首页> 外文期刊>Health & social care in the community >Stakeholders' views on measuring outcomes for people with learning disabilities.
【24h】

Stakeholders' views on measuring outcomes for people with learning disabilities.

机译:利益相关者对衡量学习障碍者的结果的观点。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

What works and how do we know? These are recurring questions for health and social care professionals, although mediated through differing philosophies and historical perspectives. The aims of the study reported here were to discover views of managers and commissioners of services for people with learning disabilities in Scotland regarding (a) current approaches to service evaluation (as an indication of what is to be measured) and (b) healthcare outcome measurement (as an indication of preferences regarding how this should be measured). A postal questionnaire was used to survey 94 stakeholders from the NHS, Local Authorities, and non-statutory organisations across Scotland. Respondents' views were sought on current approaches to service evaluation within learning disabilities; outcome measurement; appropriateness of specified methods of measuring health outcomes; desired future methods of outcome measurement within learning disabilities; and service user involvement in care. A 77% (73/94) response rate to the questionnaire was achieved. Different methods of service evaluation were used by different stakeholders. Staff appraisal was the most frequently identified method (used by 85% of respondents). Specific outcome measures were used by 32% of respondents although there were differences of opinion as to what constitutes specific outcome measures. Overall there was strong support for goal-setting and reviewing (83%) and individualised outcome measures (75%) as appropriate methods for use with people with learning disabilities. The hypothetical question asking what outcome measures should be introduced for this client group had by far the lowest response rate (51/73). The overwhelming majority of all respondents, 68 (92%), reported user involvement in their service. Staff ambivalence to outcome measurement was evident in the research and respondents highlighted the complexity and multidimensional nature of outcomes for this service user group. Managers recognised that outcome measurement was expected butwere uncertain how to go about it.
机译:什么有效,我们怎么知道?尽管是通过不同的哲学和历史观点进行调解,但对于卫生和社会护理专业人士而言,这些问题经常出现。此处报告的研究的目的是发现苏格兰学习障碍者服务经理和服务专员关于(a)当前服务评估方法(作为要衡量的指标)和(b)医疗成果的观点。测量(作为对如何测量的偏好的指示)。邮寄问卷用于调查来自NHS,地方当局和苏格兰各地非法定组织的94个利益相关者。就学习障碍内当前的服务评估方法征求了受访者的意见;结果测量;指定的健康结果衡量方法的适当性;学习障碍中预期的未来结果测量方法;和服务使用者参与护理。对问卷的答复率为77%(73/94)。不同的利益相关者使用了不同的服务评估方法。员工评估是最常用的方法(85%的受访者使用)。 32%的受访者使用了特定的结果指标,尽管对于什么是特定的结果指标存在意见分歧。总体而言,强烈支持将目标设定和审查(83%)和个性化结果指标(75%)作为学习障碍者使用的适当方法。假设的问题询问该客户群应采用何种结果衡量标准,其回应率最​​低(51/73)。在所有受访者中,绝大多数(68%(92%))报告用户参与了他们的服务。研究结果表明,员工对结果测量的矛盾态度很明显,而受访者则强调了该服务用户群体结果的复杂性和多维性。管理人员认识到预期会进行结果测量,但是不确定如何进行。

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