners in Norway and the need to balance the “evidence-based practice” movement with “practice-based evidence.”  If you’d like any additional information regarding KORUS, feel free to connect with Mikael and his colleagues by visiting their website.  Information about the activities of the International Center for Clinical Excellence in Scandinavia can be found at: www.centerforclinicalexcellence.org.

Evidence-based practice or practice-based evidence? Article in the Los Angeles Times addresses the debate in behavioral health

By Leave a Comment


January 11th, 2010

“Debate over Cognitive & Traditional Mental Health Therapy” by Eric Jaffe

The fight debate between different factons, interest groups, scholars within the field of mental health hit the pages of the Los Angeles Times this last week. At issue?  Supposedly, whether the field will become “scientific” in practice or remain mired in traditions of the past.  On the one side are the enthusiastic supporters of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) who claim that existing research provides overwhelming support for the use of CBT for the treatment of specific mental disorders.  On the other side are traditional, humanistic, “feel-your-way-as-you-go” practitioners who emphasize quality over the quantitative.

My response?  Spuds or potatoes.  Said another way, I can’t see any difference between the two warring factions.  Yes, research indicates the CBT works.  That exact same body of literature shows overwhelmingly, however, that any and all therapeutic approaches intended to be therapeutic are effective.  And yes, certainly, quality is important.  The question is, however, “what counts as quality?” and more importantly, “who gets to decide?”

In the Los Angeles Times article, I offer a third way; what has loosely been termed, “practice-based evidence.”  The bottom line?  Practitioners must seek and obtain valid, reliable, and ongoing feedback from consumers regarding the quality and effectiveness of the services they offer.  After all, what person following unsuccessful treatment would say, “well, at least I got CBT!” or, “I’m sure glad I got the quality treatment.”

"What Works" in Norway

By 1 Comment

Dateline: Tromso, Norway
Place: Rica Ishavshotel

For the last two days, I’ve had the privilege of working with 125+ clinicians (psychotherapists, psychologists, social workers, psychiatrists, and addiction treatment professionals) in far northern Norway.  The focus of the two-day training was on “What Works” in treatment, in particular examining what constitutes “evidence-based practice” and how to seek and utilize feedback from consumers on an ongoing basis.  The crowd was enthusiastic, the food fantastic, and the location, well, simply inspiring.  Tomorrow, I’ll be working with a smaller group of practitioners, doing an advanced training.  More to come.

Are all treatments approaches equally effective?

By Leave a Comment

Bruce Wampold, Ph.D.

Late yesterday, I blogged about a soon-to-be published article in Clinical Psychology Review in which the authors argue that the finding by Benish, Imel, & Wamppold (2008) of equivalence in outcomes among treatments for PTSD was due to, “bias, over-generalization, lack of transparency, and poor judgement.”  Which interpretation of the evidence is correct?  Are there “specific approaches for specific disorders” that are demonstrably more effective than others?  Or does the available evidence show all approaches intended to be therapeutic to be equally effective?

History makes clear that science produces results in advance of understanding.  Until the response to Ehlers, Bisson, Clark, Creamer, Pilling, Richards, Schnurr, Turner, and Yule becomes available, I wanted to remind people of three prior blog posts that review the evidence regarding differential efficacy of competing therapeutic approaches.  The first (and I think most illuminating)–“The Debate of the Century“–appeared back in August.  The post featured a link to a debate between Bruce Wampold and enthusiastic proponent of “empirically supported treatments,” Steve Hollon.  Listen and then see if you agree with the large group of scientists and practitioners in attendance who thought–by a margin of 15:1–that Bruce carried the day.

The second post–Whoa Nellie!– commented on a 25 Million US$ research grant awarded by the US Department of Defense to study treatments for PTSD.  Why does this make me think of “deep throat’s” admonition to, “follow the money!”  Here you can read the study that is causing the uproar within the “specific treatments for specific disorders” gang.

Third, and finally, if you haven’t already read the post “Common versus Specific Factors and the Future of Psychotherapy,” I believe you’ll find the thorough review of the research done in response to an article by Siev and Chambless critical of the “dodo verdict” helpful.

DODO BIRD HYPOTHESIS PROVEN FALSE! Study of PTSD finally proves Wampold, Miller, and other "common factor" proponents wrong

By 3 Comments

The Dodo Bird Researchers Anke Ehlers, Jonathon Bisson, David Clark, Mark Creamer, Steven Pilling, David Richards, Paula Schnurr, Stuart Turner, and William Yule have finally done it!  They slayed the “dodo.” Not the real bird of course–that beast has been extinct since the mid to late 17th century but rather the “dodo bird” conjecture first articulated by Saul Rozenzweig, Ph.D. in 1936.  The idea that all treatment approaches work about equally well has dogged the field–and driven proponents of  “specific treatments for specific disorders” positively mad.  In a soon to be published article in Clinical Psychology Review, the authors claim that bias, overgeneralization, lack of transparency, and poor judgement account for the finding that “all therapeutic approaches work equally well for people with a diagnosis of PTSD” reported in a meta-analysis by Benish, Imel, & Wampold (2008).

I guess this means that a public admission by me, Wampold, and other common factors researchers is in order…or maybe not!  Right now, we are writing a response to the article.  All I can say at this point is, “unbelievable!”  As soon as it becomes available, you’ll find it right here on this blog.  I’ll be drawing inspiration from Saul Rosenzweig who passed away in 2004.  It was such an honor to meet him.  Still working at 96 years of age.

Why ongoing, formal feedback is critical for improving outcomes in healthcare

By 3 Comments

researchNot long ago, I had a rather lengthy email exchange with a well-known, high profile psychotherapist in the United States.  Feedback was the topic.  We both agreed that feedback was central to successful psychotherapy.   We differed, however, in terms of method.  I argued for the use of simple, standardized measures of progress and alliance (e.g., ORS and SRS).  In support of my opinion, I pointed to several randomized clinical trials documenting the impact of routine outcome monitoring on retention and progress.  I also cited studies showing traditionally low correlations between consumers and clinician’s rating of outcome and alliance and clinicians frighteningly frequent inability to predict deterioration and drop out in treatment.  He responded that such measures were an “unnecessary intrusion,” indicating that he’d always sought feedback from his clients albeit on an “informal basis.”  television-reception

When I mentioned our own research which had found that clinicians believed they asked consumers for feedback more often than they actually did, he finally seemed to agree with me.  “Of course,” he said immediately–but then he added, “I don’t need to ask in order to get feedback.”  In response to my query about how he managed to get feedback without asking, he responded (without a hint of irony), “I have unconditional empathic reception.”  Needless to say, the conversation ended there.

