Suchergebnisse

The CANFOR is a needs assessment tool specifically designed for forensic mental health services. Aimed at both researchers and mental health workers, this second edition completely updates the CANFOR and summarises current research. Downloadable versions of the form are freely available from the CAN website.

"The Camberwell Assessment of Need (CAN) is a standardised measure for assessing the needs of people experiencing severe and/or enduring mental health problems. It covers a wide range of health and social needs, and incorporates staff, service user and informal carer perspectives. The CAN was developed for use by three groups: a) mental health workers involved in planning care for people with severe mental health problems b) mental health service users in rating their own needs c) people wanting to evaluate mental health services. The first edition of the CAN was published in 1995 by the Section of Community Psychiatry (PRiSM) at what is now called the Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience in London, England. The accompanying book was published in 1999 by Gaskell, the imprint of the Royal College of Psychiatrists"--

"The Camberwell Assessment of Need Forensic Version (CANFOR) is an individual needs assessment scale designed to identify to needs of people with mental health concerns who are in contact with forensic mental health services. It was developed by members of the Section of Community Psychiatry at the Institute of Psychiatry in London, in collaboration with clinicians at The Bracton Centre, a secure psychiatric facility operated by Oxleas NHS Foundation Trust. The CANFOR is based on the Camberwell Assessment of Need (CAN), a needs assessment scale designed to assess the needs of people with severe and/or enduring mental health problems (Phelan et al., 1995; Slade et al., 1999; Slade & Thornicroft, 2020). This is the 2nd edition of the CANFOR book; the 1st edition was published by the Royal College of Psychiatrists in 2003. In this 2nd edition we provide some updated guidance and minor changes, reflecting on our experiences with its implementation and use for research and in routine clinical practice over the last 17 years. Of specific note, we have changed the name and scope of two of the CANFOR domains to better reflect contemporary situations and circumstances. We have changed the Child care domain to Dependents in this 2nd edition to reflect changes that are emerging associated with an ageing population. We have also changed the Telephone domain to Digital communication to better reflect other additional and/or alternative ways of communicating with others (for example through social media)"--

The Camberwell Assessment of Need Forensic Version (CANFOR) is a tool for assessing the needs of people with mental health problems who are in contact with forensic services. It is based on the CAN, a widely used needs assessment for people with severe mental health problems. Individual needs are assessed in 25 areas of life, spanning health, social, clinical and functional domains. Comprehensive versions are available for research (CANFOR-R) and clinical use (CANFOR-C), as well as a short summary version (CANFOR-S) suitable for both research and clinical use. CANFOR was rigorously developed by a multidisciplinary team at the Institute of Psychiatry, London, and is suitable for use in all forensic mental health and prison settings. This second edition provides an update of the CANFOR tools and their application in clinical and research settings. The assessment forms are freely available to download from the CAN website (researchintorecovery.com/can) and cambridge.org.

Objective: There is considerable interest in the concept of recovery from psychosis. Consumers describe recovery as a process as opposed to a clinical outcome. However, measures of recovery have an important role in the development of recovery-based mental health services. This study sought to investigate the validity and reliability of the Stages of Recovery Instrument (STORI) (Andresen et al., 2006). This is an Australian instrument chosen as a promising measure of recovery developed from the perspectives of consumer accounts. Method: A questionnaire design was used to investigate the following aspects of validity: face validity and feasibility; concurrent validity; construct validity; and test-retest reliability. Fifty (50) people from the caseloads of three specialist mental health teams in a London borough completed the STORI, the Recovery Assessment Scale (RAS) (Corrigan et al., 1999) and a feedback questionnaire. Twenty two (22) people completed the STORI a second time for the purposes of test-retest reliability exploration. Results: Participants' responses to the feedback questionnaire were mainly positive. This was seen as evidence of face validity and feasibility. Correlations between the STORI and the RAS provided evidence of concurrent validity. Cluster analysis revealed that the STORI items formed three clusters rather than five. Strong correlations between the first and second STORI administrations provided initial evidence for the test-retest reliability. Conclusions: The STORI can be used to measure recovery concepts in the UK. However, it does not measure the five-stage model on which it was based. A three-stage model of recovery might best form the basis of future recovery research.

