Adaptation of the First Episode Psychosis Services—Fidelity Scale for Use in New and Small Programs
Mark Savill, Briana Sepulveda, Lindsay M. Banks, Stephania L. Hayes, Valerie L. Tryon, Christopher Blay, Kathleen E. Burch, Kristin LaCross, Sabrina Ereshefsky, Misha Carlson, Grace Eun Lee, Rachel L. Loewy, Donald E. Addington, Tara A. Niendam
TL;DR
This study adapts a fidelity assessment tool to help small or new early psychosis programs evaluate their care quality effectively.
Contribution
A new formative fidelity assessment approach was developed to work with limited data from small or new early psychosis programs.
Findings
33.3% of remote assessments had insufficient data for standard evaluations.
The formative approach allowed assessing 34 of 36 items in new programs and 19 items on average in small programs.
The method captured program variability but missed key data on pharmacological and psychosocial care.
Abstract
Fidelity assessments can support healthcare services to deliver care consistent with best practises. However, early psychosis (EP) fidelity assessment tools typically require a volume of service data that is often unavailable to small or new programmes. In this study, we pilot a formative fidelity assessment approach to address these challenges. A formative assessment approach to using the First Episode Psychosis Services—Fidelity Scale (FEPS‐FS) was developed to enable the assessment of small and new EP programmes. Over 48 months, EPI‐CAL EP learning health care network programmes completed standard FEPS‐FS fidelity assessments, formative assessments for new programmes, or formative assessments for small programmes, depending upon programme eligibility. Of 27 remote fidelity assessments completed with EP programmes across California, nine (33.3%) had insufficient service data to…
Genes, proteins, chemicals, diseases, species, mutations and cell lines named across the full text — each resolved to its canonical identifier and authoritative record.
Click any figure to enlarge with its caption.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 10
Figure 11
Figure 12
Figure 13
Figure 14
Figure 15
Figure 16
Figure 17
Figure 18
Figure 19
Figure 20
Figure 21
Figure 22
Figure 23
Figure 24
Figure 25
Figure 26
Figure 27
Figure 28
Figure 29
Figure 30
Figure 31
Figure 32
Figure 33
Figure 34
Figure 35
Figure 36
Figure 37
Figure 38
Figure 39
Figure 40
Figure 41
Figure 42
Figure 43
Figure 44
Figure 45
Figure 46
Figure 47
Figure 48
Figure 49
Figure 50Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsMental Health and Patient Involvement · Mental Health Treatment and Access · Schizophrenia research and treatment