Spelling suggestions: "subject:"specialist are"" "subject:"specialist care""
1 |
Tverrsektoriell samhandling om pasienter med lett til moderat depresjon. : Virker det? / Collaboration health care for patients with mild to moderate depression. : Is it worth the effort?Hviding, Krystyna January 2007 (has links)
Hensikt: Kartlegge ulike samhandlingstiltak for pasienter med lett til moderat depresjon, og vurdere effekter av de identifiserte tiltakene for pasientene og helsetjenesten. Metode: Oppsummering (meta-oversikt) av systematiske oversikter. Litteratursøk: Medline, Cochrane Library, SWEMED, EMBASE and Cinahl database. Seleksjonskriterier: Systematiske oversikter publisert 1995-2006 om effekter av samhandling i allmennpraksis om voksne pasienter med lett til moderat depresjon. Kontrolltiltak var standard behandling gitt i allmennpraksis. Eksklusjonskriterier: Studier med overvekt av pasienter med alvorlig depresjon, rusmisbruk eller andre alvorlige psykiske lidelser ble ekskludert. Valg av studier: Alle relevante studier var systematisk og kritisk vurdert i forhold til definerte inklusjonskriterier og kvalitet. Primære utfallsmål var: depresjonssymptomer, psykososial funksjon, kvalitet av tjenester. Syntese av resultater: Narrativ syntese av resultater. Resultater: Åtte systematiske oversikter ble inkludert. Studiene var utført i andre helsesystemer enn de skandinaviske med overvekt av studier fra USA og England. Populasjonen inkluderte pasienter med lett til moderat depresjon og noen med alvorlig depresjon. Identifiserte modeller for samhandling: integrerte behandlingsprogrammer, opplæringstiltak, spesialister i allmennpraksis, rådgivning, case-management, samhandling om behandling. Overførbarhet av resultater fra studiene til skandinavisk setting er usikker. Det er behov for norske og skandinaviske studier. Kvalitativ forskning vil kunne belyse hvilke faktorer som fremmer eller hemmer samhandling i helsetjenesten. Konklusjon: • Samhandling i allmennpraksis mellom nivåene i helsetjenesten om voksne pasienter med depresjon synes å bedre kvaliteten av tjenester og behandlingsutfall for pasientene i større grad enn standard behandling. • Opplæringstiltak kombinert med psykiatrisk kompetanse i allmennpraksis og aktiv oppfølging synes mest effektive for pasienter med lett til moderat depresjon. • Evidensen er utilstrekkelig for en direkte sammenligning av klinisk effekt eller kostnadseffektivitet av de identifiserte modellene for samhandling. • Det er behov for mer forskning om hvilke pasienter som har mest nytte av samhandling og hvilke elementer av de sammensatte tiltak som har størst betydning for resultatet. / Objectives: To identify different models of collaborative care for mild to moderate depression in primary care settings and to evaluate their effectiveness. Method: Meta-review/ Overview of systematic reviews. Search: Medline, Cochrane Library, SWEMED, EMBASE and Cinahl database. Selection criteria: systematic reviews of controlled clinical trials of collaborative care in primary practice versus usual care for patients with mild to moderate depression. Exclusion criteria: Systematic reviews with majority of studies with patients with serious depression or other mental disorders or pure treatment studies. Data collection and analysis: All relevant studies published between 1995 and 2006 were systematically assessed for relevance and methodological quality. Primary outcomes were level of depression, psycho-social functioning and quality of care. The results are presented as a narrative synthesis. Results: Eight systematic reviews were included. Much of the evidence is based on studies performed in USA or UK. Patients with minor to moderate or even major depression were included. Interventions: educational tasks, counselling, disease management programmes, guidelines, managed care, case management, on-site specialist, shared care, active follow-up. It appears that complex interventions which include educative tasks towards guideline – based care combined with on-site specialist at primary care level improve both the quality of care and clinical outcomes compare to usual treatment. The evidence may not be directly applicable to a Nordic health care setting.There is a need for Nordic studies. Future studies would benefit from the addition of qualitative research about the conditions that facilitate or prevent collaboration in health care. Conclusion: • Collaborative service delivery in primary health care of patients with depression appears to be more effective intervention compare to usual care in terms of symptoms reduction, better adherence to treatment and psycho-social functioning and enhance quality of care. • Educative interventions combined with on-site specialist in primary care setting and active follow-up were the most frequent components of effective interventions. • The evidence is insufficient to provide a definitive answer to clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of individual models or to make a comparison between models. • It is unclear which patients gain most profit from collaborative service delivery or which elements of complex interventions are most effective. We need more research. / <p>ISBN 978-91-85721-26-9</p>
|
2 |
Wait Times to Rheumatology and Rehabilitation Services for Persons with Arthritis in QuebecDelaurier, Ashley 08 1900 (has links)
L’arthrite est l’une des causes principales de douleur et d’incapacité auprès de la population canadienne. Les gens atteints d’arthrite rhumatoïde (AR) devraient être évalués par un rhumatologue moins de trois mois suivant l’apparition des premiers symptômes et ce afin de débuter un traitement médical approprié qui leur sera bénéfique. La physiothérapie et l’ergothérapie s’avèrent bénéfiques pour les patients atteints d’ostéoarthrite (OA) et d’AR, et aident à réduire l’incapacité. Notre étude a pour but d’évaluer les délais d’attente afin d’obtenir un rendez-vous pour une consultation en rhumatologie et en réadaptation dans le système de santé public québécois, et d’explorer les facteurs associés.
