The afc-tavistock Model for camhs miranda Wolpert,Rita Harris



Yüklə 0,87 Mb.
Pdf görüntüsü
tarix28.07.2018
ölçüsü0,87 Mb.
#59225


 

THRIVE  


The AFC–Tavistock Model for CAMHS

Miranda Wolpert,Rita Harris, 

Melanie Jones,Sally Hodges, 

Peter Fuggle, Rachel James, 

Andy Wiener,Caroline Mckenna, 

Duncan Law,Peter Fonagy

Coping

Getting Help



Getting 

More Help

Getting Risk 

Support 


Thriving


ISBN 978-0-9572096-8-8

November 2014

Disclaimer

All ideas in this paper and related to this model are independent of any organisational affiliations, committee 

membership or other official capacities of any of the authors, other than their roles within the Anna Freud Centre 

and The Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust.




3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We want to thank many colleagues who have helped shape our thinking whilst in no way implicating them 

in any of the ideas presented below. These include colleagues who have been central to the development of 

models of CAMHS including Peter Wilson, Richard Williams, Caroline Lindsey, Margaret Murphy,  Peter Hindley, 

Ann York, Steve Kingsbury, Mick Cooper and others and those that have led the way in adult mental health 

including Richard Layard and David Clark for their inspiration and support.   

We would also like to thank our colleagues in the Department of Health, NHS England and Department for 

Education; in particular Kathryn Pugh, Anne O’Herlihy, Margaret Oates, Cathy James, Helen Kay, Karen Turner, 

Barbara Fittall, Sue Nowak, Jacqueline Cornish and Geraldine Strathdee for the many long discussions and 

intense debates over the years.

Thanks to colleagues who have helpfully commented on the current model include David Trickey, Jane Dutton, 

Rachel Surtees, Julia Smith and members of the CYP IAPT service development group, in particular those parents 

and young people who bring expertise by experience.

Our thinking draws on work being undertaken as part of the payment systems work. Current members of the 

Payment systems project group are: Panos Vostanis, Miranda Wolpert, Simon Young, Ben Ritchie, Isobel Fleming, 

Rob Senior, Ann York, Peter Martin, Roger Davies, Bruce Clark, Pat Howley, Lynne Howey.

We also draw on discussions with those involved in advocating for young people and families including Sarah 

Brennan and colleagues from YoungMinds, Jane Sedgewick, Cathy Street and colleagues from GIFT, Yvonne 

Anderson and colleagues from Cernis and Kate Martin and colleagues from Common Room. 

Members of the Child Outcomes Research Consortium (CORC) committee were involved in developing ideas 

around the MINDFUL model of performance management and quality improvement. The CORC Committee 

comprises Miranda Wolpert, Ashley Wyatt, Tamsin Ford, Alison Towndrow, Duncan Law, Julie Elliott, Ann York, 

Mick Atkinson, Alan Ovenden, Kate Martin and the Central Team are Jenna Jacob, Andy Whale, Elisa Napoleone, 

Victoria Zamperoni, Christa Daboika, Charlotte Payne and Kallum Rogers. 

As always, our work is enhanced by the design input of Slavi Savic and editing of Amy Ellis-Thompson.




4

INTRODUCTION

Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) across England have never been so prominently in 

the spotlight. The recent publication of the Health Committee quoted a government minister as describing 

services as “dysfunctional” and the committee referred to “serious and deeply ingrained problems” with respect 

to commissioning

1

. A Government-sponsored taskforce (to which several of the authors are contributing) is in 



progress, the Department for Education is planning a mental health strategy for schools, and the Royal College 

of Psychiatrists’ Child and Adolescent Mental Health Faculty has scheduled a Commission on Values in CAMHS for 

next year.

The Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust (The Tavistock) and the Anna Freud Centre (AFC) have been 

collectively and individually considering what CAMHS could and should look like for some time. 

In 2014, we formed a consortium to further develop and refine a new model for CAMHS based on our shared 

thinking in this area: this is now known as the THRIVE model1.  In this document, we lay out the key aspects. 

We are sharing our thinking as it develops to help inform the current national debate on the future of CAMHS 

and as a basis for future provision. We are not presenting THRIVE as a tried and tested one-size-fits-all implemen-

tation model, nor is the language and terminology for different groups fixed at this point.  Whilst AFC and Tavis-

tock do have thoughts on implementation in particular contexts, this paper does not purport to be a how-to 

guide. 