It’s a simple idea, feedback.  Yet, as I jet around the globe teaching about feedback-informed clinical practice, I’m struck by how hard it seems for many in healthcare to adopt.  Whatever the reason for the resistance–fear, hubris, or inertia–the failure to seek out valid and reliable feedback is a conceit that the field can no longer afford.  Simply stated, no one has “unconditional empathic reception.”  As the video below makes clear, we all need help seeing what is right before our eyes.

Research on the Outcome Rating Scale, Session Rating Scale & Feedback

By Leave a Comment

PCOMS - Partners for change outcome management system Scott D Miller - SAMHSA - NREPP“How valid and reliable are the ORS and SRS?”  “What do the data say about the impact of routine measurement and feedback on outcome and retention in behavioral health?”  “Are the ORS and SRS ‘evidence-based?'”

These and other questions regarding the evidence supporting the ORS, SRS, and feedback are becoming increasingly common in the workshops I’m teaching in the U.S. and abroad.

As indicated in my December 24th blogpost, routine outcome monitoring (PROMS) has even been endorsed by “specific treatments for specific disorders” proponent David Barlow, Ph.D., who stated unequivocally that “all therapists would soon be required to measure and monitor the outcome of their clinical work.”  Clearly, the time has come for all behavioral health practitioners to be aware of the research regarding measurement and feedback.

Over the holidays, I updated a summary of the data to date that has long been available to trainers and associates of the International Center for Clinical Excellence.  The PDF reviews all of the research on the psychometric properties of the outcome and session ratings scales as well as the studies using these and other formal measures of progress and the therapeutic relationship to improve outcome and retention in behavioral health services.  The topics is so important, that I’ve decide to make the document available to everyone.  Feel free to distribute the file to any and all colleagues interested in staying up to date on this emerging mega-trend in clinical practice.

Magical Moments in Kansas

By Leave a Comment

Registrations are already coming in for the first International Conference on “Achieving Clinical Excellence.”

Not too long ago, I announced that internationally known researcher K. Anders Erickson, Ph.D.–the “expert on experts”–had agreed to present at the event.  At that time, I also indicated that a number of internationally accomplished performers from a variety of professions (including psychology, business, medicine, science, music, entertainment, and sports) would be with us in Kansas City to teach and inspire.  Attendees will learn the science and skills for achieving their personal best as a behavioral health practitioner by literally learning from the best.

Practice, as anyone who has been reading my recent blogosts and publications knows, is key for achieving excellence–and not just any old kind will do.  To be effective, it must be deliberate, reflective, and ongoing.   What’s more, it must be accompanied with high levels of support and detailed instruction from exceptional teachers.

michael ammart

No performer embodies these two principles–dedicated practice and exceptional teaching–better than FISM gold-medial winning magician, Michael Ammar.  Magic magazine named him one of the 100 most influential magicians of the century.

Michael will open the second day of the the conference.  First, he’ll perform. What can I say?  You’ll be astonished and amazed.  After that, Michael will talk about the role of practice in achieving excellence.  He’s a master teacher who has spent years studying the elements of successful practice.  He’ll not only inspire you, he will provide you with the means to excel.

Join us for three action packed days of fun, science and skill building.  In the meantime, if you have a spare moment, watch Michael Ammar perform one of the classics of magic: the cups and balls.

 

New Year’s Resolutions: Progress Report and Future Plans

By Leave a Comment

One year ago today, I blogged about my New Year’s resolution to “take up the study of expertise and expert performance.”  The promise marked a significant departure from my work up to that point in time and was not without controversy:

“Was I no longer interested in psychotherapy?”

“Had I given up on the common factors?

“What about the ORS and SRS?” and was I abandoning the field and pursue magic as a profession?”

Seriously.

The answer to all of the questions was, of course, an emphatic “NO!”  At the same time, I recognized that I’d reached an empirical precipice–or, stated more accurately, dead end.  The common factors, while explaining why therapy works did not and could never tell us how to work.  And while seeking and obtaining ongoing feedback (via the ORS and SRS) had proven successful in boosting treatment outcomes, there was no evidence that the practice had a lasting impact on the professionals providing the service.

Understanding how to improve my performance as a clinician has, as is true of many therapists, been a goal and passion from the earliest days of my career.  The vast literature on expertise and expert performance appeared to provide the answers I’d long sought.   In fields as diverse as music and medicine, researchers had identified specific principles and methods associated with superior performance.  On January 2nd, 2009, I vowed to apply what I was learning to, “a subject I know nothing about…put[ting] into practice the insights gleaned from the study of expertise and expert performance.”

The subject? Magic (and the ukulele).

How have I done?  Definitely better than average I can say.  In a column written by Barbara Brotman in today’s Chicago Tribune, psychologist Janine Gauthier notes that while 45% of people make New Year’s resolutions, only 8% actually keep them!  I’m a solid 50%.  I am still studying and learning magic–as attendees at the 2009 “Training of Trainers” and my other workshops can testify.  The uke is another story, however.  To paraphrase 1988 Democratic vice-presidential candidate, Lloyd Bentsen , “I know great ukulele players, and Scott, you are no Jake Shimabukuro.”

I first saw Jake Shimabukuro play the ukulele at a concert in Hawaii.  I was in the islands working with behavioral health professionals in the military (Watch the video below and tell me if it doesn’t sound like more than one instrument is playing even though Jake is the only one pictured).

Interestingly, the reasons for my success with one and failure with the other are as simple and straightforward as the principles and practices that researchers say account for superior (and inferior) performance.  I promise to lay out these findings, along with my experiences, over the next several weeks.  If you are about to make a New Year’s resolution, let me give you step numero uno: make sure your goal/resolution is realistic.  I know, I know…how mundane.  And yet, while I’ve lectured extensively about the relationship between goal-setting and successful psychotherapy for over 15 years, my reading about expert performance combined with my attempts to master two novel skills, has made me aware of aspects I never knew about or considered before.

Anyway, stay tuned for more.  In the meantime, just for fun, take a look at the video below from master magician Bill Malone.  The effect he is performing is called, “Sam the Bellhop.”  I’ve been practicing this routine since early summer, using what I’ve learned from my study of the literature on expertise to master the effect (Ask me to perform it for you on break if you happen to be in attendance at one of my upcoming workshops).

The Study of Excellence: A Radically New Approach to Understanding "What Works" in Behavioral Health

By 2 Comments

“What works” in therapy?  Believe it or not, that question–as simple as it is–has and continues to spark considerable debate.  For decades, the field has been divided.  On one side are those who argue that the efficacy of psychological treatments is due to specific factors (e.g., changing negative thinking patterns) inherent in the model of treatment (e.g., cognitive behavioral therapy) remedial to the problem being treated (i.e., depression); on the other, is a smaller but no less committed group of researchers and writers who posit that the general efficacy of behavioral treatments is due to a group of factors common to all approaches (e.g., relationship, hope, expectancy, client factors).