Notre étude est de type observationnel et transversal et s’intéresse à la province de Québec. Un comité d’experts a élaboré trois scénarios pour les consultations en rhumatologie : AR présumée, AR possible, et OA présumée ; ainsi que deux scénarios pour les consultations en réadaptation : AR diagnostiquée, OA diagnostiquée. Les délais d’attente ont été mesurés entre le moment de la requête initiale et la date de rendez-vous fixée. L’analyse statistique consiste en une analyse descriptive de même qu’une analyse déductive, à l’aide de régression logistique et de comparaison bivariée.
Parmi les 71 bureaux de rhumatologie contactés, et pour tous les scénarios combinés, 34% ont donné un rendez-vous en moins de trois mois, 32% avaient une attente de plus de trois mois et 34% ont refusé de fixer un rendez-vous. La probabilité d’obtenir une évaluation en rhumatologie en moins de trois mois est 13 fois plus grande pour les cas d’AR présumée par rapport aux cas d’OA présumée (OR=13; 95% Cl [1.70;99.38]). Cependant, 59% des cas d’AR présumés n’ont pas obtenu rendez-vous en moins de trois mois. Cent centres offrant des services publics en réadaptation ont été contactés. Pour tous les scénarios combinés, 13% des centres ont donné un rendez-vous en moins de 6 mois, 13% entre 6 et 12 mois, 24% avaient une attente de plus de 12 mois et 22% ont refusé de fixer un rendez-vous. Les autres 28% restant requéraient les détails d’une évaluation relative à l’état fonctionnel du patient avant de donner un rendez-vous. Par rapport aux services de réadaptation, il n’y avait aucune différence entre les délais d’attente pour les cas d’AR ou d’OA.
L’AR est priorisée par rapport à l’OA lorsque vient le temps d’obtenir un rendez-vous chez un rhumatologue. Cependant, la majorité des gens atteints d’AR ne reçoivent pas les services de rhumatologie ou de réadaptation, soit physiothérapie ou ergothérapie, dans les délais prescrits. De meilleures méthodes de triage et davantage de ressources sont nécessaires. / Arthritis is a leading cause of pain and disability in Canada. Persons with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) should be seen by a rheumatologist within three months of symptom onset to begin appropriate medical treatment and improve health outcomes. Early physical therapy (PT) and occupational therapy (OT) are beneficial for both osteoarthritis (OA) and RA and may prevent disability. The objectives of the study are to describe wait times from referral by primary care provider to rheumatology and rehabilitation consultation in the public system of Quebec and to explore associated factors.
We conducted a cross-sectional study in the province of Quebec, Canada whereby we requested appointments from all rheumatology practices and public rehabilitation departments using case scenarios that were created by a group of experts. Three scenarios were developed for the rheumatology referrals: Presumed RA; Possible RA; and Presumed OA and two scenarios for the rehabilitation referrals: diagnosed RA and diagnosed OA. Wait times were evaluated as the time between the initial request and the appointment date provided. The statistical analysis consisted primarily of descriptive statistics as well as inferential statistics (bivariate comparisons and logistic regression).
Seventy-one rheumatology practices were contacted. For all scenarios combined, 34% were given an appointment with a rheumatologist within three months of referral, 32% waited longer than three months and 34% were refused services. The odds of getting an appointment with a rheumatologist within three months was 13 times greater for the Presumed RA scenario versus the Presumed OA scenario (OR=13; 95% Cl[1.70;99.38]). However, 59% of the Presumed RA cases did not receive an appointment within three months. One hundred rehabilitation departments were also contacted. For both scenarios combined, 13% were given an appointment within 6 months, 13% within 6 to 12 months, 24% waited longer than 12 months and 22% were refused services. The remaining 28% were told that they would require an evaluation appointment based on functional assessment prior to being given an appointment. There was no difference with regards to diagnosis, RA versus OA, for the rehabilitation consultation.
