Evidence-Based Reviews

Using rating scales in a clinical setting: A guide for psychiatrists

Author and Disclosure Information

Consider these brief, easy-to-use behavioral health rating scales to guide diagnosis, monitor care


 

References

In the current health care environment, there is an increasing demand for objective assessment of disease states.1 This is particularly apparent in psychiatry, where documentation of outcomes lags that of other areas of medicine.

In 2012, the additional health care costs incurred by persons with mental health diagnoses were estimated to be $293 billion among commercially insured, Medicaid, and Medicare beneficiaries in the United States—a figure that is 273% higher than the cost for those without psychiatric diagnoses.2 Psychiatric and medical illnesses can be so tightly linked that accurate diagnosis and treatment of psychiatric disorders becomes essential to control medical illnesses. It is not surprising that there is increased scrutiny to the ways in which psychiatric care can be objectively assessed and monitored, and payers such as Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) increasingly require objective documentation of disease state improvement for payment.3

Support for objective assessment of disease derives from the collaborative care model. This model is designed to better integrate psychiatric and primary care by (among other practices) establishing the Patient-Centered Medical Home and emphasizing screening and monitoring patient-reported outcomes over time to assess treatment response.4 This approach, which is endorsed by the American Psychiatric Association, is associated with significant improvements in outcomes compared with usual care.5 It tracks a patient’s progress using validated clinical rating scales and other screening tools (eg, Patient Health Questionnaire [PHQ-9] for depression), an approach that is analogous to how patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus are monitored by hemoglobin A1c laboratory tests.6 An increasingly extensive body of research supports the impact of this approach on treatment. A 2012 Cochrane Review associated collaborative care with significant improvements in depression and anxiety outcomes compared with usual treatment.7

Despite these findings, a recent Kennedy Forum brief asserts that behavioral health is characterized by a “lack of systematic measurement to determine whether patients are responding to treatment.”8 That same brief points to the many easy-to-administer and validated rating scales and other screening tools that can reliably measure the frequency and severity of psychiatric symptoms over time, and likens the lack of their use as “equivalent to treating high blood pressure without using a blood pressure cuff to measure if a patient’s blood pressure is improving.”8 It is estimated that only 18% of psychiatrists and 11% of psychologists administer them routinely.9,10 This lack of use denies clinicians important information that can help detect deterioration or lack of improvement in their patients.

Pages

Recommended Reading

Repeal and replace: House bills offer potential road maps
MDedge Psychiatry
21 Medicare health plans warned to fix provider directory errors
MDedge Psychiatry
ACA repeal would impact adults at higher risk of chronic disease
MDedge Psychiatry
VIDEO: Health law changes under new administration
MDedge Psychiatry
President Trump hits ground running on ACA repeal
MDedge Psychiatry
Judge blocks Aetna-Humana merger
MDedge Psychiatry
One GOP plan says states that like their Obamacare can keep it
MDedge Psychiatry
HHS Secretary-nominee avoids specifics on Medicaid funding during second hearing
MDedge Psychiatry
Charging for medical records: For whom and at what cost?
MDedge Psychiatry
Trump nominates Neil Gorsuch as 9th Supreme Court justice
MDedge Psychiatry