This study surveyed current practice amongst 91 Indian and Australian staff working within multidisciplinary mental health teams, looking at leadership skills, conflict resolution and therapeutic abilities. Length of training was asso ciated with management skills, though these skills were more developed by psychiatric nurses and occupational therapists working in community settings. Hospital settings involved less consensual decision-making than community teams. Psychiatric nurses spent most time in clinical work, and occupational therapists were rated as less skilled in the therapeutic activities assessed than any other profession. Psychiatrists and clinical psychologists undertook most research. The activities assessed in this study could be undertaken by a team comprising psychiatrists, psychiatric nurses and social workers, with clinical psychologists employed where possible, especially for research or service evaluation.

The Camberwell Assessment of Need for adults with Developmental and Intellectual Disabilities (CANDID) is a widely used tool for the assessment of health and social needs of people with intellectual disabilities and mental health problems. It uses the assessment approach adopted by CAN, the world's leading mental health needs assessment measure. Two versions of the CANDID are available: CANDID-S (short version) and CANDID-R (research version). Both versions are aimed at researchers and practitioners working with people with intellectual disabilities, and are suitable for clinical use in community and hospital-based services. Fully updated based on current policy, practice and terminology, this second edition introduces a more intuitive need rating system and an accessible rating algorithm. Guidance on how to use the measures is provided, as well as an overview of research developments since the first edition. The assessment forms are freely available to download from the CAN website (researchintorecovery.com/can) and cambridge.org.

The CANDID is a needs assessment tool specifically designed for adults with intellectual disabilities and mental health problems. It was developed by modification of the CAN, the world's leading mental health needs assessment measure. Fully updated, this second edition is aimed at mental health, social care and management professionals.

Self-efficacy – positive beliefs about one's own competencies and mastery – is associated with better recovery outcomes for people using mental health services. Aim: To translate the Self-Efficacy for Personal Recovery Scale (SEPRS) into Arabic and evaluate the psychometric properties of the Arabic version. Methods: An established translation methodology was employed, involving back-translation, comparison, forward-translation, comparison, and piloting. The pre-final version of the Arabic translated scale was tested for clarity with young people with a primary diagnosis of mental health problem. The final Arabic version and standardized measures of hope and loneliness were administered to 119 young people in two rounds. Results: Internal consistency was adequate (Cronbach's alpha = 0.87 in round 1, 0.91 in round 2). Consistent with the English version, a one-factor solution best fitted the data. The correlation between SEPRS and hope was R = 0.60 (round 1) and R = 0.61 (round 2), indicating convergent validity. The correlation between SEPRS and loneliness was R = −0.52 (round 1) and R = −0.60 (round 2). Correlation between test and retest was R = −0.998 indicated adequate test-retest reliability. Minimal floor and ceiling effects were detected. Conclusion: The use of the Arabic SEPRS with Arabic-speaking samples is supported. Further research to investigate divergent validity is warranted.

Background, aims: Although clinical use of needs assessment tools is widespread, there is little evidence about their value in longitudinal use. This study aimed to identify the factors associated with changing needs in an assertive outreach (AO) team's caseload, over a 6-month rating period. Methods: The Camberwell Assessment of Needs Short Appraisal Schedule (CANSAS) and the Engagement Measure (EM) were used to assess need and engagement with services respectively, in an AO team caseload. Care planning was based partly on awareness of current unmet needs. The patients were then reassessed at a 6-month follow-up, to determine to what extent identified unmet need had been successfully addressed, and whether levels of engagement had altered. Results: Data were obtained for 79 of 82 patients on the AO team caseload. At 6-month follow-up patient-rated unmet need, but not staff-rated unmet need, was significantly reduced. Patient-, but not staff-rated met need was significantly increased. Measures of engagement were unchanged. Patients' needs changed across a variety of physical, social and psychological domains, rather than in one specific area. In regression analyses, only accommodation type was independently associated with patient-rated changing met need; only diagnosis was significantly related to changing patient-related unmet need. Conclusion: In this study, the CANSAS was used routinely in a standard AO team, and the finding that over a 6-month period patient-rated unmet need reduced significantly suggests that formal rating of needs assessment may have helped to target care planning effectively.The results suggest that accommodation type and diagnosis may play an important role in the ability of services to effectively meet patient needs, but further work in larger samples is needed to address these questions.