...
首页> 外文期刊>BMC Health Services Research >Factors explaining priority setting at community mental health centres: a quantitative analysis of referral assessments
【24h】

Factors explaining priority setting at community mental health centres: a quantitative analysis of referral assessments

机译:解释社区心理健康中心优先设施的因素:转诊评估的定量分析

获取原文

摘要

Background Clinicians at Norwegian community mental health centres assess referrals from general practitioners and classify them into three priority groups (high priority, low priority, and refusal) according to need where need is defined by three prioritization criteria (severity, effect, and cost-effectiveness). In this study, we seek to operationalize the three criteria and analyze to what extent they have an effect on clinical-level priority setting after controlling for clinician characteristics and organisational factors. Methods Twenty anonymous referrals were rated by 42 admission team members employed at 14 community mental health centres in the South-East Health Region of Norway. Intra-class correlation coefficients were calculated and logistic regressions were performed. Results Variation in clinicians’ assessments of the three criteria was highest for effect and cost-effectiveness. An ordered logistic regression model showed that all three criteria for prioritization, three clinician characteristics (education, being a manager or not, and “guideline awareness”), and the centres themselves (fixed effects), explained priority decisions. The relative importance of the explanatory factors, however, depended on the priority decision studied. For the classification of all admitted patients into high- and low-priority groups, all clinician characteristics became insignificant. For the classification of patients, into those admitted and non-admitted, one criterion (effect) and “being a manager or not” became insignificant, while profession (“being a psychiatrist”) became significant. Conclusions Our findings suggest that variation in priority decisions can be reduced by: (i) reducing the disagreement in clinicians’ assessments of cost-effectiveness and effect, and (ii) restricting priority decisions to clinicians with a similar background (education, being a manager or not, and “guideline awareness”).
机译:背景技术挪威社区心理健康中心评估一般从业者的推荐,并根据需要将其分为三个优先级(高优先级,低优先级和拒绝),要求通过三个优先级标准(严重程度,效应和成本效益)。在这项研究中,我们寻求操作三个标准,并分析他们在控制临床医生特征和组织因素后对临床级优先设定有何影响。方法在挪威东南部卫生地区的14个社区心理健康中心雇用了20名匿名推荐。计算类内相关系数并进行逻辑回归。结果临床医生对三个标准评估的变化最高,影响和成本效益。有序的逻辑回归模型表明,优先级排序的所有三个标准,三名临床医生特征(教育,成为经理,以及“指导意识”),以及所在的中心(固定效果)解释了优先决策。然而,解释性因素的相对重要性取决于所研究的优先决策。对于所有承认患者分为高优先级的患者,所有临床医生的特征都变得微不足道。对于患者的分类,进入那些录取和未录取的人,一个标准(效应)和“成为经理或者不是”变得微不足道,而职业(“精神科医生”)变得显着。结论我们的研究结果表明,优先事项决定的变化可以减少:(i)减少临床医生对成本效益和效应的评估的分歧,(ii)将优先级决定限制在具有类似背景(教育,成为经理的教育或不,“指导意识”)。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号