Today's Messages (OFF)
| Unanswered Messages (ON)
| Forum: Health Of The Nation Outcome Scales For Children And Adolescents ( HoNOSCA ) |
|---|
| Topic: Item 15 |
|---|
 Item 15 [message #443] |
Mon, 24 May 2010 02:39 |
Sue WA
Messages: 2
Registered: March 2006
Location: Western Australia |
Junior Member |
|
|
Could anyone please clarfy when we rate item 15 in HONOSCA are we purely rating that we have provided information. Or are we rating parents etc understanding of information of services offered plus shared understanding and therfore abililty to act on information given. Sue
|
|
| | Forum: Strengths And Difficulties Questionnaire ( SDQ ) |
|---|
| Topic: Searching for SDQ Data |
|---|
| Searching for SDQ Data [message #439] |
Wed, 05 August 2009 02:30 |
 Simone Butun
Messages: 1
Registered: August 2009
Location: Perth |
Junior Member |
|
|
Hi All,
I'm working as a research psychologist for CAMHS WA and I'm currently in the process of analysing some teacher reported SDQ results collected on a sample of children of refugees. We'd like to compare this sample with a clinical sample but I'm yet to find such data.
Is anyone reading this aware of a source of teacher reported SDQ results collected for a representative clinical sample of Australian Children? Or could someone point me in the right direction?
Kind regards,
Simone
Simone Butun
Research Psychologist
|
|
| | Topic: Informed consent and SDQ |
|---|
| Informed consent and SDQ [message #177] |
Fri, 24 September 2004 21:08 |
Tim Coombs
Messages: 104
Registered: December 2002 |
Senior Member |
|
|
|
Does anyone have any cover information/informed consent documents that they have have developed to accompany the SDQ, when it is offered or distributed?
|
|
| | Topic: NOCC SDQ's now on www.sdqinfo.com |
|---|
| NOCC SDQ's now on www.sdqinfo.com [message #154] |
Fri, 16 July 2004 07:50 |
gstew
Messages: 7
Registered: June 2003
Location: Centre for Mental Health,... |
Junior Member |
|
|
There is a note in the clinical overview document for NOCC 1.5 that says the versions of the SDQ English (Austral.) on the web site www.sdqinfo.com are NOT the standard NOCC ones.
The issue was raised at the CAMHOEG. Robert Goodman has kindly added the NOCC variants (ie the initial PC1a, PY1a and YR1a) in a special group after the others.
Thus you may safely refer people to the www.sdqinfo.com site without confusing them.
|
|
| | Forum: Abbreviated Life Skills Profile (LSP-16) |
|---|
| Topic: Subscale labelling |
|---|
| Subscale labelling [message #437] |
Fri, 17 July 2009 10:54 |
TMcGee
Messages: 1
Registered: July 2009
Location: London |
Junior Member |
|
|
Hello
I wonder if anyone can help. I am currently writing an article regarding the uselfullness of the LSP as an outcome measure for occupational therapy interventions.
Is anyone aware of the reasons why the original LSP 39 subscale labels were amended from the more positive labelling (i.e social contact) to an emhasis on an individuals deficits with labels such as "withdrawel" and "anti-social" following publishing of the shortened versions?
Many Thanks
|
|
| | Forum: Health Of The Nation Outcome Scales ( HoNOS ) |
|---|
| Topic: NOCC Review |
|---|
 NOCC Review [message #219] |
Mon, 28 February 2005 17:19 |
Kate Simpson
Messages: 6
Registered: May 2004
Location: New England Area Health S... |
Junior Member |
|
|
|
I was interested to read in the review page 14 the comment about "the strength of the correlation was found to be higher when the research workers rather than the case managers conduct the assessment". Did the writer of the article offer any explanation as to why this is the case?
|
|
| | Topic: HoNOS in Postnatal mental health facilities? |
|---|
| HoNOS in Postnatal mental health facilities? [message #176] |
Fri, 24 September 2004 21:02 |
Tim Coombs
Messages: 104
Registered: December 2002 |
Senior Member |
|
|
Sara Mclean from SA asks?