We feel that the THRIVE model offers a radical shift in the way that services are conceptualised and potentially 

delivered, along with suggestions for how they might be reviewed and improved. Through wider discussion, 

planning and, in time, the commissioning processes, the model will appropriately undergo refinements and 

developments as to how it can be applied to local contexts. 

 We are aware there are a number of initiatives across the country which use “Thrive” in their title. We use the term 



to reflect our core commitment to young people “thriving” and to represent our commitment to provision that is Timely, 

Helpful, Respectful, Innovative, Values-based and Efficient.




5

BACKGROUND



CAMHS in context 

Services to support child and adolescent mental health (collectively called CAMHS) have grown from diverse 

roots. On the one hand, CAMHS provision is the descendant of the child guidance movement of the 1920s 

onwards which sought to support child wellbeing and deal with problems before they became significant. On 

the other hand, its antecedents lie in medical psychiatry which focussed on mental illness and serious problems. 

There is a third element which has increased in prominence in recent years: the necessity of managing risk for 

some of the most troubled children and young people in the community. In many ways, this tension between 

promoting wellbeing (where education language and metaphors are dominant), treating illness (health 

language and metaphors dominate) and managing risk (social care language and metaphors dominate) still lies 

at the heart of debate over service provision(2).

CAMHS is almost inevitably a smaller part of a bigger system, whether representing the child part of mental 

health or the mental health part of child services. Whilst there has in recent years been an increased policy focus 

on CAMHS specifically(3), the tendency for CAMHS to be an afterthought to wider policy or funding initiatives 

remains. Differences in language and philosophy between the wider systems (health, education, social care) 

make cross-agency working hard and agreement on coordinated policies challenging.

Historically underfunded, and vulnerable to cuts because of its location within larger systems, the more recent 

context of austerity has resulted in extensive disinvestment in services, with 25% cuts reported in some areas 

in 2013(4). The last UK epidemiological study suggested that at that time (ten years ago) less than 25% of those 

deemed ‘in need’ accessed support(5).

Attempts have been made to conceptualise CAMHS, the most long-lasting and influential of which a model 

dividing service provision into four tiers as  outlined and described below:(6)

Tier 1: consists of non-specialist primary care workers such as school nurses and health visitors working 

with, for instance, common problems of childhood such as sleeping difficulties or feeding problems. 



Tier 2: consists of specialised Primary Mental Health Workers (PMHW’s) offering support to other profes-

sionals around child development; assessment and treatment in problems in primary care, such as family 

work, bereavement, parenting groups etc. This also includes Substance Misuse & Counselling Services. 

Tier  3: consist of specialist multidisciplinary teams such as Child & Adolescent Mental Health Teams 

based in a local clinic. Problems dealt with here would be problems too complicated to be dealt with at 

tier 2 e.g. assessment of development problems, autism, hyperactivity, depression, early onset psychosis. 

Tier 4: consists of specialised day and inpatient units, where patients with more severe mental health problems 

can be assessed and treated. 




6

This model was very useful at its time of development in 1995(7) for helping differentiate between the forms 

of support that might be available to children and young people,  but has increasingly been critiqued (includ-

ing by its developers) for leading to a reification of service divisions. As we will argue below, we feel that the 

THRIVE model offers a more helpful conceptualisation to address the challenge and opportunities of the 

current situation.



Current context: challenges and opportunities

There is evidence of extensive and rising need in key groups, such as the increasing rates of young women with 

emotional problems and increasing numbers of young people presenting with self-harm.(8) There is also increas-

ing policy acceptance of the long term consequences of ongoing difficulties, including significant impact on 

employment, physical and mental health, with the oft-quoted figure of 66-75% of adult mental illnesses (exclud-

ing dementia) starting by the age of 18.(9) 

Recent audits have found increases in average waiting times to first appointment in specialist mental health 

provision for children and young people (up to 15 weeks in some areas) and that less than half of all providers 

(40%) reported providing crisis access (2013). Service providers report increased rates of self -harm referrals and 

increased complexity and severity of presenting problems (2014).

In terms of opportunities, there is increased provider coherence on what an ideal CAMHS might look like, with 

increased focus on work in schools and promotion of community and individual resilience(10), agreed sets of 

best practice standards collated by the service transformation initiative CYP IAPT,

2

 shared sign-up to a vision of 



personalisation of care aligned with use of evidence and rigorous review of outcomes with buy-in from a range 

of professional and other groups (QNCC, CORC, YA, RCPsych, AFT, BABCP, BACP)

3

. There is increasing alignment to 



shared standards of routine outcome measurement and performance management (CORC,QNCC,QNIC,CAPA)

4



management of flow (CAPA) and meaningful use of data across systems (C/MHIN)

5

.  There is also an increasing 



evidence base in CAMHS (11) and emerging thinking around targeted payment systems to distinguish the needs 

of different groups of children, young people and families seeking help and support (12)   and to support both 

values- based and value- based service delivery(13, 14).

