Routine outcome monitoring and feedback
The cheapest available intervention, and the ethical questions it raises.
Collecting brief outcome measures every session and feeding the results back to clinicians improves outcomes — principally by catching cases that are not on track, which clinicians reliably fail to detect without data. Effects are largest when a protocol exists for responding to an alert rather than merely receiving one.
How it works
- 1A brief measure is completed each session.
- 2Progress is compared against an expected trajectory derived from similar patients.
- 3Cases falling below the expected trajectory generate an alert.
- 4The clinician receives the alert and, ideally, a set of clinical support tools: check the alliance, check motivation, check social support, consider referral.
- 5The plan changes.
The ethical questions
- Be explicit at consent about who sees the data and what it is used for.
- Resist using session-by-session measures for individual performance management; they are not psychometrically adequate for it.
- Discuss the data with the patient rather than collecting it about them.
- Remember that not everything that matters is on the form.
Sources
Lambert, M. J., Whipple, J. L., & Kleinstäuber, M. (2018). Collecting and delivering progress feedback: A meta-analysis of routine outcome monitoring. Psychotherapy, 55(4), 520–537
meta-analysisMuir, H. J., Coyne, A. E., Morrison, N. R., Boswell, J. F., & Constantino, M. J. (2019). Ethical implications of routine outcomes monitoring for patients, psychotherapists, and mental health care systems. Psychotherapy, 56(4), 459–469
articleConstantino, M. J., Boswell, J. F., Coyne, A. E., Mehta, A. H. P., & Smith, A. E. (2026). Improving mental health care by leveraging therapists’ own practice-based evidence. In Practice-Based Evidence in the Psychological Therapies. Oxford University Press
chapter