"We are required to use the HoNOS for our specialist inpatient unit which deals with depression and psychiatric illness in the postnatal period. The feedback that we have had from training in this unit is that the HoNOS does not appropriately capture parenting and attachment issues under “ problems with relationships” or under ‘activities of daily living” . The major focus of intervention in this unit is on the mother-child attachment and on parenting skills, the “core business” of the mother of a small child. How has this problem been resolved in other public postnatal mental health facilities?"
Does anyone have any experience in this regard?
[Updated on: Fri, 24 September 2004 21:03]
|
|
| | Forum: NOCC Decision Support Tool |
|---|
| Topic: Diagnostic Categories on DST |
|---|
| Diagnostic Categories on DST [message #432] |
Thu, 07 May 2009 06:48 |
Reagan Edmiston
Messages: 2
Registered: September 2007
Location: London, UK |
Junior Member |
|
|
Hi - can someone please confirm that the Diagnostic categories used are the ICD-10 Chapter headings?
Thanks
Reagan
|
|
| | Topic: Adaption of DST to local use? |
|---|
| Adaption of DST to local use? [message #408] |
Mon, 15 October 2007 04:03 |
markcraigie
Messages: 1
Registered: October 2007 |
Junior Member |
|
|
Hi,
I am a research psychologist with WA Dept of Health, Child and Adolescent Mental Health (outpatient).
I have had a quick look at your Decision Support Tool for NOCCS. We are in the process of developing a research and evaluation framework, and this tool or an adaption of it could be very useful to us. Basically, we wish to build a database with local practice-based data of the form in the NOCCS DST so we can look directly at our client base (e.g., SDQ data). For example, SDQ data for each ICD-10 diagnosis, pre-post treatment data, and in relation to our catchments (possibly down to suburb or statistically local area level). This database would be for DoH clinicians only (obviously de-identified etc, we may have to aggregate raw data in some way, before importing into the DST database)
1. Do you think this could be done?
2. What issues in terms of coyright might this involve etc?
3. For example, does your database contain individual data records, or is it aggregated/summary data (I assume the latter); demographic information e.g., suburb/postcode; state of respondent?
4. Could our state wide data be imported into a separarate WA database rather than nationwide data set?
Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Mark Craigie, PhD, Research Psychologist.
|
|
| | Topic: Installation Issues |
|---|
| Installation Issues [message #287] |
Thu, 27 April 2006 00:23 |
Tim Coombs
Messages: 104
Registered: December 2002 |
Senior Member |
|
|
|
This topic has been created to discuss installation issues around the DST
[Updated on: Thu, 27 April 2006 00:23]
|
|
| | Forum: Questions & Answers |
|---|
| Topic: HoNOS Secure |
|---|
| HoNOS Secure [message #413] |
Thu, 08 May 2008 19:30 |
Briony Holdsworth
Messages: 4
Registered: May 2008
Location: Canberra |
Junior Member |
|
|
Is the HoNOS-secure part of the NOCC suit of measures or is it only used by some jurisdictions?
Please could you confirm for me if the HoNOS secure is used in community teams that are not forensic teams.
In the ACT, forensic service users are co-managed by community teams and the forensic team. Would the forensic HoNOS-secure be used by any in-patient or community treating team, or should it only be used by the Forensic team if the service user is part of their service either in a correctional facility or community?
Should the measure be used by both?
|
|
| | Topic: Contiguous episodes - i/p to ambulatory & back |
|---|
| Contiguous episodes - i/p to ambulatory & back [message #396] |
Thu, 28 September 2006 01:24 |
veronicas
Messages: 2
Registered: May 2004 |
Junior Member |
|
|
I note that Bill B advises that "deeming" for the HoNOS is acceptable (message #88). In Victoria a group working on protocol "problems" is divided on this matter. Evidently, when a consumer is rated in an inpatient setting their HoNOS score is likely to be lower overall than if the same consumer is rated at the same time by a community based clinician. There seem to be a number of factors operating here - the context may influence the person's behaviour or the clinician's perspective!
So, if this is true and deeming is permissible, some questions arise.
1. NOCC has no provision for noting when a rating is deemed so it has the same status as a "real" rating. What impact would this have on the data collected?