 The Children and Young Peoples’ Improving Access to Psychological Therapies Programme.



 Quality Network for Community CAMHS, Child Outcomes Research Consortium, Youth Association, Royal College 

of Psychiatrists, Association for Family Therapy and Systemic Practice, British Association for Behavioural and Cognitive 

Therapies and British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy.

 Quality Network for Inpatient CAMHS, The Choice and Partnership Approach.



 Child Mental Health Informatics Network




7

THRIVE MODEL FOR CAMHS: A NECESSARY PARADIGM SHIFT?

We are proposing to replace the tiered model with a conceptualisation that addresses the key issues outlined 

above and is aligned to emerging thinking on payment systems, quality improvement and performance 

management. The model outlines groups of children and young people and the sort of support they may need 

and tries to draw a clearer distinction between treatment on the one hand and support on the other. Rather than 

an escalator model of increasing severity or complexity, we suggest a model that seeks to identify somewhat 

resource-homogenous groups (it is appreciated that there will be large variations in need within each group) 

who share a conceptual framework as to their current needs and choices. 

The THRIVE model below conceptualises four clusters (or groupings) for young people with mental health issues 

and their families, as part of the wider group of young people who are supported to thrive by a variety of preven-

tion and promotion initiatives in the community.

The image to the left describes the input that offered for each group; that to the right describes the state of 

being of people in that group - using language informed by consultation with young people and parents with 

experience of service use.

THRIVE model

                   

Each of the four groupings is distinct in terms of:

Needs and/or choices of the individuals within each group

6

•  Skill mix required to meet these needs 



•  Dominant metaphor used to describe needs (wellbeing, ill health, support)

•  Resources required to meet the needs and/or choices of people in that group

•  The groups are not distinguished by severity of need or type of problem.

The middle designation of “thriving” is included to indicate the wider community needs of the population 

supported by prevention and promotion initiatives.

 Where need is taken to refer to “the minimum resource required to exhaust capacity to benefit” and choice is taken 



to refer to the shared decision making between a young person or family member and those providing help and  support.


8

Coping

Context: There is an increased interest in the promotion of resilience, to build the ability of a community 

(school/family) to prevent, support and intervene successfully in mental health issues. Initiatives such as Head-

start (£75 million funded by Big Lottery), the Penn Resilience programme and others seek to help young people 

and families to help themselves. A proliferation of digitally based support (e.g. via email, phone and web) is 

becoming increasingly available and being used to support young people in their communities. There is increas-

ing academic interest (e.g. community psychology) on how we can more effectively draw on strengths in families, 

schools and wider communities. School-based interventions have been shown to support mental health,(15) 

peer support can promote effective parenting(16) and integration of mental health in paediatric primary care 

can support community resilience(17). The wider government policy can impact positively or negatively on the 

emotional well-being of the child within the family – the government initiative to have a Family Impact Assess-

ment of all government policy is welcomed if it proves effective.

Data: Analysis of CAMHS data as part of the development of payment systems clusters (18) suggests that many 

(indeed the modal number) of young people and parents attending CAMHS attend only once, with many being 

seen for less than three contacts. Data would indicate that the majority of these leave the service through mutual 

agreement between the provider and young person or family members. Whilst it is not possible to determine 

from existing data whether the majority of these leave satisfied, nor how many are referred elsewhere, practi-

tioner reports at least a proportion of this group find relatively few contacts, even one single contact, enough to 

normalise their behaviour, reassure families that they are doing the right things to resolve the problem without 

the need for extra help and to signpost sources of support. 



Resource: The payment systems project group are currently suggesting this group might be the first (likely 

cheapest) of three clusters for payment system (see below for other clusters).



Need: Within this grouping would be children, young people and families adjusting to life circumstances, with 

mild or temporary difficulties, where the best intervention is within the community with the possible addition of 

self-support. This group may also include those with chronic, fluctuating or ongoing severe difficulties, for which 

they are choosing to manage their own health and/or are on the road to recovery.