While the overall effectiveness of psychological treatment is now well established–studies show that people who receive care are better off than 80% of those who do not regardless of the approach or the problem treated–one fact can not be avoided: outcomes have not improved appreciably over the last 30 years!  Said another way, the common versus specific factor battle, while generating a great deal of heat, has not shed much light on how to improve the outcome of behavioral health services.  Despite the incessant talk about and promotion of “evidence-based” practice, there is no evidence that adopting “specific methods for specific disorders” improves outcome.  At the same time, as I’ve pointed out in prior blogposts, the common factors, while accounting for why psychological therapies work, do not and can not tell us how to work.  After all, if the effectiveness of the various and competing treatment approaches is due to a shared set of common factors, and yet all models work equally well, why learn about the common factors?  More to the point, there simply is no evidence that adopting a “common factors” approach leads to better performance.

The problem with the specific and common factor positions is that both–and hang onto your seat here–have the same objective at heart; namely, contextlessness.  Each hopes to identify a set of principles and/or practices that are applicable across people, places, and situations.  Thus, specific factor proponents argue that particular “evidence-based” (EBP) approaches are applicable for a given problem regardless of the people or places involved (It’s amazing, really, when you consider that various approaches are being marketed to different countries and cultures as “evidence-based” when there is in no evidence that these methods work beyond their very limited and unrepresentative samples).  On the other hand, the common factors camp, in place of techniques, proffer an invariant set of, well, generic factors.  Little wonder that outcomes have stagnated.  Its a bit like trying to learn a language either by memorizing a phrase book–in the case of EBP–or studying the parts of speech–in the case of the common factors.

What to do?  For me, clues for resolving the impasse began to appear when, in 1994, I followed the advice of my friend and long time mentor, Lynn Johnson, and began formally and routinely monitoring the outcome and alliance of the clinical work I was doing.  Crucially, feedback provided a way to contextualize therapeutic services–to fit the work to the people and places involved–that neither a specific or common factors informed approach could.

Numerous studies (21 RCT’s; including 4 studies using the ORS and SRS) now document the impact of using outcome and alliance feedback to inform service delivery.  One study, for example, showed a 65% improvement over baseline performance rates with the addition of routine alliance and outcome feedback.  Another, more recent study of couples therapy, found that divorce/separation rates were half (50%) less for the feedback versus no feedback conditions!

Such results have, not surprisingly, led the practice of “routine outcome monitoring” (PROMS) to be deemed “evidence-based.” At the recent, Evolution of Psychotherapy conference I was on a panel with David Barlow, Ph.D.–a long time proponent of the “specific treatments for specific disorders” (EBP)–who, in response to my brief remarks about the benefits of feedback, stated unequivocally that all therapists would soon be required to measure and monitor the outcome of their clinical work.  Given that my work has focused almost exclusively on seeking and using feedback for the last 15 years, you would think I’d be happy.  And while gratifying on some level, I must admit to being both surprised and frightened by his pronouncement.

My fear?  Focusing on measurement and feedback misses the point.  Simply put: it’s not seeking feedback that is important.  Rather, it’s what feedback potentially engenders in the user that is critical.  Consider the following, while the results of trials to date clearly document the benefit of PROMS to those seeking therapy, there is currently no evidence of that the practice has a lasting impact on those providing the service.  “The question is,” as researcher Michael Lambert notes, “have therapists learned anything from having gotten feedback? Or, do the gains disappear when feedback disappears? About the same question. We found that there is little improvement from year to year…” (quoted in Miller et al. [2004]).

Research on expertise in a wide range of domains (including chess, medicine, physics, computer programming, and psychotherapy) indicates that in order to have a lasting effect feedback must increase a performer’s “domain specific knowledge.”   Feedback must result in the performer knowing more about his or her area and how and when to apply than knowledge to specific situations than others.  Master level chess players, for example, have been shown to possess 10 to 100 times more chess knowledge than “club-level” players.  Not surprisingly, master players’ vast information about the game is consilidated and organized differently than their less successful peers; namely, in a way that allows them to access, sort, and apply potential moves to the specific situation on the board.  In other words, their immense knowledge is context specific.

A mere handful studies document similar findings among superior performing therapists: not only do they know more, they know how, when, and with whom o apply that knowledge.  I noted these and highlighted a few others in the research pipeline during my workshop on “Achieving Clinical Excellence” at the Evolution of Psychotherapy conference.  I also reviewed what 30 years of research on expertise and expert performance has taught us about how feedback must be used in order to insure that learning actually takes place.  Many of those in attendance stopped by the ICCE booth following the presentation to talk with our CEO, Brendan Madden, or one of our Associates and Trainers (see the video below).

Such research, I believe, holds the key to moving beyond the common versus specific factor stalemate that has long held the field in check–providing therapists with the means for developing, organizing, and contextualizing clinical knowledge in a manner that leads to real and lasting improvements in performance.

Holidays and Suicide: Tis’ the Season NOT!

By Leave a Comment

The notion that suicides increase during the holiday season is as traditional as “Santa Claus”–and, according to statistics dating back at least a decade, just as illusory.  In fact, research actually shows suicide rates to be the lowest in December!  According to Dan Romer, a researcher at the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania, the holidays are simply not a time for suicide.  If you are trying to peg the rate to a particular month during the year, try May.  Moreover, even suicide attempts decline during the holiday season!  At Cuyahoga County Mental health, a group I’ve worked closely with over the last three years implementing Feedback Informed Treatment (FIT), the director of crisis services, Rick Oliver, says that reviews done by the agency show that calls from suicidal people actually drop off during this time of year.

The culprit for the lingering misconception?  The media and–hold onto your candy cane–healthcare professionals!  That’s right.  In a study published this month in the British Medical Journal, researchers Vreeman and Carroll, found that healthcare professionals believe in the suicide-holiday connection along with a number of other dubious ideas (including sugar leads to hyperactivity, poinsettias are poisonous, and people lose heat through their head).stop-it-sign

So, the advice to the media and healthcare professionals, given the evidence, can only be: STOP IT!  Stop associating the holiday season with increased risk of suicide.

Clearly, suicide can happen at any time and none of the foregoing implies that people can’t and don’t feel blue.  At the same time, the decrease in suicides during this period suggests a possible course of action: connection and generosity.  If you are feeling down, do your best to reach out.  And if you’re not, then extend your hand.

The Effects of Feedback on Medication Compliance and Outcome: The University of Pittsburgh Study

By 1 Comment

A number of years ago, I was conducting a workshop in Pittsburgh.  At some point during the training, I met Dr. Jan Pringle, the director of the Program Evaluation Research Unit in the School of Pharmacy at the University of Pittsburgh.

