Dustin K MacDonald

Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Economic and Community Development
  • Nonprofit Management
    • Counselling and Service Delivery
    • Suicide Prevention / Crisis Intervention
  • Politics and Governance
  • Math and Statistics
  • Salesforce
Menu

Level of Care Utilization System (LOCUS)

Posted on January 23, 2017November 25, 2018 by Dustin

Table of Contents

Introduction

The Level of Care Utilization System or LOCUS tool has been designed by the American Association of Community Psychiatrists (2009) to allow staff who work on inpatient hospital environments with patients with psychiatric problems (such as emergency departments, psychiatric sections of general hospitals or in psychiatric hospitals) to determine the level of care that an individual should receive.

The LOCUS provides for six levels, ranging from the least intense (recovery maintenance, such as seeing a case manager once a month and having access to a 24-hour crisis line if needed) to the most intense (medically managed residential services such as being a hospital inpatient.)

Parameters

The LOCUS is based on a set of parameters that an individual is scored along. The level of care is determined based on the mix of parameters that each client has. These parameters are:

  1. Risk of Harm
  2. Functional Status
  3. Medical, Addictive and Psychiatric Co-morbidity
  4. Recovery Environment
  5. Treatment and Recovery History
  6. Engagement and Recovery Status

In most of these domains there are a number of states that are used to code the domain. For instance, “Risk of Harm” has five potential states from Minimal Risk of Harm to Extreme Risk of Harm. The exception is 4. Recovery Environment which has two subcomponents, Level of Stress and Level of Support.

The LOCUS manual provides detailed coding instructions to allow an individual to be assessed in a reliable, repeatable way.

Levels of Care

For each Level of Care, the manual provides for four categories, Care Environment, Clinical Services, Supportive Systems, and Crisis Stabilization and Prevention Services.

Care Environment describes where services are delivered and what facilities might need to be available. Clinical Services describes the type and number of clinical employees (nurses, etc.) and the types of therapies or treatments available. Supportive Services includes client access to things like case management, outreach and financial support, while Prevention Services include mobile crisis, crisis lines, and other access to services.

Scoring

Each of the levels includes specific individual scores required for a level, and also a composite score. The Composite Score overrides the individual scores to determine which level an individual is placed at if the Composite Score results in a more intense level of care.

Composite Scores

  • Level 1 – 10-13
  • Level 2 – 14-16
  • Level 3 – 17-19
  • Level 4 – 20-22
  • Level 5 – 23 – 27
  • Level 6 – 28+

Level 1 – Recovery Maintenance and Health Management

  • Risk of Harm: 2 or less
  • Functional Status: 2 or less
  • Co-morbidity: 2 or less
  • Level of Stress: Sum of Stress and Support less than 4
  • Level of Support: Sum of Stress and Support less than 4
  • Treatment & Recovery History: 2 or less
  • Engagement & Recovery Status: 2 or less

Level 2 – Low Intensity Community Based Services

  • Risk of Harm: 2 or less
  • Functional Status: 2 or less
  • Co-morbidity: 2 or less
  • Level of Stress: Sum of Stress and Support less than 5
  • Level of Support: Sum of Stress and Support less than 5
  • Treatment & Recovery History: 2 or less
  • Engagement & Recovery Status: 2 or less

Level 3 – High Intensity Community Based Services

  • Risk of Harm: 3 or less
  • Functional Status: 3 or less
  • Co-morbidity: 3 or less
  • Level of Stress: Sum of Stress and Support less than 5
  • Level of Support: Sum of Stress and Support less than 5
  • Treatment & Recovery History: 3 or less
  • Engagement & Recovery Status: 3 or less

Level 4 – Medically Monitored Non-Residential Services

  • Risk of Harm: 3 or less
  • Functional Status: 3 or less
  • Co-morbidity: 3 or less
  • Level of Stress: 3 or 4
  • Level of Support: 3 or less
  • Treatment & Recovery History: 3 or 4
  • Engagement & Recovery Status: 3 or 4

Level 5 – Medically Monitored Residential Services

  • Risk of Harm: If the score is 4 or higher – the client is automatically Level 5
  • Functional Status: If the score is 4 or higher – most clients are automatically Level 5
  • Co-morbidity: If the score is 4 or higher – most clients are automatically Level 5
  • Level of Stress: 4 or more in combination with a rating of 3 or higher on Risk of Harm, Functional Status or Co-morbidity
  • Level of Support: 4 or more in combination with a rating of 3 or higher on Risk of Harm, Functional Status or Co-morbidity
  • Treatment & Recovery History: 3 or more in combination with a rating of 3 or higher on Risk of Harm, Functional Status or Co-morbidity
  • Engagement & Recovery Status: 3 or more in combination with a rating of 3 or higher on Risk of Harm, Functional Status or Co-morbidity

