Kim de Jong

Routine outcome monitoring (ROM) involves measuring an outcome variable (e.g., symptoms and alliance) at a regular interval over time (e.g., before each session), using a standardized patient self‐report measure. Several computerized ROM system exists that also provide the therapist with benchmarks for these measures based on expected treatment responses (ETRs) for a patient, and clinical support tools (CSTs) to help the therapists in making clinician decisions in the treatment. When implementing ROM into clinical practice, a therapist needs to decide what patient‐self report measure to use as well as what ROM system might be most clinically helpful and cost‐effective. Although the use of ROM has shown to be effective, especially in reducing dropout and reducing deterioration of patients, the implementation of ROM can be challenging. The use of ROM always requires the active involvement of the therapist, but the implementation in treatment may look different for each patient. It is thus helpful to see case illustration of exactly how ROM might be useful or not so useful in clinical practice.

Routine outcome monitoring (ROM) involves the use of patient‐reported standardized outcome measures to monitor progress throughout the course of treatment, followed by feedback of the patient's scores to the therapist. The potential benefits of ROM have been established, however, from our own experiences, we know that the implementation in clinical practice can be challenging. We therefore wanted to explore in more detail exactly how we might be able to apply ROM in difficult clinical contexts. The inspiring case illustrations in this issue of Journal of Clinical Psychology: In Session highlight the heterogeneity in ROM systems, and the way in which ROM can be used in treatment. Just as there are many ways of interpreting a survey data‐point, there are also many ways in which ROM may be used to complement the treatment and supervision. Whether or not ROM is implemented may partly be determined by clinic policies and routines, but there remain a multitude of clinical decisions that require careful consideration by the individual therapist. To complement the evidence supporting the benefits of using ROM, further empirical support and clinical guidance is needed on how exactly therapists are to use ROM in their work and how ROM may be used in evidence‐based practice. We make suggestions for additional uses of ROM for deliberate practice, and teletherapy practice, and look toward novel ways of assessing progress in the near future.