Jan had an idea: use outcome feedback to improve pharmacy practice and outcome.  Every year, large numbers of prescriptions are written by physicians (and other practitioners) that are never filled.  Whats more, surprisingly large number of the scripts that are filled, are either: (a) not taken; or (b) not taken properly.  The result?  In addition to the inefficient use of scarce resources, the disconnect between prescribers, pharmacists, and patients puts people at risk for poor healthcare outcomes.

Together with project coordinator and colleague, Dr. Michael Melczak, Jan set up a study using the ORS and SRS.  Over the last 3 years, I’ve worked as a consultant to the project–providing training and addressing issues regarding application in this first ever study of pharmacy.

Anyway, there were two different conditions in the study.  In the first, pharmacists–the practitioner most likely to interact with patients about prescriptions–engaged in “practice as usual.”  In the second condition, pharmacists used the ORS and the SRS to chart, discuss, and guide patient progress and the pharmacist-patient alliance.  Although the manuscript is still in preparation, I’m pleased to be able to report here that, according to Drs. Pringle and Melczak, the results indicate, “that the patients who were seen by the pharmacists who used [the] scales were significantly more likely to take their medications at the levels that would be likely to result in clinical impact than the patients who saw a pharmacists who did not use the scales…for hypertensive and hyperlipidemia drugs especially.”

Stay tuned for more…

The Evolution of Psychotherapy: Meeting Michael Hoyt

By 1 Comment

I’m still reeling from the experience in Anaheim this last week.  I met so many leaders in the field, heard so many presentations on cutting edge clinical practice–as well as was reminded of some “classic” principles of effective psychotherapy.

One of the people I met was colleague and friend, Michael F. Hoyt, Ph.D.  Michael and I go back 15+ years, having met–I believe–the first time at a workshop I was giving in Northern California (somewhere in the Bay Area where Michael works and resides).  Since that time, we chatted regularly, and written editorials and book chapters together.  His books (The First Session in Brief Therapy, Brief Therapy & Managed Care, The Handbook of Constructive Therapies, Some Stories are Better than Others) always balance theory and practice and are among my favorites.

My two favorite books are also his most recent: The Present is a Gift and Brief Psychotherapies: Principles & Practice (Hint: his chapters on couples therapy are among the best I’ve ever read).  Anyway, the two of us caught up at the ICCE booth this last week at the Evolution conference.

Five Incredible Days in Anaheim

By 2 Comments

From December 9-13th, eight thousand five hundred mental health practitioners, from countries around the globe, gathered in Anaheim, California to attend the “Evolution of Psychotherapy” conference.  Held every five years since 1985, the conference started big and has grown only larger.  “Only a few places in the US can accommodate such a large gathering,” says Jeffrey K. Zeig, Ph.D., who has organized the conference since the first.

The event, held every five years, brings together 40 of the field’s leading researchers, practitioners, trend setters, and educators to deliver keynote addresses and workshops, host discussion panels, and offer clinical demonstrations on every conceivable subject related to clinical practice.  Naturally, I spoke about my current work on “Achieving Clinical Excellence” as well as served on several topical panels, including “evidence based practice” (with Don Meichenbaum), “Research on Psychotherapy” (with Steven Hayes and David Barlow), and “Severe and Persistent Mental Illness (with Marsha Linnehan and Jeff Zeig).

Most exciting of all, the Evolution of Psychotherapy conference also served as the official launching point for the International Center for Clinical Excellence.  Here I am pictured with long-time colleague and friend, Jeff Zeig, and psychologist and ICCE CEO, Brendan Madden, in front of the ICCE display in the convention center hall.

Over the five days, literally hundreds of visitors stopped by booth #128 chat with me, Brendan, and Senior ICCE Associates and Trainers, Rob Axsen, Jim Walt, Cynthia Maeschalck, Jason Seidel, Bill Andrews, Gunnar Lindfeldt, and Wendy Amey.  Among other things, a cool M and M dispenser passed out goodies to folks (if they pressed the right combination of buttons), we also talked about and handed out leaflets advertising the upcoming “Achieving Clinical Excellence” conference, and finally people watched a brief video introducing the ICCE community.  Take a look yourself:.


More to come from the week in Anaheim….

Evolution of Psychotherapy and the International Center for Clinical Excellence

By Leave a Comment

evolution-2005

Dateline: Chicago, Illinois
December 7, 2009

I’ve just finished packing my bags and am heading for the airport.  Tomorrow the “Evolution of Psychotherapy” begins.  Nearly 25 years after volunteering at the first “Evolution” conference, I’m back a second time to present.  Tomorrow, I’ll be talking about “Achieving Clinical Excellence.”  On the days that follow, I’m on panels with my friend Don Meichenbaum, as well as David Barlow, Marsha Linnehan, and others.  I’m really looking forward to the four days in Anaheim.

Of everything going on in sunny southern California, I have to say that I’m most excited about the launch of the International Center for Clinical Excellence.  We have a booth (#128) in the exhibitor hall where folks can stop by, talk, and peruse our new website.  As promised, it is a true web 2.0 experience, enabling clinicians researchers. and educators around the world to connect, share, and learn from each other.

We’ll be streaming video to facebook and twitter. Stay tuned to my blog and twitter accounts as well for updates, videos, and pictures from the conference.

Climate Change in Denmark

By Leave a Comment

hans_christian_andersen_gbHans Christian Andersen, the author of such classic stories as The Ugly Duckling and the Emperor’s New Clothes, once wrote, “Life itself is the most wonderful fairy tale of all.”  That sentiment is certainly true of my own life.  For the last 16 years, I’ve been privileged to travel around the world conducting training and providing consultation.  Each year, I meet literally thousands of therapists and I’m consistently impressed and inspired by their dedication and persistence.  Truth be told, that “spirit”–for lack of a better word–is actually what keeps me in the field.

This last year, I’ve spent a considerable amount of time working with practitioners in Denmark.  Interest in Feedback-Informed Treatment has taken off–and I have the frequent flyer miles to prove it! While I’ve been traveling to the homeland of Hans Christian Andersen for many years (actually my maternal grandfather and his family immigrated to the United States from a small town just outside Copenhagen), momentum really began building following several years of workshops arranged by Henrik and Mette Petersen who run Solution–a top notch organization providing both workshops and year-long certification courses in short-term, solution-focused, and systemic therapies.

In October, I worked with 100+ staff who work at Psykoterapeutisk Center Stolpegård–a large outpatient center just outside of Copenhagen.  For two days, we talked about research and practice in psychotheapy, focusing specifically on using outcome to inform and improve clinical services.  Peter Koefoed, chief psychologist and head of Training organized the event.   I was back in Denmark not quite one month later for two days with Henrik and Mette Petersen and a then third day for a small, intensive training with Toftemosegaard–a center for growth and change–smack dab in the middle of Copenhagen.