Provision: The THRIVE model of provision would suggest that wherever possible, this provision should be 

provided within education or community settings, with education often (though not always) the lead provider 

and educational language (a language of wellness) as the key language used. It is our contention that health input 

in this group should involve some of our most experienced workforce, to provide experience decision making 

about how best to help people in this group and to help determine whose needs can be met by this approach.

Getting Help

Context: There is increasingly sophisticated evidence for what works with whom in what circumstances(11) 

and increasing agreement on how service providers can implement such approaches(19) alongside embedding 

shared decision making to support patient preference(20) and the use of rigorous monitoring of outcomes to 

guide treatment choices(21).The latest evidence suggests that only 33% of young people will be “recovered” at 

the end of even the best evidence-based treatments.

Data: Analysis of CAMHS data for payment systems has found that the majority of children and young people 

seen in CAMHS are seen for less than twelve face-to-face meetings, whether in schools, clinics or the community. 



Resource:  The payment systems project group are currently suggesting this group might be the second (middle 

costing) of three clusters for payment system (see below and above for other clusters).



Need:  This grouping comprises those children, young people and families who would benefit from focused, 

evidence-based treatment, with clear aims, and criteria for assessing whether aims have been achieved. This 

grouping would include children and young people with difficulties that fell within the remit of NICE guidance 

and where there are interventions that might help. 




9

Provision: The THRIVE model of provision would suggest that, wherever possible, provision for this group 

should be provided with health as the lead provider and using a health language (a language of treatment and 

health outcomes).  It is our contention that health input in this group might draw on specialised technicians in 

different treatments. 

The most radical element of what we are suggesting is that treatment would involve explicit agreement at the 

outset as to what a successful outcome would look like, how likely this was to occur by a specific date, and what 

would happen if this was not achieved in a reasonable timeframe.

To aid best use of specialist provision it may be helpful to consider use of explicit charters for children and 

families such as the example below:

Getting more help

Context: There is emerging consensus that some conditions are likely to require extensive or intensive treatment 

for young people to benefit. In particular, young people with psychosis, eating disorders and emerging personal-

ity disorders are likely to require significant input.

Data: Analysis of CAMHS data for payment systems found that only a very small percentage of children seen in 

CAMHS receive more than 12 contacts with a large variation in amount of resource use within this group. 



Resource:  The payment systems group are currently suggesting this group might be the final (most expensive) 

of three clusters for payment system (see above for other clusters). It is recognised that, for some of these young 

people, individual agreements with commissioners will be needed to arrange payment as the range of costs 

within this group are so wide.



Need:  This grouping comprises those young people and families who would benefit from extensive long-term 

treatment which may include inpatient care, but may also include extensive outpatient provision.



Provision: The THRIVE model of provision would suggest that wherever possible, provision for this group should 

be provided with health as the lead provider and using a health language (that is a language of treatment and 

health outcomes).  It is our contention that health input in this group should involve specialised health workers 

in different treatment. 



Getting risk support

Context: This is perhaps the most contentious aspect of the THRIVE model and has certainly been the need/

choice group we have found it hardest to agree a simple heading for. We posit that even the best interventions 

are limited in effectiveness. As noted above, a substantial minority of children and young people do not improve,  



10

even with the best practice currently available in the world(22). There has, perhaps, in the past been a belief 

(strongly held by service providers themselves) that everyone must be helped by a service and if they are not 

then that is an unacceptable failure. 

The THRIVE model suggests that there be an explicit recognition of the needs of children, young people and 

families where there is no current health treatment available, but they remain at risk to themselves or others.



Data:  On current data sources available it is not possible to disaggregate this group from the three other 

groups within the THRIVE model, which are proposed to be used for future payment systems. It is likely that 

many, though not all, of this group will be subsumed within the getting more help group above (the most costly 

grouping for payment). 



Resource:  Practitioner report suggests this group may require significant input; they certainly take up a lot of 

energy in terms of discussions within and between services. Some services are report currently distinguishing 

members of this group as a group of children, young people and families who may be termed “not ready” for 

treatment, or in need of ongoing monitoring. It may be that many are currently being offered intensive treat-

ment for which they are failing to attend appointments or making no progress in terms of agreed outcomes. It is 

suggested that over time this group may be disaggregated as a distinct grouping for payment systems.



Need:  This grouping comprises those children, young people and families who are currently unable to benefit 

from evidence-based treatment but remain a significant concern and risk. This group might include children, 

young people who routinely go into crisis but are not able to make use of help offered, or where help offered 

has not been able to make a difference, who self-harm or who have emerging personality disorders or ongoing 

issues that have not yet responded to treatment.

