1. To crawl before we run: optimising therapies with aggregated data Chris Evans, Michael Barkham, John Mellor-Clark, Frank Margison, Janice Connell

2. Aims Panel aim is to help bridge the gap between researchers and practitioners Specifically, to promote new forms of “practice based evidence” (PBE) which work in and across that gap and which complement EBP This paper aims to present low sophistication, service oriented methods to complement the HLM and other sophisticated methods that Wolfgang, Zoran and many others have developed

3. Specific aims for this presentation Show realities of routine data collection Show the magnitude of service level variation Argue that simple service level analyses can help us learn from treatment failures Computer processing is needed by most services/practitioners but is alien to many, two methods of computer processing available for CORE For now, confidence intervals and graphical data presentations may be the “zone of proximal development”

4. The dataset 6610 records (from >12k): 33 primary care NHS services 40 to 932 records per service Anonymised, voluntary Four components to the data: Therapist completed CORE-A Therapy Assessment Form (TAF) End of Therapy Form (EOT) Client completed CORE-OM At assessment and end of therapy or follow-up

5. CORE-A TAF

6. CORE-A EOT

7. CORE-OM

8. CORE-PC version of CORE-OM “It’s really simple and easy to use. I’m not very computer literate, but I’d got to grips with it in less than an hour”

9. Plotting data: simple proportion

10. Plotting data: reference lines

11. Plotting data: add CI for sites

12. Plotting data: add summary

13. Getting data (2): CORE-OM 1

14. Getting data (3): CORE-OM 2

15. Getting data (4): all four forms

16. Getting data: summary For each of these basic indices the differences across services: were significant p<.0005 were very large in magnitude the number “significantly” different from overall proportion ranged from 15 to 22 of the 33 Even at the “best” end, datasets are fairly incomplete … … at the “worst” end completion rate is cripplingly low

17. Demographics (1): gender

18. Demographics (2): ethnicity

19. Demographics (3): employment

20. Demographics (4): young age

21. Demographics (5): older age

22. Demographics (6): age

23. Demographics: summary All differences p<.0005 Quite large in magnitude Number “significantly” different from overall proportion/median ranged from 3 to 16 of the 33 Particularly big differences on ethnicity Some of these demographic variables will have relationships to outcome and failure both within and between services

24. Individual level & site level effects

25. Starting points (1): on medication

26. Starting points (2): CORE-OM score

27. Starting points (3): % > CSC cut point

28. Starting points: summary All statistically significant p<.0005 Large differences Number “significantly” different from overall proportion/median ranged from 6 to 10 of the 33 Again, starting conditions can have relationships with outcome and failures at both individual and service level

29. Logistics (1): wait time to assessment

30. Logistics (2): % offered more sessions

31. Logistics (3): #(sessions planned)

32. Logistics: summary All p<.0005 All large differences, particularly for waiting time from referral to assessment (13 days cf. 137 days) Number “significantly” different from overall proportion/median ranged from 6 to 19 of the 33 There are big differences on number of sessions offered (medians from 3 to 10) … but many services offering fixed number, mode is six sessions Looks very likely that there will be some differences between services in the ways they operate that will hugely affect outcome and failures

33. Outcomes (1): unplanned endings

34. Outcomes (2): CORE-OM change

36. Outcomes (3): % RC

37. Outcomes (4): % CSC

38. Outcomes: summary All statistically significant p<.0005 Large differences Number “significantly” different from overall proportion/median ranged from 4 to 9 Despite large differences on RC and CSC, number of services differing “significantly” from the overall is not so high (4 and 6 respectively)

39. Can automation of data processing help bridge the gap? Neither researchers nor practitioners know much about the generalisability of “strong causal inference” to routine practice Need practice to come out of the confidentiality closet without harming true confidentiality Very, very few services currently collect routine outcome data Few services link with other services to compare practices and data Few services have strong links to researchers to help understand data Need to bridge these gaps: if we make data easier to handle it might help!

40. Automation (1): batch route Facilitates some distancing from the data Data analyses done by researchers and experts in analysis and data handling Reports (30+ pages) well received Can explore site specific issues

41. Automation (2): CORE-PC “The clinical and reliable change graph is invaluable. As a service manager it gives me instant access to where we can look to improve our service provision”

42. Automation (2): CORE-PC “I never realised that writing a report could be so simple, all I need to do is copy the tables I need from CORE-PC, paste them in Word , and write my interpretations.”

43. Automation (2): PC Allows services to get much “nearer” to their data Should prevent some data entry errors Should increase data completeness May mean that service clinicians and managers feel uncertain about how to analyse and interpret their data… … will need training and support

44. http://www.psyctc.org/stats/Weimar Not until Monday 30.vi.03!