At each event, I was honored to be accompanied by Danish psychologist Susanne Bargmann, who is an Associate and Certified Trainer for the Center for Clinical Excellence (ICCE).  I first met Susanne at a two-day workshop sponsored by Solutions a number of years ago.  Her attitude and drive is infectious.  She attended the Training of Trainer’s event in Chicago and now runs a listserve for Danish practitioners interested in feedback-informed treatment (FIT) (by the way, if you are interested in joining the group simply click on her name above to send an email).

Recently, she published an important article in Psycholog Nyt–the official magazine for the Danish Psychological Association. The article is really the first written in Danish by a Danish practitioner to suggest “practice-based evidence” as a scientifically credible alternative to the narrow “specific treatments for specific problems” paradigm that has come to dominate professional discourse and practice the world over.

Anyway, I’ll be back in Denmark several times in 2010.  In May, I’ll be teaching “Supershrinks: Learning from the Field’s Most Effective Practitioners.”  The course, as I understand it, is already sold out.  No worries though as the workshop is being offered again in November–so sign up early (click here to access my workshop calendar).  Also, in September, Susanne and I will jointly teach a course for psychologists on research entitled, “Forskning og Formidling”–a required training for those seeking specialist approval by the Danish Psychological Association. Finally, as I’ve done for the last several years, I’m scheduled to do two days for Solution as well.  If you live and work in Denmark, I truly hope to see you at one of these events.

 

Outcomes in OZ III

By Leave a Comment

Dateline: November 28, 2009 Brisbane, Australia

accor

Crown Plaza Hotel
Pelican Waters Golf Resort & Spa

As their name implies, LifeLine Australia is the group people call when they need a helping hand.  During the last leg of my tour of eastern Australia, I was lucky enough to spend two days working with Lifeline’s dedicated and talented clinicians on improving the retention and outcome of clinical services they offer.

The two-day conference was the kick off for a “transformation project,” as Trevor Carlyon, the executive director of Lifeline Community Care points out in the video segment below, the stated goal of which is “putting clients back at the center of care.”   Nearly 200 clinicians working with a diverse clientele located throughout northern Queensland gathered for the event.  I look forward to returning in the future as the ideas are implemented across services throughout the system.

 

Outcomes in Oz II

By 4 Comments

Sitting in my hotel room in Brisbane, Australia.  It’s beautiful here: white, sandy beaches and temperatures hovering around 80 degrees.  Can’t say that I’ll be enjoying the sunny weather much.  Tomorrow I’ll be speaking to a group of 135+ practitioners about “Supershrinks.”  I leave for home on Saturday.  While it’s cold and overcast in Chicago, I’m really looking forward to seeing my family after nearly two weeks on the road.

I spent the morning talking to practitioners in New Zealand via satellite for a conference sponsored by Te Pou.  It was a completely new and exciting experience for me, seated in an empty television studio and talking to a camera.  Anyway, organizers of the conference are determined to avoid mistakes made in the U.S., Europe, and elsewhere with the adoption of “evidence-based practice.”  As a result, they organized the event around the therapeutic alliance–the most neglected, yet evidence-based concept in the treatment literature!  More later, including a link to the hour-long presentation.

On Friday and Saturday of this last week, I was in the classic Victorian city of Melbourne, Australia doing two days worth of training at the request of WorkSafe and the Traffic Accident Commission.  The mission of WorkSafe is, “Working with the community to deliver outstanding workplace safety, together with quality care and insurance protection to workers and employers.”  100+ clinicians dedicated to helping Australians recover from work and traffic-related injuries were present for the first day of training which focused on using formal client feedback to improve retention and outcome of psychological services.  On day 2, a smaller group met for an intensive day of training and consultation.  Thanks go to the sponsors and attendees for an exciting two days.  Learn more about how outcomes are being used to inform service delivery by watching the video below with Daniel Claire and Claire Amies from the Health Services Group.

 

Outcomes in Oz

By Leave a Comment

Greetings from beautiful Melbourne, Australia!   For the next couple of weeks, I’ll be traveling the up and down the east coast of this captivating country, conducting workshops and providing consultations on feedback-informed clinical work.

Actually, I’ve had the privilege of visiting and teaching in Australia about once a year beginning in the late 1990’s. Back then, Liz Sheehan, the editor of the “must read” journal Psychotherapy in Australiabrought me in to speak about the then recently published first edition of the Heart and Soul of Change.  By the way, if you are not from Australia, and are unfamiliar with the journal, please do visit the website.  Liz makes many of the articles that appear in the print version available online.  I’ve been a subscriber for years now and await the arrival of each issue with great anticipation.  I’m never disappointed.

In any event, on Wednesday this week, I spent the entire day with Mark Buckingham, Fiona Craig, and the clinical staff of Kedesh Rehabilitation Services in Wollongong, Australia–a scenic sea-side location about 45 minutes south of Sydney.  Briefly, Kedesh is a residential treatment facility providing cutting-edge, consumer driven, outcome-informed services to people with drug, alcohol, and mental health problems.  The crew at Kedesh is using the ORS and SRS to guide service delivery and is, in fact, one of the first to fully implement CDOI in the country.

I’ll be back with more soon, so please check back tomorrow.  In the meantime, check out the video with Mark and Fiona.

Where is Scott Miller going? The Continuing Evolution

By 2 Comments

I’ve just returned from a week in Denmark providing training for two important groups.  On Wednesday and Thursday, I worked with close to 100 mental health professionals presenting the latest information on “What Works” in Therapy at the Kulturkuset in downtown Copenhagen.  On Friday, I worked with a small group of select clinicians working on implementing feedback-informed treatment (FIT) in agencies around Denmark.  The day was organized by Toftemosegaard and held at the beautiful and comfortable Imperial Hotel.

In any event, while I was away, I received a letter from my colleague and friend, M. Duncan Stanton.  For many years, “Duke,” as he’s known, has been sending me press clippings and articles both helping me stay “up to date” and, on occasion, giving me a good laugh.  Enclosed in the envelope was the picture posted above, along with a post-it note asking me, “Are you going into a new business?!”

As readers of my blog know, while I’m not going into the hair-styling and spa business, there’s a grain of truth in Duke’s question.  My work is indeed evolving.  For most of the last decade, my writing, research, and training focused on factors common to all therapeutic approaches. The logic guiding these efforts was simple and straightforward. The proven effectiveness of psychotherapy, combined with the failure to find differences between competing approaches, meant that elements shared by all approaches accounted for the success of therapy (e.g., the therapeutic alliance, placebo/hope/expectancy, structure and techniques, extratherapeutic factors).  As first spelled out in Escape from Babel: Toward a Unifying Language for Psychotherapy Practice, the idea was that effectiveness could be enhanced by practitioners purposefully working to enhance the contribution of these pantheoretical ingredients.  Ultimately though, I realized the ideas my colleagues and I were proposing came dangerously close to a new model of therapy.  More importantly, there was (and is) no evidence that teaching clinicians a “common factors” perspective led to improved outcomes–which, by the way, had been my goal from the outset.