Level 6 – Medically Managed Residential Services

  • Risk of Harm: If the score is 5 or higher – the client is automatically Level 6
  • Functional Status: If the score is 5 or higher – the client is automatically Level 6
  • Co-morbidity: If the score is 5 or higher the client is automatically Level 6
  • Level of Stress: 4 or more
  • Level of Support: 4 or more
  • Treatment & Recovery History: 4 or more
  • Engagement & Recovery Status: 4 or more

Given that there are a number of nuances in the exact scoring it’s recommended that an individual read or receive structured training in administration of the LOCUS. The LOCUS manual also provides a decision tree (not shown) to assist in making your determinations and a determination grid (shown below.)

Level of Care Determination Grid

LOCUS Level of Care Determination Grid

Research

Although the LOCUS is widely used, research is surprisingly limited.

The initial study validating the LOCUS was Sowers, George & Thomson (1999). Their study examined scores on the LOCUS and correlated them to expert decisions to see if the LOCUS matched that decision-making; their results indicated that it performed well in this function.

Kimura, Yagi & Toshizumi (2013) reviewed the LOCUS by comparing scores on it to the Global Assessment Scale (GAS) scores, a similar tool and examining the change of scores from admission to discharge. They found it a sensitive and effective tool for clinical use in Japan.

Ontario Shores, a large mental hospital in Whitby, ON implements the LOCUS along with the RAI tools as well.

References

American Association of Community Psychiatrists. (2009) LOCUS Level of Care Utilization System for Psychiatric and Addictions Services, Adult Version 2010. Retrieved on January 18, 2017 from http://cchealth.org/mentalhealth/pdf/LOCUS.pdf

Kimura, T., Yagi, F., & Yoshizumi, A. (2013). Application of Level of Care Utilization System for Psychiatric and Addiction Services (LOCUS) to Psychiatric Practice in Japan: A Preliminary Assessment of Validity and Sensitivity to Change. Community Mental Health Journal, 49(4), 477-491. doi:10.1007/s10597-012-9562-6

Sowers, W., George, C., & Thomson, K. R. (1999). Level of care utilization system for psychiatric and addiction services (LOCUS): a preliminary assessment of reliability and validity. Community Mental Health Journal, (6), 545.

Cite this article as: MacDonald, D.K., (2017), "Level of Care Utilization System (LOCUS)," retrieved on March 17, 2023 from http://dustinkmacdonald.com/level-care-utilization-system-locus/.

6 thoughts on “Level of Care Utilization System (LOCUS)”

  1. Lucas F Bruno III says:
    April 2, 2020 at 5:56 pm

    Dear Dr. MacDonald:

    Please clarify if the use of L.O.C.U.S. is limited to administration only by licensed mental health professions who have received training in L.O.C.U.S. administration OR if unlicensed paraprofessionals who have received training in L.O.C.U.S. administration may, under the supervision and review of a licensed mental health professional, give a L.O.C.U.S. assessment?

    Reply
    1. Dustin says:
      April 3, 2020 at 11:01 am

      Hi Lucas,

      As I understand it, paraprofessionals with training can complete a LOCUS but it must be co-signed by a licensed mental health professional.

      This might depend on your state. For example, Maine states “only licensed Completed by a Mental Health Professional (see MaineCare Benefits manual, Chapter II, Section 17.09), Community Integration/ACT Worker or MHRT-C” but notes that CRC, LCPC, LCSW, APR-N or RNC within Psychiatric Nursing can complete the LOCUS, while Minnesota’s Department of Human Services says it needs to be signed by a clinical supervisor.

      Hope this helps,
      Dustin

      Reply
  2. Susan Kimper says:
    November 7, 2020 at 5:30 am

    Dear Dr. MacDonald, can you please tell me what states are using LOCUS and CALOCUS and if there are research articles you can point me to that provide evidence of its success. Thank you. Have a wonderful day. Susan

    Reply
    1. Dustin says:
      November 7, 2020 at 9:16 am

      Hi Susan,

      I’m not sure where LOCUS and CALOCUS are used currently, but the vendor who provides them is here: http://www.locusonline.com/aboutlocus.asp They have an email and a phone number. I bet they would give you the research articles to validate the tool. It’s very popular.