Provision: The THRIVE model of provision would suggest that, for this group, there needs to be close intera-

gency collaboration (using approaches such as those recommended by AMBIT to allow common language and 

approaches between agencies) and clarity as to who is leading. Social care may often be the lead agency and the 

language of social care (risk and support) is likely to be dominant.  Health input should be from staff trained to 

work with this group and skilled in shared thinking with colleagues in social care, but with explicit understand-

ing that it is not a health treatment that is being offered.



Thriving

This is the state we are all seeking to achieve! Services are and should be helping with prevention, promo-

tion, awareness raising work in the community to support this and may involve consultation and training 

that is not focussed on particular children or families. It is likely that such work will need to be funded sepa-

rately from any payment system based on per-head payments as these are community-focussed and public 

health-focussed interventions.




11

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT, QUALITY IMPROVEMENT AND 

THE THRIVE MODEL 

We propose employing the MINDFUL approach to performance management(23) alongside the THRIVE model.

This involves a seven step process which would be applied separately to each of the four groups of need 

or choice included in the THRIVE model, with the relevant lead funder/commissioner for each leading on 

the review.

1. At regular time periods e.g. every three years commissioners and providers and service user 

reps would jointly agree high-level key quality  indicators in areas of weakness relating to that 

particular aspect of THRIVE, using a mix of process and outcome measures (based on CORC 

annual reports and/or other sources of information):

•  Coping - e.g. access to online support/levels of resilience

•  Getting help - e.g. access to NICE interventions/levels of recovery or reliable change 

•  Getting more help - e.g. length of inpatient stay/functioning 

•  Getting risk support - e.g. response to A&E admissions/management of crises

2. Data about children and families involved, activities and outcomes would be collected 

routinely to help shape service provision. Measures and approaches to support this would be 

tailored to each element of the THRIVE model: 

•  Coping - e.g. to include measures of resilience

•  Getting help - e.g. to include measures of symptom change

•  Getting more help - e.g. to include measures of impact on life

•  Getting risk support - e.g.  to include measures of risk management

3. Leads for each area of provision would collate information relevant to the KPIs regularly (e.g. 

monthly) and feed this information back to staff. Data will be considered relative to others 

involved in similar THRIVE activity using appropriate statistical analyses. 

4. Where there is information that suggests outcomes, or activities that vary significantly from 

others in a negative way, then that group of staff will be supported to explore if variation is 

warranted using the Queensland evidence pyramid.  

   These explorations should include directed discussions in which the team are invited to 

consider, if these differences were unwarranted, what they would do differently using the 

MINDFUL approach. 

5. Staff groups are encouraged to trial improvements aimed at addressing unwarranted 

variation and enhancing service quality. This may involve the use of statistical process control 

methodology such as run charts to consider and review improvements and impact on patient 

care and use of PDSA cycles and learning sets. 

6. Quarterly meetings of users, commissioners and providers will review progress against 

KPIs for each of the elements of the THRIVE model separately, spreading any learning and 

improvements across the service

7. Annual review of the whole system to enable any relevant adjustments to be made to contracts 

or specifications. 



12

CONCLUSION

The THRIVE model offers a way forward for child and adolescent mental health provision. Distinguishing differ-

ent groups in terms of their needs and/or choices enables: 

•  greater clarity about agency leadership

•  greater clarity on skill mix required

•  potential for more targeted funding

•  potential for more transparent discussion between providers and users

•  options for more targeted performance management 

•  options for more targeted quality improvement 

•  alignment with emerging payment systems

•  alignment with best practice in child mental health.

To reiterate, we are not presenting THRIVE as a tried and tested one-size-fits-all implementation model, nor is the 

language and terminology for different groups fixed at this point.  Whilst AFC and Tavistock do have thoughts on 

implementation in particular contexts, this paper does not purport to be a how-to guide. Rather, we are sharing 

our developing thinking at this point to contribute to current national debate because we feel that this may help 

form a way forward for future provision.

We hope that the thinking underpinning this model may become embedded across the UK and beyond to point 

the way forward for child and adolescent mental health promotion, intervention and support in the years ahead.



13

REFERENCES

1. Health Committee. Children’s and adolescent’s mental health and CAMHS: Third Report2014: Available 

from: 


www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmhealth/342/34202.htm

.

2. Wolpert M. Organization of Services for Children and Adolescents with Mental Health Problems. In: 



Rutter M, Bishop D, Pine D, Scott S, Stevenson J, Taylor E, et al., editors. Rutter’s Child and Adolescent 

Psychiatry. 5th ed. Malden: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.; 2009. p. 1156-66.

