Evaluation Research and the Psychiatric Hospital (original) (raw)
Related papers
Clinical Sociology Review, 1994
This paper discusses the multiple roles sociologists play in conducting evaluation research in a large state psychiatric hospital. The key to understanding this form of clinical sociology is its blending of management and inquiry in a unique organizational context. The authors, sociologists who have both served as directors of the Buffalo Psychiatric Center's program evaluation unit since its founding in 1979, present examples of the unit's work, discussing the role sociologists play in the collection, analysis and reporting of data used by *Direct all correspondence to George Dowdall, Visiting Lecturer, Department of Health and Social Behavior, Harvard School of Public Health, 677 Huntington Ave., Boston, MA 02115; (617) 5323937. We wish to thank Stacey Calhoun, Jean Dowdall, Ross Koppel, George Molnar, Allan Pinchoff, and the editor and reviewers of this journal for their comments on earlier drafts, but responsibility for the paper's ideas remains entirely with the aut...
Evaluating the Evaluations of Psychiatry Residents
Academic Psychiatry, 1992
This survey assessed theperceptions ofpsychiatry residents andfaculty about resident evaluations. Current residents, former residents, andfaculty ofa psychiatry residency program were asked about thevalue andeffect offeedback in 15 speciiic areas andrated their preferences for evaluation methods. Residents andfaculty most valued feedback that addressed practical clinical skills. Evaluations reportedly improved skills in halfofthe areas surveyed. Mostrespondents preferred face-to-face evaluations from individual faculty. This study confirms thevalue ofresident evaluations addressing clinical skills, but it highlights discrepancies in expectations andmerits ofseveral methods ofevaluation.
Evaluation in the community mental health centers program: A bold new reproach?
Evaluation and Program Planning, 1982
The Federal Community Mental Health Centers Program (CA4HC) -from 1963 to 1981-was heralded as a revolution in mental health care. Championed by many, and severely criticized by others, the actual impact of the program on the nation's mental health remains unclear. The authorization to evaluate the CA4HC Program came originally from congressional legislation (PL 9&l 74), and later from the policies and regulations of NIMH under a series of Federal laws, notably PL 94-63. From 1976, two dominant evaluation strategies were prevalent: funds expended by NIMH each yearfor studies of CMHCservices orprogram-wide evaluations, and a much larger expenditure by CMHCs to conduct their own, independent evaluations following federal guidelines. As the CenteJs Program was turned over to the states in the form of block grants (PL 97-35), a group of professionals involved with setting and carrying out federal CMHC evamation policy of both varieties met in public forum to debate the impact of these two evaluation approaches. While some participants cited gains in evaluation technology and impact upon local management of CMHCs, others found the lack of a coordinated and systematic approach to evaluating the CMHC Program to have been an opportunity missed. The impact of CMHC evaluation efforts are also discussed in terms of their major contribution to the field of evaluation research as a whole.
Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, 2004
This case study explores what informs and organizes the assessment of patients, as undertaken by a nurse, a social worker and a psychiatrist in public, metropolitan, acute mental health service settings. The research data are the transcripts of in-depth interviews with three experienced practitioners, one from each of the three disciplines. The analysis draws on Foucauldian concepts: discourse as constructed through practices of discipline and the gaze. We explored examples of taken-for-granted assessment practices and their interplay with discourse. The findings suggest that participating practitioners use language in assessment in ways that support the powerful discourses of the professional disciplines. The competing discourse of management, associated with industry and economics, is evident in hospital admission processes, dictating the times and places of assessment. Professional and management discourses both effectively marginalize the perspective of another player in assessment, the patient.
The relevance of qualitative research for clinical programs in psychiatry
Canadian journal of psychiatry. Revue canadienne de psychiatrie, 2008
It is time to move beyond education about qualitative research theory and methods to using them to understand and improve psychiatric practice. There is a good fit between this agenda and current thinking about research use that broadens definitions of evidence beyond the results of experiments. This paper describes a qualitative program evaluation to illustrate what kind of useful knowledge is generated and how it can be created through a clinician-researcher partnership. The linkage and exchange model of effective knowledge translation described involves interaction between clinicians and researchers throughout the research process and results in mutual learning through the planning, disseminating, and application of existing or new qualitative research in decision making.
Toward Evaluation in Public Services: Getting Past the Barriers
Psychiatric Services, 2018
Evaluation of public programs in mental health and in other fields is often blocked when "reasons not to" are cited. These include "HIPAA," "IRB," "not my job," "it's already evidence based," "we know what's right," "we don't know enough," "we don't have baseline data," and "there's too much to do." Examining these reasons, the values thought to justify them, and possible ways to respond will facilitate evaluation research.