      Hope this helps!
      Dustin

      Reply
      1. Robert Bresten says:
        May 8, 2021 at 4:28 pm

        Mr MacDonald,
        I was recently going over a medical report of mine. Have been diagnosed with anxiety issues, and problems with focusing ( ADHD) I was wondering if you might define someone with a locus score of 18.
        I’m sure to order this manual soon.
        If you could give it a whirl for me that would be nice. Thank you
        Robert Bresten

        Reply
        1. Dustin says:
          May 11, 2021 at 11:22 am

          Hi Robert,

          I’m not a clinician so I can’t provide any specific information but the LOCUS determination grid here: http://dustinkmacdonald.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/aacp-locus-level-of-care-determination-grid.png indicates someone with a score of 18 would be best served by high-intensity, community-based services.

          Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Privacy Policy

See here for our privacy policy. This site uses affiliate links and Adsense ads to provide targeted advertising.

Tags

analytical technique assessment city council communication community development counselling crisis chat crisis intervention data science eastern university economic development education empathy evaluation forecasting fundraising governance humint intelligence intelligence analysis keokuk county language learning legal local government management peer support personal development politics professional development protective factors psychosocial risk factors safety planning salesforce sigourney social media statistics suicide suicide assessment suicide risk assessment technology terrorism training violence risk assessment youth

Recommended Posts

  • Conducting Psychosocial Assessments
  • DCIB Model of Suicide Risk Assessment
  • ABC Model of Crisis Intervention
  • My Friend is Suicidal - What do I do?

Recent Posts

  • University of the Cumberlands PhD in Information Technology
  • Joining the US Coast Guard Auxiliary
  • What is a Salesforce Business Analyst?
  • Why I Joined Mensa
  • NCCM Documentation

Archives

  • March 2023 (1)
  • February 2023 (2)
  • January 2023 (4)
  • December 2022 (2)
  • May 2022 (1)
  • April 2022 (2)
  • March 2022 (1)
  • February 2022 (1)
  • December 2021 (1)
  • October 2021 (1)
  • August 2021 (2)
  • May 2021 (3)
  • December 2020 (1)
  • November 2020 (4)
  • July 2020 (1)
  • June 2020 (1)
  • April 2020 (1)
  • March 2020 (4)
  • February 2020 (7)
  • January 2020 (1)
  • November 2019 (1)
  • October 2019 (2)
  • September 2019 (4)
  • August 2019 (2)
  • March 2019 (1)
  • February 2019 (1)
  • January 2019 (1)
  • December 2018 (4)
  • November 2018 (3)
  • October 2018 (3)
  • September 2018 (19)
  • October 2017 (2)
  • September 2017 (2)
  • August 2017 (1)
  • July 2017 (39)
  • May 2017 (3)
  • April 2017 (4)
  • March 2017 (4)
  • February 2017 (4)
  • January 2017 (5)
  • December 2016 (4)
  • November 2016 (4)
  • October 2016 (5)
  • September 2016 (4)
  • August 2016 (5)
  • July 2016 (5)
  • June 2016 (5)
  • May 2016 (3)
  • April 2016 (2)
  • March 2016 (2)
  • February 2016 (2)
  • January 2016 (4)
  • December 2015 (2)
  • November 2015 (2)
  • October 2015 (2)
  • September 2015 (2)
  • August 2015 (1)
  • June 2015 (2)
  • May 2015 (5)
  • April 2015 (3)
  • March 2015 (8)
  • February 2015 (12)
  • January 2015 (28)

Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org

Recent Comments

  • Dustin on Crisis Triage Rating Scale (CTRS)
  • thomas mahek on Crisis Triage Rating Scale (CTRS)
  • Dustin on Eastern University MS in Data Science 2022 Review
  • Rin on Eastern University MS in Data Science 2022 Review
  • Alex Beraskow on Carver Model of Policy Governance

Tags

analytical technique assessment city council communication community development counselling crisis chat crisis intervention data science eastern university economic development education empathy evaluation forecasting fundraising governance humint intelligence intelligence analysis keokuk county language learning legal local government management peer support personal development politics professional development protective factors psychosocial risk factors safety planning salesforce sigourney social media statistics suicide suicide assessment suicide risk assessment technology terrorism training violence risk assessment youth
© 2023 Dustin K MacDonald | Powered by Minimalist Blog WordPress Theme