2. Should deeming also be allowed for the HoNOS on the return of the consumer to an ambulatory setting? This would be problematic as the rating period is different (3 days for i/p discharge and 14 days for amb). Comments/discussion would be welcome!
Thanks, V
|
|
| | Topic: NOCC Episodes |
|---|
| NOCC Episodes [message #263] |
Thu, 30 June 2005 21:15 |
Graeme
Messages: 4
Registered: May 2004
Location: Glenside Hospital |
Junior Member |
|
|
Does age, or can age be used to determine a NOCC episode?
Currently our inpatient setting incorporates adult units, acute and extended care and also over 65 (older people) units.
We record this as a single episode for people moving between these inpatient units, eg. Admission in an acute unit = admit. NOCC. Transfer to extended care may result in a 91 day review. A further T/F to 'older people services' with a discharge would = NOCC discharge.
Book ends complete!
It is being suggested that the over 65 services should be treated as a separate NOCC episode!
So, does age as the only factor determine episode?
|
|
| | Topic: Brief Planned Admissions |
|---|
 Brief Planned Admissions [message #260] |
Mon, 13 June 2005 19:50 |
Dean Lewin
Messages: 18
Registered: April 2003 |
Junior Member |
|
|
Hi,
We are curious about how other jurisdictions are dealing with the issue of brief planned admissions. These are situations where the patient is admitted either overnight (prior to ECT the following day) or as part of a community management plan for a "frequent flyer" (for example a person with a borderline personality disorder). In these cases the admission could validly be considered to be part of an ambulatory episode and the starting and stopping of an inpatient episode may be seen as somewhat pointless.
We realise that the protocol has to be black and white on these issues, however we are curious to know how other services are managing what may be considered to be a grey area.
Thanks
Dean Lewin (on behalf of the QLD Beyond Outcomes Team)
|
|
| | Forum: Consumer outcomes: Opportunities in mental health. A resource for mental health staff |
|---|
| Topic: Resource in development |
|---|
| Resource in development [message #424] |
Sat, 18 October 2008 17:14 |
Tim Coombs
Messages: 104
Registered: December 2002 |
Senior Member |
|
|
|
Note that this resource is currently in development and not avaliable on the AMHOCN website. Once feedback on this resource has been collated it will be made avaliable. Thank you in advance for your participation in the development process.
[Updated on: Sat, 18 October 2008 17:15]
|
|
| | Forum: Health Of The Nation Outcome Scales For Elderly People ( HoNOS65+) |
|---|
| Topic: Are training clarifications causing confusion |
|---|
| Are training clarifications causing confusion [message #279] |
Thu, 09 March 2006 02:40 |
Tim Coombs
Messages: 104
Registered: December 2002 |
Senior Member |
|
|
Dr Rod McKay has provided me with some useful feedback regarding the national training materials. In part this feedback included the following observations.
"I have concerns that for items 9-12 by putting ‘usual or typical’ in the table (esp as second column) some people are going to rate these scales over longer periods than usual for last 2 weeks. May be swapping the 2nd and 3rd columns would help this. I also have concern re the wording regarding items 11-12, and wonder why not adopt wording from the scale itself “egRate patient’s usual accommodation or situation. If in acute ward, rate the home accommodation/situation.”. The current wording I feel takes attention away from looking at how well accommodation and activities/services meet the person’s needs in the rating period, and will lead to at least some rating how they meet the needs of the person when ‘well’. The current wording also does not encourage rating of improvements that may be made in these aspects during admission (a common issue in OPMH). -- -
I know there has been a lot of discussion regarding this (and I am not saying I am necessarily correct, but have re-looked at the glossaries again), but I have similar concerns regarding items 9 and 10, . I am not sure if one can put them both together. The current wording I feel is likely to lead to clinicians (and trainers) losing focus on the worst level of functional problems, and tending to rate underlying strengths of relationships and function, rather than focussing on the last 2 weeks, when they may have been more impaired. This risks under- rating these scales, that are functionally very important for consumers.