3. National CAMHS Review. Children and young people in mind : the final report of the National CAMHS 

Review. London: National CAMHS Review2008.

4. YoungMinds. Local authorities and CAMHS budgets 2012/2013. London: YoungMinds2013.

5. Green H, McGinnity A, Meltzer H, Ford T, Goodman R. Mental health of children and young people in 

Great Britain, 2004. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan; 2005.

6. Guidance for Four-Tier CAMHS model [database on the Internet]. North East London NHS 

Foundation Trust. 2014 [cited 25th November 2014]. Available from: 

www.nelft.nhs.uk/2F_

documentbank/2The_4_Tiers_of_CAMHS_Services_1.doc

.

7. NHS. Together We Stand: Thematic review of the Commissioning, Role and Management of Child and 



Adolescent Mental Health Services NHS Health Advisory Service1995.

8. Bor W, Dean A, Najman J, Hayatbakhsh R. Are child and adolescent mental health problems increasing 

in the 21st century? A systematic review. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2014.

9. Campion J, Bhugra D, Bailey S, Marmot M. Inequality and mental disorders: opportunities for action. 

Lancet. 2013 Jul 20;382(9888):183-4.

10.  HeadStart. Big Lottery Fund UK2014: Available from: 

www.biglotteryfund.org.uk/headstartprojects

.

11.  Fonagy P. What works for whom? : a critical review of treatments for children and adolescents. New 



York ; London: Guilford; 2002.

12.  NHS. Payment by Results guide. Department of Health; 2013 [25th November 2014]; Available 

from: 

www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/213150/PbR-Simple-



Guide-FINAL.pdf

.

13.  Porter M, Teisberg E. Redefining health care: creating value-based competition on results. Boston: 



Harvard Business Press; 2006.

14.  Fulford K. Ten principles of values-based medicine. In: Radden J, editor. The Philosophy of Psychiatry. 

New York: Oxford University Press; 2004. p. 205-34.

15.  Wong N, Kady L, Mewton L, Sunderland M, Andrews G. Preventing anxiety and depression in 

adolescents: A randomised controlled trial of two school based internet-delivered cognitive behavioural 

therapy programs. Internet Interventions. 2014;1(2):90-4.

16.  Day C, Michelson D, Thomson S, Penney C, Draper L. Evaluation of a peer led parenting intervention 

for disruptive behaviour problems in children: community based randomised controlled trial. Br Med J. 

2012(344 (7849)):e1107.

17.  Rahman A, Surkan P, Cayetano C, Rwagatare P, Dickson K. Grand challenges: integrating maternal 

mental health into maternal and child health programmes. PLoS Medicine. 2013;10(5):e1001442.

18.  CAMHS Payment by Results [database on the Internet]2014 [cited 25th November 2014]. Available 

from: 

http://pbrcamhs.org/



.

19.  NHS CYP IAPT. Routine Outcome monitoring as part of CYP IAPT.  London: NHS CYP IAPT,; 2012 

[cited 2012 12/03/2012]; Available from: 

www.iapt.nhs.uk/cyp-iapt/routine-outcome-monitoring-as-

part-of-iapt/

.

20.  Mulley A, Trimble C, Elwyn G. PATIENTS’ PREFERENCES MATTER: Stop the silent misdiagnosis 



London: The King’s Fund; 2012.


14

21.  Bickman L, Kelley SD, Breda C, de Andrade AR, Riemer M. Effects of routine feedback to clinicians on 

mental health outcomes of youths: results of a randomized trial. Psychiatr Serv. 2011;62(12):1423-9.

22.  Weisz JR, Kuppens S, Eckshtain D, Ugueto AM, Hawley KM, Jensen-Doss A. Performance of 

evidence-based youth psychotherapies compared with usual clinical care: a multilevel meta-analysis. 

JAMA Psychiatry. 2013 Jul;70(7):750-61.

23.  Wolpert M, Deighton J, De Francesco D, Martin P, Fonagy P, Ford T. From ‘reckless’ to ‘mindful’ in the 

use of outcome data to inform service-level performance management: perspectives from child mental 



health. BMJ Quality & Safety. 2014 January 23, 2014.


15


ISBN 978-0-9572096-8-8


Yüklə 0,87 Mb.

Dostları ilə paylaş:




Verilənlər bazası müəlliflik hüququ ilə müdafiə olunur ©genderi.org 2023
rəhbərliyinə müraciət

    Ana səhifə