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

info@scottdmiller.com 773.404.5130

Is Psychotherapy Dead?

By 1 Comment


“AMERICANS PREFER DRUGS” screams the headline posted by the Reuters news service and attributed to Consumer Reports–one of the most respected periodical for the average American reader.  “NEARLY 80 PERCENT TAKE A PILL FOR DEPRESSION,” the article continues.  Read a little further and do some searching around on the internet and a different story emerges.  Americans it turns out don’t necessarily prefer drugs but rather, “78 percent of those seeking treatment for depression or anxiety were prescribed antidepressants.”

With respected news agencies advertizing for the pharaceutical companies, is it any wonder why the practice of “talk therapy” is suffering?  AA’s Executive Director for Professional Practice, Dr. Kaherine Nordal, in a recent editorial asked, “Where has all the psychotherapy gone?”  The percentage of Americans who receive outpatinet mental health care has remained unchanged over the last several decades.  Moreover, as Dr. Mark Hubble and I point out in the lead article in the May-June issue of the Psychotherapy Networker, “median incomes for psychologists, both applied and academic, have dropped between 17 and 33 percent at the same time that workloads have increaed, profssional autonomy has been subverted, and funding for public behavioral healthcare has all but disappeared.”

In a recent, highly publicized exchange on psychotherapy that appeared on Medscape: Psychiatry and Health, panel participants (all psychiatrists) repeated the same, old, tired argument about the field.  To wit, “the research base is insufficient.”   How such statements can be made with a straight face, much less by mental health professionals, on a public website, defies explanation.   The truth is, the evidence-base for psychological treatments is as large and robust as any.  What’s more, seeing a talk therapist does not require invasive surgery or a black box warning.  Clearly, the issue is not research.  It is about awareness.

The members and associates of the International Center for Clinical Excellence (ICCE) are working diligently to raise consciousness among the public and policy makers.  Every day, 1000’s of professionals connect to, learn from, and share with colleagues around the world.  The mission of the organization?  To use community to improve the quality and outcome of behavioral health services.  On the ICCE web-based community, clinicians share experiences and real world data regarding the effectiveness of talk therapy.  For example, ICCE associate Dan Buccino shared outcomes from a 7 year project aimed at “promoting recovery and accountability.”  Using the Outcome and Session Ratings Scales, Dan documented effectiveness levels that far exceeded national benchmarks for clinical practice.  Why not email him for a copy of the report?  Meanwhile, providers serving US Airforce personnel began using the same measures in early 2010 and have reported very similar findings.  Finally, to date, more than a dozen randomized clinical trials, involving thousands of clients and numerous therapists, have established that using feedback to inform services increases effectiveness of individual practitioners three fold, cuts dropout rates by 50 percent, reduces the rate of deterioration by 33 percent, and speeds recovery by 66 percent, while simultaensouly improving client satisfaction and reducing the cost of care.

To paraphrase Mark Twain, the rumored death of psychotherapy has been greatly exaggerated.  Now is not the time, however, to merely hope for a better future.  Join the discussion taking place on ICCE  right now.  Membership is free and a strong, supportive community just a few clicks away.

Cha-cha-cha-changes on a Grand Scale: Think Tank Meets in Chicago

By Leave a Comment

David Mee-Lee, MD     Bill Miller, Ph.D.     Scott D. Miller, Ph.D.

Jim Prochaska, Ph.D.                                    Don Kuhl, CEO

Whether in the United States or Europe, Asia or Australia, the field of behavioral health is undergoing a period of dramatic change–some would say, “transformation.”  At least that’s the verdict of the group bought together by the CEO of The Change Companies, Don Kuhl, who brought together some of the leading figures in behavioral health for two days of discussion and brainstorming last week in Chicago.

Chief on the list of issues to be discussed was bringing “scale” to the provision of mental health and substance abuse services.  Let’s face it, the current service provision model is broken: many people in need of help, do not get it.  The care that is provided is often limited in scope and does not address the “whole person.”  And finally, healthcare costs are soaring–particularly among those with longstanding, chronic problems requiring ongoing care.