The measurable improvements in outcome and retention–following my introduction of the Outcome and Session Rating Scales to the work being done by me and my colleagues at the Institute for the Study of Therapeutic Change–provided the first clues to the coming evolution.  Something happened when formal feedback from consumers was provided to clinicians on an ongoing basis–something beyond either the common or specific factors–a process I believed held the potential for clarifying how therapists could improve their clinical knowledge and skills.  As I began exploring, I discovered an entire literature of which I’d previously been unaware; that is, the extensive research on experts and expert performance.  I wrote about our preliminary thoughts and findings together with my colleagues Mark Hubble and Barry Duncan in an article entitled, “Supershrinks” that appeared in the Psychotherapy Networker.

Since then, I’ve been fortunate to be joined by an internationally renowned group of researchers, educators, and clinicians, in the formation of the International Center for Clinical Excellence (ICCE).  Briefly, the ICCE is a web-based community where participants can connect, learn from, and share with each other.  It has been specifically designed using the latest web 2.0 technology to help behavioral health practitioners reach their personal best.  If you haven’t already done so, please visit the website at www.iccexcellence.com to register to become a member (its free and you’ll be notified the minute the entire site is live)!

As I’ve said before, I am very excited by this opportunity to interact with behavioral health professionals all over the world in this way.  Stay tuned, after months of hard work and testing by the dedicated trainers, associates, and “top performers” of ICCE, the site is nearly ready to launch.

Leading Outcomes in Vermont: The Brattleboro Retreat and Primarilink Project

By 4 Comments

For the last 7 years, I’ve been traveling to the small, picturesque village of Brattleboro, Vermont to work with clinicians, agency managers, and various state officials on integrating outcomes into behavioral health services.  Peter Albert, the director of Governmental Affairs and PrimariLink at the Brattleboro Retreat, has tirelessly crisscrossed the state, promoting outcome-informed clinical work and organizing the trainings and ongoing consultations.   Over time, I’ve done workshops on the common factors, “what works” in therapy, using outcome to inform treatment, working with challenging clinical problems and situations and, most recently, the qualities and practices of super effective therapists.  In truth, outcome-informed clinical work both grew up and “came of age” in Vermont.  Indeed, Peter Albert was the first to bulk-purchase the ASIST program and distribute it for free to any provider interested in tracking and improving the effectiveness of their clinical work.

If you’ve never been to the Brattleboro area, I can state without reservation that it is one of the most beautiful areas I’ve visited in the U.S.–particularly during the Fall, when the leaves are changing color.  If you are looking for a place to stay for a few days, the Crosy House is my first and only choice.  The campus of the Retreat is also worth visiting.  It’s no accident that the trainings are held there as it has been a place for cutting edge services since being founded in 1874.  The radical idea at that time?  Treat people with respect and dignity.  The short film below gives a brief history of the Retreat and a glimpse of the serene setting.

Anyway, this last week, I spent an entire day together with a select group of therapists dedicated to improving outcomes and delivering superior service to their clients.  Briefly, these clinicians have been volunteering their time to participate in a project to implement outcome-informed work in their clinical settings.  We met in the boardroom at the Retreat, discussing the principles and practices of outcome-informed work as well as reviewing graphs of their individual and aggregate ORS and SRS data.

It has been and continues to be an honor to work with each and every one in the PrimariLink project.  Together, they are making a real difference in the lives of those they work with and to the field of behavioral health in Vermont.  If you are a clinician located in Vermont or provide services to people covered by MVP or PrimariLink and would like to participate in the project, please email Peter Albert.  At the same time, if you are a person in need of behavioral health services and looking for a referral, you could do no better than contacting one of the providers in the project!

Common versus Specific Factors and the Future of Psychotherapy: A Response to Siev and Chambless

By 4 Comments

Early last summer, I received an email from my long time friend and colleague Don Meichenbaum alerting me to an article published in the April 2009 edition of the Behavior Therapist–the official “newsletter” of the Association for Behavioral and Cognitive Therapies–critical of the work that I and others have done on the common factors.

Briefly, the article, written by two proponents of the “specific treatments for specific disorders” approach to “evidence-based practice” in psychology, argued that the common factors position–the idea that the efficacy of psychotherapy is largely due to shared rather than unique or model-specific factors–was growing in popularity despite being based on “fallacious reasoning” and a misinterpretation of the research.

Although the article claimed to provide an update on research bearing directly on the validity of the “dodo verdict”–the idea that all treatment approaches work equally well–it simply repeated old criticisms and ignored contradictory, and at times, vast evidence.  Said another way, rather than seizing the opportunity they were given to educate clinicians and address the complex issues involved in questions surrounding evidence-based practice, Siev and Chambless instead wrote to “shore up the faithful.”  “Do not doubt,” authors Siev and Chambless were counseling their adherents, “science is on our side.”

That differences and tensions exist in the interpretation of the evidence is clear and important.  At the same time, more should be expected from those who lead the field.  You read the articles and decide.  The issues at stake are critical to the future of psychotherapy.  As I will blog about next week, there are forces at work in the United States and abroad that are currently working to limit the types of approaches clinicians can employ when working with clients.  While well-intentioned, available evidence indicates they are horribly misguided.  Once again, the question clinicians and consumers face is not “which treatment is best for that problem,” but rather “which approach “fits with, engages, and helps” the particular consumer at this moment in time?”

Outcomes in Ohio: The Ohio Council of Behavioral Health & Family Service Providers

By Leave a Comment

Ohio is experiencing the same challenges faced by other states when it comes to behavioral health services: staff and financial cutbacks, increasing oversight and regulation, rising caseloads, unrelenting paperwork, and demands for accountability.  Into the breach, the Ohio Council of Behavioral Health & Family Service Providers organized their 30th annual conference, focused entirely on helping their members meet the challenges and provide the most effective services possible.

On Tuesday, I presented a plenary address summarizing 40 years of research on “What Works” in clinical practice as well as strategies for documenting and improving retention and outcome of behavioral health services.  What can I say?  It was a real pleasure working with the 200+ clinicians, administrators, payers, and business executives in attendance.  Members of OCBHFSP truly live up to their stated mission of, “improving the health of Ohio’s communities and the well-being of Ohio’s families by promoting effective, efficient, and sufficient behavioral health and family services through member excellence and family advocacy.”

