首页> 外文期刊>Cogent Psychology >A qualitative study of providers’ decision-making for cases involving neurobehavioral issues
【24h】

A qualitative study of providers’ decision-making for cases involving neurobehavioral issues

机译:对涉及神经软管问题的案件的定性研究提供者决策

获取原文
       

摘要

Across the continuum of care, providers representing multiple professions (i.e., rehabilitation, medical, mental health) influence post-acute care planning for persons with brain injury, yet insufficient evidence informs how decisions are made. The need to understand provider decision-making is paramount, particularly for a person with brain injury whose sequelae necessitates integrated, interprofessional care. Using vignettes drawn from authentic scenarios, this qualitative study investigated case management decisions made by providers serving individuals with varying neurobehavioral needs. Responses to three open-ended scenarios concerning neurobehavioral service provision were collected, coded, and analyzed in accordance with rigorous qualitative conventions. Participants (n?=?84) represented an array of organizations serving persons with brain injury. The results revealed two courses of action: dominant and supporting. Although most respondents indicated integrated care as the ideal pathway, their concretized recommendations yielded actions focused on a single referral within the traditional medical model rather than an interdisciplinary approach. While integrated, interprofessional treatment and working across systems are considered optimal, this study suggests that in the current practice such a model is still evolving. This duel between “ideal” and “actual” highlights the need for further study, as well as resources to support best practices in rehabilitation and recovery.
机译:在关注的连续内,代表多个职业的提供者(即,康复,医疗,心理健康)影响脑损伤的人的急性护理计划,但证据不足通知决策是如何制定的。理解提供商决策的需要是至关重要的,特别是对于脑损伤的人,其后遗症需要综合,侦除侦查。使用从真实情景中汲取的Vignettes,这项定性研究通过提供者提供各个具有不同神经需求的个人的案例管理决定。根据严格的定性公约,收集了对神经安全服务提供的三个开放式场景的回应。参与者(n?=?84)代表了一系列组织,为脑损伤提供人员。结果揭示了两种行动方案:主导和支持。虽然大多数受访者表明整合护理作为理想的途径,但它们的具体建议产生了专注于传统医疗模型内的单一推荐的行动而不是跨学科方法。虽然综合,跨系统跨越辩论治疗和跨过的工作被认为是最佳的,但本研究表明,在目前的实践中,这种模型仍在不断发展。这种“理想”和“实际”之间的决斗突出了进一步研究的需要,以及支持康复和恢复最佳实践的资源。

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