BACKGROUND: Routine outcome monitoring (ROM) means the assessment of the patient's condition on a routine basis using instruments. So far there is no consensus about which instruments should be used for ROM with severely mentally ill patients (ROM-SMI). AIM: To reach a consensus about instruments for ROM-SMI in the Netherlands and Belgium and to create possibilities for comparison of ROM data. METHOD: This article discusses the consensus document of the National Remission Working Group for ROM in patients with SMI and covers the following topics: reasons for ROM-SMI, domains for ROM-SMI and appropriate instruments, logistics and analyses of the data. RESULTS: Patients with SMI have problems in several domains. These can be assessed by collecting information about psychiatric symptoms, addiction, somatic problems, general functioning, needs, quality of life and care satis/action. Potential instruments for ROM-SMI are short, valid, reliable and assess several domains, taking the patient's perspective into account, and have been used in national and international research. The working group advises institutions to choose from a limited set of instruments. After the scores have been aggregated and standardised, comparisons can be drawn, ROM-SMI data can be interpreted more meaningfully, if outcome data are supplemented with data regarding patient characteristics and the treatment interventions already applied. CONCLUSION: It should be possible to reach a consensus about instruments for ROM-SMI and the way in which they should be used. The use of identical instruments will lead to improvements in mental health care and aeate possibilities/or comparison (benchmarking) and research.

Instruments, Routine outcome monitoring, severe mental illness
Tijdschrift voor Psychiatrie
Erasmus MC: University Medical Center Rotterdam

Mulder, C.L, Van Der Gaag, M, Bruggeman, R, Cahn, W, Delespaul, P.A.E.G, Dries, P, … van Os, J. (2010). Routine Outcome Monitoring for patients with severe mental illness: A consensus document. Tijdschrift voor Psychiatrie, 52(3), 169–179. Retrieved from