For a variety of reasons, the State of Ohio has recently abandoned the outcome measure that had been in use for a number of years.  In my opinion, this is a “good news/bad news” situation.  The good news is that the scale that was being used was neither feasible or clinically useful.  The bad news, at least at this point in time, is that state officials opted for no measure rather than another valid, reliable, and feasible outcome tool.  This does not mean that agencies and providers are not interested in outcome.  Indeed, as I will soon blog about, a number of clinics and therapists in Ohio are using the Outcome and Session Rating Scales to inform and improve service delivery.  At the conference, John Blair and Jonathon Glassman from Myoutcomes.com demonstrated the web-based system for administering, scoring, and interpreting the scales to many attendees.  I caught up with them both in the hall outside the exhibit room.

Anyway, thanks go to the members and directors of OCBHFSP for inviting me to present at the conference.  I look forward to working with you in the future.

Whoa Nellie! A 25 Million Dollar Study of Treatments for PTSD

By 1 Comment

I have in my hand a frayed and yellowed copy of observations once made by a well known trainer of horses. The trainer’s simple message for leading a productive and successful professional life was, “If the horse you’re riding dies, get off.”

You would think the advice straightforward enough for all to understand and benefit.  And yet, the trainer pointed out, “many professionals don’t always follow it.”  Instead, they choose from an array of alternatives, including:

  1. Buying a strong whip
  2. Switching riders
  3. Moving the dead horse to a new location
  4. Riding the dead horse for longer periods of time
  5. Saying things like, “This is the way we’ve always ridden the horse.”
  6. Appointing a committee to study the horse
  7. Arranging to visit other sites where they ride dead horses more efficiently
  8. Increasing the standards for riding dead horses
  9. Creating a test for measuring our riding ability
  10. Complaining about how the state of the horse the days
  11. Coming up with new styles of riding
  12. Blaming the horse’s parents as the problem is often in the breeding.
When it comes to the treatment of post traumatic stress disorder, it appears the Department of Defense is applying all of the above.  Recently, the DoD awarded the largest grant ever awarded to “discover the best treatments for combat-related post-traumatic stress disorder” (APA Monitor).  Beneficiaries of the award were naturally ecstatic, stating “The DoD has never put this amount of money to this before.”
Missing from the announcements was any mention of research which clearly shows no difference in outcome between approaches intended to be therapeutic—including, the two approaches chosen for comparison in the DoD study!  In June 2008, researchers Benish, Imel, and Wampold, conducted a meta-analysis of all studies in which two or more treatment approaches were directly compared.  The authors conclude, “Given the lack of differential efficacy between treatments, it seems scientifically questionable to recommend one particular treatment over others that appear to be of comparable effectiveness. . . .keeping patients in treatment would appear to be more important in achieving desired outcomes than would prescribing a particular type of psychotherapy” (p. 755).
Ah yes, the horse is dead, but proponents of “specific treatments for specific disorders” ride on.  You can hear their rallying cry, “we will find a more efficient and effective way to ride this dead horse!” My advice? Simple: let’s get off this dead horse. There are any number of effective treatments for PTSD.  The challenge is decidedly not figuring out which one is best for all but rather “what works” for the individual. In these recessionary times, I can think of far better ways to spend 25 million than on another “horse race” between competing therapeutic approaches.  Evidence based methods exist for assessing and adjusting both the “fit and effect” of clinical services—the methods described, for instance, in the scholarly publications sections of my website.  Such methods have been found to improve both outcome and retention by as much as 65%.  What will happen? Though I’m hopeful, I must say that the temptation to stay on the horse you chose at the outset of the race is a strong one.

Achieving Clinical Excellence: The Conference

By Leave a Comment

A few weeks ago, I announced the first International “Achieving Clinical Excellence” (ACE) conference to be held at the Westin Hotel in Kansas City, Missouri on October 20-22nd, 2010.  You can now register for this and all other ICCE events, by clicking here.  Through a variety of keynote addresses and workshops, participants will learn the “science and steps” to excellence in clinical practice.  Attendees will also meet and learn directly from internationally ranked performers from a variety of professions, including medicine, science, music, entertainment, and sports.  I do hope you’ll join us in Kansas City for three days of science, skill building, and inspiration.

In the meantime, I wanted to tell you a bit about one of the conference’s keynote speakers, K. Anders Ericsson, Ph.D. As anyone who has been following my blog knows, Dr. Ericsson is the editor of the massive and influential “Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance.”  He is an internationally known writer, researcher, and speaker who is commonly referred to as “the expert on experts.”

 At the ACE conference, Dr. Ericsson will bring his knowledge and experience to bear on the subject of expertise in behavioral health.  I promise you won’t want to miss it. For a flavor, give his recent article from the Harvard Business Review a read.

The Crown Jewel of Research on CDOI: Professor Jan Blomqvist receives 2.9 million crown grant for RCT on feedback in Sweden

By 2 Comments

If you’ve been following me on Twitter, then you know that last week I was touring and teaching in different spots around Europe.  First, I presented two days in Copenhagen.  Then I keynoted the British Association of Counseling and Psychotherapy Conference in Newcastle, England.  Early Saturday morning, I flew from London to Stockholm.  My long time friend and associate, Gunnar Lindfelt picked me up at Arlanda airport and drove me back to his lovely home in the city.  There, we gorged on smoked salmon, “svensk godies” (small candies, my favorite of which is “skum bananer”–dark chocolate covered marshmellow in the shape of a banana) and Cider–a non-alcoholic fizzy apple drink that is an old time Swedish favorite.

It was Gunnar Lindfeldt, a gifted clinician and expert in the treatment of drug and alcohol problems, who first introduced me to the work of Swedish psychologist Jan Blomqvist.  In 1998, Blomqvist published a book entitled, “Beyond Treatment? Widening the Approach to Alcohol Problems and Solutions“ in which he made the provocative argument that common rather than specific factors held the key to effective care.  Since writing the book, Jan Blomqvist has continued his research and is currently a full professor at SORAD, the Centre for Social Research on Alcohol and Drugs at Stockholm University.

Anyway, I had the pleasure of meeting with Professor Blomqvist at his home in Uppsala, Sweden this last week.  Over homemade spinach soup, freshly-baked bread and cheese, we chatted about the state of the field.  The pièce de résistance, however, was hearing about the 2.9 million Swedish crown grant he had just been awarded for a 4 year long study of outcome-informed treatment of alcohol problems, called “Putting the Client in the Driver’s Seat.”

The study to be conducted by Professor Blomqvist will be the largest, most comprehensive, randomized clinical trial on client-directed outcome informed clinical work.  A centerpience of the study will be the routine use of the ORS and SRS and provision of feedback in the delivery of treatment services.  Importantly, unlike all other studies to date, this project completely avoids claims of “allegiance effects” as no developers of measures or supporters of CDOI are participating.  Stay tuned to the “Top Performance” blog for additional updates!  While you are waiting, take a moment and read Professor Blomqvist’s provocative take on “addiction” in slide viewer below.

