Introduction The Integrated Recovery Scales (IRS) was developed by the Dutch National Expertise board for routine outcome monitoring with severe mental illnesses. This board aimed to develop a multidimensional recovery measure directed at 1. clinical recovery, 2. physical health, 3. social recovery (work, social contacts, independent living) and 4. existential, personal recovery. The measure had to be short, suited for routine outcome monitoring and present the perspective of both mental health professionals and service users with severe mental illnesses. All aspects are assessed over a period of the pas 6 months. Objectives The objective of this research is validation of the Integral Recovery Scales and to test the revelance for clinical practice and police evaluation. Methods The instrument was tested with 500 individuals with severe mental illnesses (80% individuals with a psychotic disorder), of whom 200 were followed up for 1 year. For the questions concerning clinical recovery, physical health and social recovery mental health care workers conducted semi structured interviews with people living with serious illnesses. The questions concerning personal health were self-rated. We analyzed interrater reliability, convergent and divergent validity and sensitivity to change. Results The instrument has a good validity and is easy to complete for service users and mental health care workers and appropriate for clinical and policy evaluation goals. Conclusions The Integrated Recovery Scales can be a useful instrument for a simple and meaningful routine outcome monitoring. Page: 121
Introduction The Integrated Recovery Scales (IRS) was developed by the Dutch National Expertise board for routine outcome monitoring with severe mental illnesses. This board aimed to develop a multidimensional recovery measure directed at 1. clinical recovery, 2. physical health, 3. social recovery (work, social contacts, independent living) and 4. existential, personal recovery. The measure had to be short, suited for routine outcome monitoring and present the perspective of both mental health professionals and service users with severe mental illnesses. All aspects are assessed over a period of the pas 6 months. Objectives The objective of this research is validation of the Integral Recovery Scales and to test the revelance for clinical practice and police evaluation. Methods The instrument was tested with 500 individuals with severe mental illnesses (80% individuals with a psychotic disorder), of whom 200 were followed up for 1 year. For the questions concerning clinical recovery, physical health and social recovery mental health care workers conducted semi structured interviews with people living with serious illnesses. The questions concerning personal health were self-rated. We analyzed interrater reliability, convergent and divergent validity and sensitivity to change. Results The instrument has a good validity and is easy to complete for service users and mental health care workers and appropriate for clinical and policy evaluation goals. Conclusions The Integrated Recovery Scales can be a useful instrument for a simple and meaningful routine outcome monitoring. Page: 121
Introduction F-ACT is a flexible version of Assertive Community Treatment to deliver care in a changing intensity depending on needs of individuals with severe mental illnesses (Van Veldhuizen, 2007). In 2016 a number of the FACT-teams in the Dutch region of Utrecht moved to locations in neighborhoods and started to work as one network team together with neighborhood based facilities in primary care (GP’s) and in the social domain (supported living, social district teams, etc.). This should create better chances on clinical, social and personal recovery of service users. Objectives This study describes the implementation, obstacles and outcomes for service users. The main question is whether this Collaborative Mental Health Care in the Community produces better outcome than regular FACT. Measures include (met/unmet) needs for care, quality of life, clinical, functional and personal recovery, and hospital admission days. Methods Data on care utilization regarding the innovation are compared to regular FACT. Qualitative interviews are conducted to gain insight in the experiences of service users, their family members and mental health care workers. Changes in outcome measures of service users in pilot areas (N=400) were compared to outcomes of users (matched on gender and level of functioning) in regular FACT teams in the period 2015-2018 (total N=800). Results Data-analyses will take place from January to March 2019. Initial analyses point at a greater feeling of holding and safety for service users in the pilot areas and less hospital admission days. Conclusions Preliminary results support the development from FACT to a community based collaborative care service.
