Producing “Progress” Through the Implementation of Outcome Monitoring in Alcohol and Other Drug Treatment
Outcome monitoring—a process in which clinicians use standardized tools to routinely measure client “progress” on predefined outcomes of interest over time—is increasingly being implemented in alcohol and other drug (AOD) treatment services as a way of demonstrating quality of care. However, relativ...
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Journal Article |
| Published: |
Federal Legal Publications, Inc
2016
|
| Online Access: | http://sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/57042 |
| _version_ | 1848760000684490752 |
|---|---|
| author | Savic, M. Fomiatti, Renae |
| author_facet | Savic, M. Fomiatti, Renae |
| author_sort | Savic, M. |
| building | Curtin Institutional Repository |
| collection | Online Access |
| description | Outcome monitoring—a process in which clinicians use standardized tools to routinely measure client “progress” on predefined outcomes of interest over time—is increasingly being implemented in alcohol and other drug (AOD) treatment services as a way of demonstrating quality of care. However, relatively little is known about the implications and unintended consequences of implementing outcome monitoring in clinical and social practices. In this paper we draw on qualitative data emerging from focus groups with clinicians who piloted an outcome monitoring tool in Melbourne, Australia, using conceptual tools drawn from science and technology studies. Rather than acting as a stable empirical object, we argue that realities of progress are enacted multiply in relation to preexisting treatment discourses and policy, organizational practices of data collection and management, reporting tools, and clinician attitudes and practices. In particular, we trace how the tool orders the “problem” of drugs differently to the qualitative mode of ordering; how different modes of ordering progress hang together and the tensions and coordination strategies that are involved. And finally, we highlight an unintended consequence of the outcome monitoring process—the enactment of vulnerability and its distribution across the clinical relationship. We suggest that researchers, policy makers, and clinicians need to think reflectively and critically about the ways in which we and our tools and interventions are influential in producing AOD problems, what constitutes progress, and ultimately what the focus of treatment should be. |
| first_indexed | 2025-11-14T10:08:49Z |
| format | Journal Article |
| id | curtin-20.500.11937-57042 |
| institution | Curtin University Malaysia |
| institution_category | Local University |
| last_indexed | 2025-11-14T10:08:49Z |
| publishDate | 2016 |
| publisher | Federal Legal Publications, Inc |
| recordtype | eprints |
| repository_type | Digital Repository |
| spelling | curtin-20.500.11937-570422018-01-15T03:41:56Z Producing “Progress” Through the Implementation of Outcome Monitoring in Alcohol and Other Drug Treatment Savic, M. Fomiatti, Renae Outcome monitoring—a process in which clinicians use standardized tools to routinely measure client “progress” on predefined outcomes of interest over time—is increasingly being implemented in alcohol and other drug (AOD) treatment services as a way of demonstrating quality of care. However, relatively little is known about the implications and unintended consequences of implementing outcome monitoring in clinical and social practices. In this paper we draw on qualitative data emerging from focus groups with clinicians who piloted an outcome monitoring tool in Melbourne, Australia, using conceptual tools drawn from science and technology studies. Rather than acting as a stable empirical object, we argue that realities of progress are enacted multiply in relation to preexisting treatment discourses and policy, organizational practices of data collection and management, reporting tools, and clinician attitudes and practices. In particular, we trace how the tool orders the “problem” of drugs differently to the qualitative mode of ordering; how different modes of ordering progress hang together and the tensions and coordination strategies that are involved. And finally, we highlight an unintended consequence of the outcome monitoring process—the enactment of vulnerability and its distribution across the clinical relationship. We suggest that researchers, policy makers, and clinicians need to think reflectively and critically about the ways in which we and our tools and interventions are influential in producing AOD problems, what constitutes progress, and ultimately what the focus of treatment should be. 2016 Journal Article http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/57042 10.1177/0091450916641979 http://sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Federal Legal Publications, Inc restricted |
| spellingShingle | Savic, M. Fomiatti, Renae Producing “Progress” Through the Implementation of Outcome Monitoring in Alcohol and Other Drug Treatment |
| title | Producing “Progress” Through the Implementation of Outcome Monitoring in Alcohol and Other Drug Treatment |
| title_full | Producing “Progress” Through the Implementation of Outcome Monitoring in Alcohol and Other Drug Treatment |
| title_fullStr | Producing “Progress” Through the Implementation of Outcome Monitoring in Alcohol and Other Drug Treatment |
| title_full_unstemmed | Producing “Progress” Through the Implementation of Outcome Monitoring in Alcohol and Other Drug Treatment |
| title_short | Producing “Progress” Through the Implementation of Outcome Monitoring in Alcohol and Other Drug Treatment |
| title_sort | producing “progress” through the implementation of outcome monitoring in alcohol and other drug treatment |
| url | http://sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/57042 |