The Field, the Future, and Feedback

By Leave a Comment

There is an old (but in many ways sad) joke about two clinicians–actually, the way I first heard the story, it was two psychiatrists.  The point of the story is the same regardless of the discipline of the provider.  Anyway, two therapists meet in the hallway after a long day spent meeting clients.  One, the younger of the two, is tired and bedraggled.  The other, older and experienced, looks the same as s/he did at the start of the day: eyes bright and attentive, hair perfectly groomed, clothes and appearance immaculate.  Taken aback by the composure of the more experienced colleague, the younger therapist asks, “How do you do it?  How do you listen to the trials and tribulations, the problem and complaints, the dire lives and circumstances of your clients, minute and minute, hour upon hour…and yet emerge at the end of the day in such good shape?”  Slowly shaking his head from left to right, the older and more experienced clinician immediately reached out, tapping the less experienced colleague gently on the shoulder, and then after removing the thick plugs stuffed into both of his years, said, “Excuse me, what did you say?”

Let’s face it: healthcare is in trouble.  Behavioral healthcare in particular is in even worse shape.  And while solutions from politicians, pundits, industry insiders and professionals are circulating in Washington with all the sound and fury of a hurricane, the voice of consumers is largely absent.  Why?  Of course, many of the barriers between providers and consumers are systemic in nature and as such, out of the control of average clinicians and consumers.  Others, however, are local and could be addressed in an instance with a modicum of interest and attention on the part of professionals.

Chief among the steps practitioners could take to bridge to chasm between them and consumers is the adoption of routine, ongoing feedback.  Seeking and utlizing real-time feedback from consumers has the added advantage of significantly boosting outcomes and increasing retention in services (several studies documenting the impact of feedback are available in the “Scholarly publications and Handouts” section of my website). Healthcare providers can download two well validated and easy-to-use scales right now for free by clicking on the Performance Metrics tab to the left.

So far, however, few in healthcare seem interested and others are downright hostile to the idea of asking consumers for input.  Consider the following story by reporter Lindsey Tanner entitled, “Take two, call me in the morning…and keep it quiet.” Tanner discovered that some in healthcare are demanding that people (patients. clients, consumers) sign “gag orders” prior to being treated–agreeing in effect not to post comments about the provider (negative and otherwise) to online sites such as Zagats.com, Angieslist.com, and RateMds.com.  According to the article, a Greensboro, N.C. company, ironically called “Medical Justice” is, for a fee, now providing physicians with standardized waiver agreements and advising all doctors to have patients sign on the dotted line.  And if the patient refuses?  Simple: find another doctor.

Can you imagine a hotel chain or restaurant asking you to sign a legally-binding agreement not to disclose your experience prior to booking your room or handing you the menu?  Anyone who has travelled lately knows the value of the information contained on consumer-driven websites such as TripAdvisor.com.  It’s outlandish really–except in healthcare.

To be sure, there is at least one important difference between healthcare and other service industries.  Specifically, healthcare providers, unlike business owners and service managers, are prevented from responding to online complaints by existing privacy laws.  However, even if this problem were insurmountable–which it is not–how then can one explain the continuing reluctance on the part of professionals to give people access to their own healthcare records?  And this despite federal regulations under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) permitting complete and unfettered access (click here to read the recent NPR story on this subject).  Clearly, the problem is not legal but rather cultural in nature.  Remember when Elaine from Seinfeld asked to see her chart?

Earlier this summer, my family and I were vacationing in Southwest Michigan.  One day, after visiting the beach and poking around the shops in the lakeside town of South Haven, we happened on a small Italian bistro named,Tello.  Being from a big city famous for its good eats, I’ll admit I wasn’t expecting much.  The food was delicious.  More surprising, was the service.  Not only were the staff welcoming and attentive, but at the end of the meal, when I thought the time had come to pay the bill, the folder I was given contained a small PDA rather than the check.  I was being asked for my feedback.Answering the questions took less than a minute and the manager, Mike Sheedy, appeared at our table within moments of my hitting the “send” button.  He seemed genuinely surprised when I asked if he felt uncomfortable seeking feedback so directly.  “Have you learned anything useful?” I then inquired.  “Of course,” he answered immediately, “just last week a customer told us that it would be nice to have a children’s menu posted in the window alongside the standard one.” I was dumbstruck as one of the main reasons we had decided to go into the restaurant rather than others was because the children’s menu was prominently displayed in the front window!

International Center for Clinical Excellence: Update and Announcement

By Leave a Comment

On August 25th, right here on the “Top Performance” blog, I announced the formation of the International Center for Clinical Excellence.  As anyone who has been reading my recent posts or publication knows, my work is evolving; specifically, putting prior research on the common factors, measurement of outcome and alliance, and feedback to work in helping diverse providers improve their effectiveness and the services they offer consumers.

Since the announcement, my colleagues and I have been busy at work creating the ICCE web platform.  Based on the latest Web2.0 technology,  the site is specifically designed to support clinical excellence through creating virtual clinical networks, groups and clinical communities where clinicians can be supported in eveloping clinical excellence. We are in the second round of beta-testing right now and are expecting to go live in a very short while. So, stay tuned!  And if you haven’t already done so, please visit the ICCE site and register.  There’s no obligation or cost, and you’ll also be among the first to know when the site is officially lanuched.

In the meantime, I wanted to call attention to the talented and diverse group of clinicians who will be working with the ICCE as “Associates” and “Trainers.”  Included among them are representatives from every discipline within behavioral healthcare (psychology, psychiatry, social work, marriage and family therapy, addictions, criminal justice) and from countries all over the globe.  They are:  William Andrews, Susanne Bargmann, Jim Walt, Reg Fleming, Cynthia Maeschalck, Michael Clark, Alan Scheuermann, Rob Axsen, Stephen Michael, William Plum, Bill Robinson, Michael Hutchison, Jason Seidel, Michelle Sanders, Von Borg, Dave Nylund, Magnus Johannsen, Dave Green, Gunnar Lindfeldt, Gun Eva Langdahl, Wendy Amey, Luci Doppler, Megan Boylan, Melissa Newland, Amanda Pardue, Flip Van Oenen, Mark Crouzen, Frank Asmus, Dee Dee Stout, and Robbie Babins-Wagner. Consistent with the latest web 2.0 technology, each of these ICCE Trainers will have be blogging, uploading short, instructional videos and other content, and providing supervision and consultation to ICCE members.

Membership is easy, by the way, and free.  For now, just register online and we’ll notify you when the site goes live.  Then you can enter, create your own professional profile and begin tapping into the international network of providers and experts that make up the ICCE community.