Clinicians' ratings of the Health of the Nation Outcome Scales (HoNOS) show sensitivity/bias that may affect patients' progress: analyses of routine administrative data.
Williams, J. H.
Show abstract
Objectives(1) To estimate clinician sensitivity/bias in rating the HoNOS. (2) To test if high or low clinician sensitivity determines slower resolution of patients problems or earlier inpatient admission. DesignThe primary analysis used many-facet Item Response Theory to construct a multi-level Graded Response Model that teased apart clinician sensitivity/bias from the severity of patients problems in routine HoNOS records. Secondary analyses then tested if patients outcomes depend on their clinicians sensitivity/bias. Outcome measuresThe outcome measures were (1) overall differences in sensitivity/bias between (a) individual clinicians and (b) different Community Mental Health Teams (CMHTs); (2) clinical outcomes, comprising (a) the rate of resolution of patients problems and (b) the dependence of the time to inpatient admission on clinician sensitivity/bias. SettingAll archival electronic HoNOS records for all new referrals to all CMHTs providing mental health services in secondary care in a New Zealand District Health Board during 2007-2015. ParticipantsThe initial sample comprised 2170 adults of working age who received 5459 HoNOS assessments from 186 clinicians. From these initial data, I derived an opportunistic, connected, bipartite, longitudinal network, in which (i) every patient received HoNOS ratings from 2 or more clinicians and (ii) every clinician assessed more than 5 patients. The bipartite network comprised 88 clinicians and 778 patients; 112 patients underwent later inpatient admission. ResultsSensitivity/bias differed importantly between individual clinicians and CMHTs. Patients whose clinicians had more extreme sensitivity/bias showed slower resolution of their problems and earlier inpatient admission. ConclusionsRaw HoNOS ratings reflect the sensitivity/bias of clinicians almost as much as the severity of patients problems. Additionally, low or high clinician sensitivity can adversely affect patients outcomes. Hence, the HoNOSs main value may be to measure clinician sensitivity. Accounting for clinician sensitivity could enable the HoNOS to fulfil its goal of improving mental health services. Strengths and limitations of the studyO_LIThe study derived a connected network of clinicians and patients that approximates a rational design for estimating clinicians sensitivity/bias. C_LIO_LIThe opportunistic network sample was atypical, with chronic patients and experienced clinicians - so the study may under-estimate clinician bias. C_LIO_LIThe studys statistical methods were appropriate to the ordinal nature of HoNOS ratings. C_LIO_LIThe study used earlier estimates of clinician sensitivity/bias to predict later outcomes - so that effects of clinician sensitivity/bias on outcomes may be causal C_LIO_LIThe study assumed that all HoNOS items tap a single dimension of the severity of patients problems. C_LI
Matching journals
The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- The Benefits and Harms of Open Notes in Mental Health: A Delphi Survey of International Experts 92%
- Healthcare presentations with self-harm and the association with COVID-19: an e-cohort whole-population-based study using individual-level linked routine electronic health records in Wales, UK, 2016 - March 2021 91%
- Patterns of rates of mortality in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Clinical benefits of modifying the evening light environment in an acute psychiatric unit: A single-centre, two-arm, parallel-group, pragmatic effectiveness randomised controlled trial 92%
- Mapping patient interactions in psychiatric presentations to a tertiary emergency department 91%
- Factors associated with excess all-cause mortality in the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic in the UK: a time-series analysis using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- Improving our understanding of the social determinants of mental health: A data linkage study of mental health records and the 2011 UK census 92%
- Assessing and predicting adolescent and early adulthood common mental disorders in the ALSPAC cohort using electronic primary care data 91%
- NHS CHECK: protocol for a cohort study investigating the psychosocial impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare workers 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Single-session intervention with and without video support to prevent the worsening of emotional distress among healthcare workers during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: a randomized clinical trial 92%
- The development and validation of a prognostic model to predict relapse in adults with remitted depression in primary care: secondary analysis of pooled individual participant data from multiple studies 92%
- Living alone and mental health: parallel analyses in longitudinal population surveys and electronic health records prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Effect of a needs-based model of care on the characteristics of healthcare services in England: the i-THRIVE National Implementation Programme 90%
- Uncovering Survivorship Bias in Longitudinal Mental Health Surveys 90%
- The treatment gap for mental disorders in adults enrolled in HIV treatment programs in South Africa: A cohort study using linked electronic health records 89%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.