The essence of scale 9 is about underlying relationships, not on actions, that are rated elsewhere. eg 1 argument does not mean an increased rating in scale 9, but 1 argument that has led to ongoing problems in the relationship in that 2 week period should lead to a higher rating. If the argument was on day 10 of the rating period, but it is clear relationships have ongoing stresses at time of rating, the ‘usual’ rating for the period is low, but the persons’ worst functioning in relationships in the period is higher. The glossary emphasises the relationship, not actions, the over-riding instructions to all scales still instructs to rate the worst problem. If someone’s spouse has walked out on day 13 because of being verbally abused in the middle of an acute drug induced psychosis starting day 12, do they rate as a 0 if there were no previous problems, or as a 3 or 4? I suggest a 4. (but am open to further discussion).
In item 10 the emphasis is on OVERALL functioning, including ADL and simple tasks, not usual functioning. It still instructs to rate the worst functioning in the period. As an example, if someone has an acute deterioration in functioning on day 10, or if they are progressively getting worse over the 2 weeks, the glossary does not instruct to rate ‘usual’ functioning, but worst ‘overall’ functioning, against the points on the scale. The point that is not emphasised in the training, but should be (because clinicians often do not include it in considerations, is from the glossary include any lack of motivation for using self-help opportunities, since this contributes to a lower overall level of functioning. I know there are varying views to mine, and agree we need to get this clearer and more consistent, but I do not think the current descriptions in the manual (and described by some) are consistent with the glossary, or the over-riding instructions at the start of the HoNOS. I am not sure what you would like to do with these thoughts, but am concerned".
My concern is that the clarification provided may in fact create more confusion. I was wondering what others thought?
Regards
Tim
|
|
| | Topic: Percentile Data |
|---|
 Percentile Data [message #265] |
Thu, 11 August 2005 21:53 |
Brad
Messages: 1
Registered: August 2005 |
Junior Member |
|
|
Hi All,
Is it possible to obtain a table of Percentiles for each total score of the HONOS 65, for given measurement occasions...
eg HONOS 65 Totals.... 1-n(columns)
Measurement Occasions eg adminp, disinp, etc (rows)
Percentile values...(body)
This would let us lookup the percentile for each given score/occasion & really help our local attempts to implement the H65 clinically.
I know the standard reports have a similar table of H65 Totals for a few selected percentiles but the percentile ranges are pretty coarse.
Regards,
Brad
|
|
| | Forum: Decision Support Tool - Installation |
|---|
| Topic: Error: Unable to access the web site: http://dst.mhnocc.org/query/xml/ |
|---|
| Error: Unable to access the web site: http://dst.mhnocc.org/query/xml/ [message #402] |
Thu, 30 November 2006 01:16 |
|
Some cases have been reported to amhocn-dst-helpdesk@strategicdata.com.au where the NOCC Decision Support Tool version 2.0.27 has been successfully downloaded and installed, it has then successfully reconstituted its data, but immediately failed with the error message:
Unable to access the web site: http://dst.mhnocc.org/query/xml/
Provider error description:
The connection cannot be used to perform this operation. It is either closed or invalid in this context.
The exact cause has yet to be determined, but the issue can be easily fixed by downloading the attached file "amDstAppData_Fix.re_" to your workstation, renaming the file to "amDstAppData_Fix.reg", and double-clicking it. This should cause some entries to be added to the Windows Registry settings in your user profile.
Note that the above file presumes that the DST has been installed in the default location (C:\Program Files\AMHOCN\amDstAppData_02_00_0027.mde). If this is not the case, you will need to open the file with Notepad and edit the last line so that it reflects the actual installation location. The file format requires that '\' characters be replaced with double '\\' characters in folder names. The last line of the file is currently set to:
"DataSource:1:0"="C:\\Program Files\\AMHOCN\\amDstAppData_02_00_0027.mde"
The IT departments of some organisations prevent the execution of registry files (i.e. files with the extension *.reg) - if this is the case at your organisation, you will need to request your IT department to update the registry on your behalf.
|
|
| | Topic: Error 5: Access is denied |
|---|
 Error 5: Access is denied [message #288] |
Thu, 27 April 2006 01:30 |
|
Issue:
The NOCC Decision Support Tool setup program installs the application under the standard Windows program files folder - usually C:\Program Files. To do this, it first creates the sub-folder C:\Program Files\AMHOCN then copies the application and documentation into it. For a normal user, the C:\Program Files folder is read-only. A user needs to have Local Administrator Rights to create sub-folders and copy files into this area.