In spite of 40 years of research support, behavioral health–that is, psychological interventions–are losing ground to other approaches to change.  Consider the following data published by Katherine Nordal: “the percentage of Americans who receive outpatient mental health care…is very similar to the proportion of those receiving such treatment in 1998.”

Let’s see, that’s two decades of no growth!  None. Zero. Zip. Nada.

Dr. Nordal continues, “Overall, there has been a decrease in the use of psychotherapy, a decrease in the use of psychotherapy in conjunction with medication and a big increase in the use of medication only.”  The question that begs to be answered is why, especially when one considers that psychological intervention (whether face to face, on the phone, in a book or together with peers in a group) has a side effect profile that is the envy of the pharmaceutical industry: no weight gain, no sexual dysfunction, no sleep disturbance or dry mouth.

Many factors are, of course, responsible for the demise of behavioral health (By the way, have you noticed the size of the psychology section of your local bookstore.  Its miniscule compared to what it was a decade ago, and the majority of the titles that are available praise neuroscience over human connection, and drugs over talk).  Dr. Nordal cites the rise of managed care and gargantuan advertizing budgets of the pharmaceutical industry.  Others cite cultural changes including a “short-term fix” mentality and the increasingly frenetic pace of life.

Whatever the cause, the problem is not the lack of effective psychological treatments.  Rather, the issue is that more people need to be helped, more quickly and efficiently.  “Helping people make behavioral change,” Dr. Jim Prochaska argued, “is at the center of  healthcare reform.”  Bringing scale to behavioral health, the group agreed, requires a radical revision of the current service delivery model.

In truth, many of the ideas discussed are already underway, including the move toward “integrated care” and ongoing measurement and use of feedback to improve the quality and outcome of treatment.  Other ideas discussed included methods for putting the principles of behavior change directly into the hands of the consumer.  But there’s more.  Stay tuned.  The group has big plans.  Announcements will soon be made right here on the “Top Performance” blog.

Hope Transcends: Learning from our Clients

By Leave a Comment

“Hope Transcends” was the theme of the 39th Annual Summer Institute on Substance Abuse and Mental Health held in Newark, Delaware this last week.  I had the honor of working with 60+ clinicians, agency managers, peer supports, and consumers of mental health services presenting a two-day, intensive training on “feedback-informed clinical work.”  I met so many talented and dedicated people over the two days and even had a chance to reconnect with a number of folks I’d met at previous trainings– both at the Institute and elsewhere.

One person I knew but never had the privilege of meeting before was psychologist Ronald Bassman.  A few years back, he’d written a chapter that was included in my book, The Heroic Client.  His topic at the Summer Institute was similar to what he’d written for the book: harmful treatment.  Research dating back decades documents that approximately 10% of people deteriorate while in psychotherapy.  The same body of evidence shows that clinicians are not adept at identifying: (a) people who are likely to drop out of care; or (b) people who are deteriorating while in care.

Anyway, you can read about Ron on his website or pick up his gripping book A Fight to Be.  Briefly, at age 22 Ron was committed to a psychiatric hospital.  Over the next several years, he was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia and forcefully subjected to a series of humiliating, painful, degrading and ultimately unhelpful “treatments.”  Eventually, he escaped his own and the systems’ madness and became a passionate advocate for improving mental health services.  His message is simple: “we can and must do better.”  And, he argues persuasively, the process begins with building better partnerships with consumers.

One way to build bridges with consumers is routinely seeking their feedback regarding the status of the therapeutic relationship and progress of any services offered.  Indeed, the definition of “evidence-based practice” formally adopted by the American Psychological Association mandates that the clinician “monitor…progress…[and] If progress is not proceeding adequately…alters or addresses problematic aspects of the treatment (e.g., problems in the therapeutic relationship or the implementation of the goals of treatment)” (pp. 276-277, APA, 2006).  Research reviewed in detail on this blog documents significant improvement in both retention and outcome when clinicians use the Outcome and Session Rating Scales to solicit feedback from consumers.  Hope really does transcend.  Thank you Ron and thank you clinicians and organizers at the Institute.

And now, just for fun.  Check out these two new videos:


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

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.

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.

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!

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.

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:

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:

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:

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.