RA is prioritized over OA when obtaining an appointment to a rheumatologist in Quebec. However, the majority of persons with RA are still not receiving rheumatology or publicly accessible PT or OT intervention in a timely manner. Better methods for triage and increased resource allocation are needed.
|
3 |
Wait Times to Rheumatology and Rehabilitation Services for Persons with Arthritis in QuebecDelaurier, Ashley 08 1900 (has links)
L’arthrite est l’une des causes principales de douleur et d’incapacité auprès de la population canadienne. Les gens atteints d’arthrite rhumatoïde (AR) devraient être évalués par un rhumatologue moins de trois mois suivant l’apparition des premiers symptômes et ce afin de débuter un traitement médical approprié qui leur sera bénéfique. La physiothérapie et l’ergothérapie s’avèrent bénéfiques pour les patients atteints d’ostéoarthrite (OA) et d’AR, et aident à réduire l’incapacité. Notre étude a pour but d’évaluer les délais d’attente afin d’obtenir un rendez-vous pour une consultation en rhumatologie et en réadaptation dans le système de santé public québécois, et d’explorer les facteurs associés.
Notre étude est de type observationnel et transversal et s’intéresse à la province de Québec. Un comité d’experts a élaboré trois scénarios pour les consultations en rhumatologie : AR présumée, AR possible, et OA présumée ; ainsi que deux scénarios pour les consultations en réadaptation : AR diagnostiquée, OA diagnostiquée. Les délais d’attente ont été mesurés entre le moment de la requête initiale et la date de rendez-vous fixée. L’analyse statistique consiste en une analyse descriptive de même qu’une analyse déductive, à l’aide de régression logistique et de comparaison bivariée.
Parmi les 71 bureaux de rhumatologie contactés, et pour tous les scénarios combinés, 34% ont donné un rendez-vous en moins de trois mois, 32% avaient une attente de plus de trois mois et 34% ont refusé de fixer un rendez-vous. La probabilité d’obtenir une évaluation en rhumatologie en moins de trois mois est 13 fois plus grande pour les cas d’AR présumée par rapport aux cas d’OA présumée (OR=13; 95% Cl [1.70;99.38]). Cependant, 59% des cas d’AR présumés n’ont pas obtenu rendez-vous en moins de trois mois. Cent centres offrant des services publics en réadaptation ont été contactés. Pour tous les scénarios combinés, 13% des centres ont donné un rendez-vous en moins de 6 mois, 13% entre 6 et 12 mois, 24% avaient une attente de plus de 12 mois et 22% ont refusé de fixer un rendez-vous. Les autres 28% restant requéraient les détails d’une évaluation relative à l’état fonctionnel du patient avant de donner un rendez-vous. Par rapport aux services de réadaptation, il n’y avait aucune différence entre les délais d’attente pour les cas d’AR ou d’OA.
L’AR est priorisée par rapport à l’OA lorsque vient le temps d’obtenir un rendez-vous chez un rhumatologue. Cependant, la majorité des gens atteints d’AR ne reçoivent pas les services de rhumatologie ou de réadaptation, soit physiothérapie ou ergothérapie, dans les délais prescrits. De meilleures méthodes de triage et davantage de ressources sont nécessaires. / Arthritis is a leading cause of pain and disability in Canada. Persons with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) should be seen by a rheumatologist within three months of symptom onset to begin appropriate medical treatment and improve health outcomes. Early physical therapy (PT) and occupational therapy (OT) are beneficial for both osteoarthritis (OA) and RA and may prevent disability. The objectives of the study are to describe wait times from referral by primary care provider to rheumatology and rehabilitation consultation in the public system of Quebec and to explore associated factors.
We conducted a cross-sectional study in the province of Quebec, Canada whereby we requested appointments from all rheumatology practices and public rehabilitation departments using case scenarios that were created by a group of experts. Three scenarios were developed for the rheumatology referrals: Presumed RA; Possible RA; and Presumed OA and two scenarios for the rehabilitation referrals: diagnosed RA and diagnosed OA. Wait times were evaluated as the time between the initial request and the appointment date provided. The statistical analysis consisted primarily of descriptive statistics as well as inferential statistics (bivariate comparisons and logistic regression).
Seventy-one rheumatology practices were contacted. For all scenarios combined, 34% were given an appointment with a rheumatologist within three months of referral, 32% waited longer than three months and 34% were refused services. The odds of getting an appointment with a rheumatologist within three months was 13 times greater for the Presumed RA scenario versus the Presumed OA scenario (OR=13; 95% Cl[1.70;99.38]). However, 59% of the Presumed RA cases did not receive an appointment within three months. One hundred rehabilitation departments were also contacted. For both scenarios combined, 13% were given an appointment within 6 months, 13% within 6 to 12 months, 24% waited longer than 12 months and 22% were refused services. The remaining 28% were told that they would require an evaluation appointment based on functional assessment prior to being given an appointment. There was no difference with regards to diagnosis, RA versus OA, for the rehabilitation consultation.
RA is prioritized over OA when obtaining an appointment to a rheumatologist in Quebec. However, the majority of persons with RA are still not receiving rheumatology or publicly accessible PT or OT intervention in a timely manner. Better methods for triage and increased resource allocation are needed.
|
Page generated in 0.0481 seconds