If you attempt to install the NOCC Decision Support Tool, and your login does not have Local Administrator Rights, the setup program will fail as soon as it attempts to create the AMHOCN sub-folder. The error message returned is:
Setup was unable to create the directory "C:\Program Files\AMHOCN".
Error 5: Access is denied.
The resulting dialog box is as follows:
Resolution:
You will need to get someone with Local Administrator Rights to login to your PC and do the installation for you - or get your network administrator to temporarily give you these rights on your PC so that you can do the install under your own login name.
|
|
| | Forum: NOCC Standard Reports |
|---|
| Topic: Non-independence and precision of confidence intervals |
|---|
| Non-independence and precision of confidence intervals [message #357] |
Mon, 03 July 2006 03:54 |
Jonathon Little
Messages: 2
Registered: July 2004
Location: Office of Mental Health, ... |
Junior Member |
|
|
Now that the Socceroos have returned home after their gallant attempt at worldwide stardom, I find myself returning to the problem of non-independence of observations. As we are all probably aware NOCC data is nested data, which in the WA context will have at least 4-6 levels, described thus:
Patient behaviour is nested within clinician conceptualisations of psychopathology, rating clinicians are nested within collection reasons and occasions, which are nested within treatment settings, nested within mental health organisations, nested within larger organisational structures and so on all the way up to an Australia wide level. Clearly NOCC data is hierarchically structured, that is, full of intra-class correlations. Can we be confident in the robustness of confidence intervals for effect sizes, given these innumerable violations to the assumption of independence?
Is AMHOCN considering alternative ways of addressing these problems when conducting Australia wide analysis? I have played with the idea of implementing a method to resolve at least part of the non-independence problem for WA. This would involve undertaking separate analyses for each cluster. For example, calculating the effect at the mental health organisation or program level (WA’s lowest level at which organisational units are observed) and then using a fixed (random?) effects meta-analysis to estimate the precision and magnitude of the effect at a higher level of aggregation. I concede that a multi-level analysis would be a more attractive proposition, however implementing this in an automated environment is frankly beyond me, whereas the math for a meta-analysis is readily available and not too overwhelming. I would be interested in entering into a dialogue with anyone wishing to grapple with this problem.
I should add that this approach would not resolve dependence problems arising from having a small number of clinicians rating a large number of patients. That is, dependence arising from systematic observational errors (within and across collection occasions), or dependence arising from clinicians abandoning the glossary and imposing their own model – I see this as inevitable to at least some degree. Therefore, the approach would be restricted to self-rating instruments, namely the K10+.
Thoughts anybody?
Jonathon Little
Office of Mental Health
WA Department of Health
Tel:08 9222 4089
|
|
| | Topic: The CP care plan |
|---|
 The CP care plan [message #286] |
Thu, 30 March 2006 18:11 |
Nana
Messages: 7
Registered: March 2006
Location: Rozelle Hospital |
Junior Member |
|
|
I was wondering if anyone could help me with a wee problem Im experiencing-THE CP-CARE PLAN!!!! I would like to give a seminar/workshop on it but am having trouble finding information on it. Can anyone tell me:
* Where can I find info on HOW TO FILL A CARE PLAN OUT?
* Is it a mandatory requirement that we use the CP-Care PLan or can we use one that we find more suitable to our facility?
* What is (or is there) a set time in which the CP-care plan must be at least commenced?
* In the community, if a client has not been allocated a case manger yet who should fill out the CP-Care plan?
