Development of the Clinical High Risk for Psychosis Services Fidelity Scale (CHRPS-FS) for Team-Based Care.

IF 3.3 3区医学 Q1 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES

Psychiatric services Pub Date : 2025-02-27 DOI:10.1176/appi.ps.20240107

Mark Savill, Lindsay M Banks, Briana T Sepulveda, Savinnie Ho, Valerie L Tryon, Kathleen E Nye, Christopher Blay, Misha M Carlson, Adrian F Asbun, Sabrina Ereshefsky, Kristin L LaCross, Stephania L Hayes, Tara A Niendam, Donald E Addington

{"title":"Development of the Clinical High Risk for Psychosis Services Fidelity Scale (CHRPS-FS) for Team-Based Care.","authors":"Mark Savill, Lindsay M Banks, Briana T Sepulveda, Savinnie Ho, Valerie L Tryon, Kathleen E Nye, Christopher Blay, Misha M Carlson, Adrian F Asbun, Sabrina Ereshefsky, Kristin L LaCross, Stephania L Hayes, Tara A Niendam, Donald E Addington","doi":"10.1176/appi.ps.20240107","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: This study aimed to develop and pilot the Clinical High Risk for Psychosis Services Fidelity Scale (CHRPS-FS).Methods: A literature review was conducted to identify evidence-based treatments for individuals at clinical high risk for psychosis (CHRP). These findings were compared with the First-Episode Psychosis Services Fidelity Scale (FEPS-FS). Common items were retained, and others were added, modified, or deleted. Next, the Delphi process was conducted with 17 clinical and academic experts in CHRP care to determine consensus on the importance and validity of each item. Concurrently, the preliminary tool was piloted in eight coordinated specialty care (CSC) clinics serving individuals with CHRP.Results: The literature review identified two components of CHRP care that were not detailed in the FEPS-FS and were added to the CHRPS-FS; furthermore, one FEPS-FS item was modified and six were removed. In the Delphi process, clinical and academic experts achieved a consensus of >80% in two rounds, with some changes in item wording and the addition of one item (stepped care approach). A CHRPS-FS assessment was successfully piloted in eight CSC clinics. The mean CHRPS-FS rating score was 3.96 (range 3.75-4.23), and the median proportion of items rated at good to high fidelity was 72% (range 66%-78%).Conclusions: The CHRP-FS is feasible to implement, has face validity based on expert consensus, can be completed in conjunction with a FEPS-FS assessment or alone, and captures variability across programs. The CHRPS-FS measures service delivery and is suitable for clinical trials, learning health care systems, and quality improvement efforts.","PeriodicalId":20878,"journal":{"name":"Psychiatric services","volume":" ","pages":"appips20240107"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychiatric services","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.20240107","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to develop and pilot the Clinical High Risk for Psychosis Services Fidelity Scale (CHRPS-FS).

Methods: A literature review was conducted to identify evidence-based treatments for individuals at clinical high risk for psychosis (CHRP). These findings were compared with the First-Episode Psychosis Services Fidelity Scale (FEPS-FS). Common items were retained, and others were added, modified, or deleted. Next, the Delphi process was conducted with 17 clinical and academic experts in CHRP care to determine consensus on the importance and validity of each item. Concurrently, the preliminary tool was piloted in eight coordinated specialty care (CSC) clinics serving individuals with CHRP.

Results: The literature review identified two components of CHRP care that were not detailed in the FEPS-FS and were added to the CHRPS-FS; furthermore, one FEPS-FS item was modified and six were removed. In the Delphi process, clinical and academic experts achieved a consensus of >80% in two rounds, with some changes in item wording and the addition of one item (stepped care approach). A CHRPS-FS assessment was successfully piloted in eight CSC clinics. The mean CHRPS-FS rating score was 3.96 (range 3.75-4.23), and the median proportion of items rated at good to high fidelity was 72% (range 66%-78%).

Conclusions: The CHRP-FS is feasible to implement, has face validity based on expert consensus, can be completed in conjunction with a FEPS-FS assessment or alone, and captures variability across programs. The CHRPS-FS measures service delivery and is suitable for clinical trials, learning health care systems, and quality improvement efforts.

查看原文本刊更多论文

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Psychiatric services 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生

CiteScore

5.80

自引率

7.90%

发文量

295

审稿时长

3-8 weeks

期刊介绍： Psychiatric Services, established in 1950, is published monthly by the American Psychiatric Association. The peer-reviewed journal features research reports on issues related to the delivery of mental health services, especially for people with serious mental illness in community-based treatment programs. Long known as an interdisciplinary journal, Psychiatric Services recognizes that provision of high-quality care involves collaboration among a variety of professionals, frequently working as a team. Authors of research reports published in the journal include psychiatrists, psychologists, pharmacists, nurses, social workers, drug and alcohol treatment counselors, economists, policy analysts, and professionals in related systems such as criminal justice and welfare systems. In the mental health field, the current focus on patient-centered, recovery-oriented care and on dissemination of evidence-based practices is transforming service delivery systems at all levels. Research published in Psychiatric Services contributes to this transformation.