Sorry for all these questions, but i was asked these all yesterday and was quite franky STUMPED! Let me know please if anyone has any answers.
|
|
| | Topic: Table N.2.3.1 HoNOS start and end |
|---|
| Table N.2.3.1 HoNOS start and end [message #223] |
Sun, 13 March 2005 17:57 |
Tim Coombs
Messages: 104
Registered: December 2002 |
Senior Member |
|
|
|
Some people have been wondering why the different percentages for HoNOS start and end in tables N.2.3.1 (all age groups have the same table naming convention). It is important to remember that before this, the reports have simply been looking at collection occasions and now the focus has moved to periods or episodes of care. When identifying ‘valid periods of care’ the focus was on the collection occasions. Now the focus shifts, asking of those ‘valid periods/episodes’ how many had valid clinical ratings(eg at least 10 of the HoNOS65+ scales completed). So looking at table 3.2.3.1 for older persons, between any admission and any review there were 304 valid periods. Of these 12.8% had valid HoNOS ratings at the start and 14.1% had valid ratings at the end (the review collection). All up, this means that 12.5% of the ‘valid periods’ had ‘valid’ start and end HoNOS. These are sometime referred to as “useable pairs” and it is these "useable pairs" which become the focus of analysis for the later calculation of effect size in the reports
[Updated on: Sun, 13 March 2005 18:08]
|
|
| | Topic: Identifying valid periods and episodes of care |
|---|
| Identifying valid periods and episodes of care [message #222] |
Sun, 13 March 2005 17:41 |
Tim Coombs
Messages: 104
Registered: December 2002 |
Senior Member |
|
|
|
For example, take a look at table 3.2.1 in the 1st edition of the older persons report this is a ‘periods of care’ report but it basically follows the same structure and logic for the ‘episodes of care report’ 3.3.1 ( or 1.2.1, 1.3.1 in C&A or 2.2.1 or 2.3.1 for Adults). The purpose of this table 3.2.1, in part, is to show how you get a count of the number of periods of care given the information reported to AMHOCN. You will notice that you have three columns, “overall collection occasions”, ‘valid sequences” and “valid periods/episodes of care”. The “overall collection occasions” is simply that, an overall count of the number of collection occasions reported. For Older persons 3.2.1 indicates that AMHOCN received 8337 collection occasions. The rows in this column identify what type of collection occasions they are, note the last row in each of the three service settings, “invalid CO sequences”. For older persons psychiatric inpatient this was 2924 or 35.1%. Remember that an invalid sequence is where the collections occasions are recorded in an order that does not follow the NOCC protocol, so for example where you have a discharge recorded before an admission. Following the strict rules adopted by AMHOCN, these records are removed and aren’t the subject of further analysis. What is left over are collection occasions which can be seen as “valid sequences”, that is an admission followed by a review or an admission followed by a discharge, they make sense in terms of the protocol. For older persons the total number of ‘valid sequences’ is 5413, of these 285 were ‘discharge only’ collection occasions or 5.3% of the 5413 valid sequences. However the focus of this report is on periods of care and although ‘discharge only’ collections can be seen as a valid sequence, they can’t contribute to period of care analysis because there isn’t two of them. These single collection occasions are therefore excluded from further analysis and the final column displays the ‘valid periods of care’. For older persons this is 2369 ‘valid periods’ of which 1393 are any admission to any discharge or 58.8% of the 2369. As I have said the ‘periods of care’ and ‘episodes of care’ reports basically follow the same structure and logic across all age groups
|
|
| | Topic: What is the HoNOS 10 and LSP-13 |
|---|
| What is the HoNOS 10 and LSP-13 [message #221] |
Sun, 13 March 2005 16:30 |
Tim Coombs
Messages: 104
Registered: December 2002 |
Senior Member |
|
|
|
The HoNOS 10 and the LSP 13 were both developed for the Mental Health Classification and Service Costs (MH-CASC) study. Given that AMHOCN will be involved in the further development of this classification system it is necessary to report these versions of the measures. The HoNOS 10 is basically the HoNOS with scales 11 and 12 dropped from calculation of the total score, while the LSP-13 is the LSP -16 with the items which make up the compliance subscale removed for total score calculation. It is important to note that when the subscales for the HoNOS and LSP-16 are reported they are calculated using all scales and items.
|
|
|
Current Time: Wed Sep 8 00:51:40 EDT 2010
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.02720 seconds |
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
