Referral

About: Referral is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 27614 publications have been published within this topic receiving 479918 citations.

The Effects that Patients Have on their Families in a Community Care and a Control Psychiatric Service—A Two Year Follow-up

Abstract: A cohort of patients treated in two psychiatric services with differing admission policies was followed-up for two years and the effects of the patients on their families was measured and compared at the beginning and end of the period. All the measures used showed that the community service which favoured extra-mural care left the patient's families more heavily burdened. However, this did not apply when those families whose patients had been the most severe burden at referral were considered separately. These families were helped equally in both services even though significantly fewer patients were admitted in the community one. Similarly, the families of all patients over 65 years and of all patients who were never admitted to hospital were not adversely affected to a significantly greater extent in the community care service after two years, although there was an unmistakable trend in that direction. When the differences between the services in family burden was examined in more detail, the higher ratings obtained in the community service were found to be due to the effects on the family of a discrete group of patients. These were the younger, mainly psychoneurotic, patients who had had at least one admission and who had never been a severe burden, but who continued to cause their families problems after two years. The community service was not providing as much social support to the families of this group as was the control service.

Adoption and non-adoption of a shared electronic summary record in England: a mixed-method case study

Abstract: Objective To evaluate a national programme to develop and implement centrally stored electronic summaries of patients’ medical records. Design Mixed-method, multilevel case study. Setting English National Health Service 2007-10. The summary care record (SCR) was introduced as part of the National Programme for Information Technology. This evaluation of the SCR considered it in the context of national policy and its frontline implementation and use in three districts. Participants and methods Quantitative data (cumulative records created nationally plus a dataset of 416 325 encounters in participating primary care out-of-hours and walk-in centres) were analysed statistically. Qualitative data (140 interviews including policy makers, managers, clinicians, and software suppliers; 2000 pages of ethnographic field notes including observation of 214 clinical consultations; and 3000 pages of documents) were analysed thematically and interpretively. Results Creating individual SCRs and supporting their adoption and use was a complex, technically challenging, and labour intensive process that occurred more slowly than planned. By early 2010, 1.5 million such records had been created. In participating primary care out-of-hours and walk-in centres, an SCR was accessed in 4% of all encounters and in 21% of encounters where one was available; these figures were rising in some but not all sites. The main determinant of SCR access was the identity of the clinician: individual clinicians accessed available SCRs between 0 and 84% of the time. When accessed, an SCR seemed to support better quality care and increase clinician confidence in some encounters. There was no direct evidence of improved safety, but findings were consistent with a rare but important positive impact on preventing medication errors. SCRs sometimes contained incomplete or inaccurate data, but clinicians drew judiciously on these data along with other sources. SCR use was not associated with shorter consultations or reduction in onward referral. Successful introduction of SCRs depended on interaction between multiple stakeholders from different worlds (clinical, political, technical, commercial) with different values, priorities, and ways of working. The programme’s fortunes seemed to turn on the ability of change agents to bridge these different institutional worlds, align their conflicting logics, and mobilise implementation effort. Conclusions Benefits of centrally stored electronic summary records seem more subtle and contingent than many stakeholders anticipated, and clinicians may not access them. Complex interdependencies, inherent tensions, and high implementation workload should be expected when they are introduced on a national scale.

Nurses' attitudes towards clients who self-harm

Abstract: Background. Deliberate self-harm is frequently encountered by emergency department (ED) nurses. However, clients are often dissatisfied with the care provided and clinicians feel ambivalent, helpless or frustrated when working with clients who self-harm. Aim. The aim of the study was to develop and test a scale to identify relevant dimensions of ED nurses' attitudes to clients who present with self-injury. Methods. Items on Attitudes Towards Deliberate Self-Harm Questionnaire (ADSHQ) were drawn from a literature review and focus group discussions with ED nurses. The tool was piloted with 20 ED nurses not working in the target agencies. A survey of nurses working within 23 major public and 14 major private EDs in Queensland, Australia ( n = 1008) was then undertaken. Results. A total of 352 questionnaires were returned (35% response). Analysis revealed four factors that reflected nurses' attitudes toward these clients. The factors related to nurses' perceived confidence in their assessment and referral skills; ability to deal effectively with clients, empathic approach; and ability to cope effectively with legal and hospital regulations that guide practice. There was a generally negative attitude towards clients who self-harm. Correlations were found between years of ED experience and total score on the ADSHQ, and years of ED experience and an empathic approach towards clients who deliberately self-harm. Conclusion. There is a need for continuing professional development activities to address negative attitudes and provide practical strategies to inform practice and clinical protocols.

Promoting Optimal Development: Identifying Infants and Young Children With Developmental Disorders Through Developmental Surveillance and Screening

Abstract: Early identification and intervention for developmental disorders are critical to the well-being of children and are the responsibility of pediatric professionals as an integral function of the medical home. This report models a universal system of developmental surveillance and screening for the early identification of conditions that affect children's early and long-term development and achievement, followed by ongoing care. These conditions include autism, deafness/hard-of-hearing, intellectual and motor disabilities, behavioral conditions, and those seen in other medical conditions. Developmental surveillance is supported at every health supervision visit, as is as the administration of standardized screening tests at the 9-, 18-, and 30-month visits. Developmental concerns elicited on surveillance at any visit should be followed by standardized developmental screening testing or direct referral to intervention and specialty medical care. Special attention to surveillance is recommended at the 4- to 5-year well-child visit, prior to entry into elementary education, with screening completed if there are any concerns. Developmental surveillance includes bidirectional communication with early childhood professionals in child care, preschools, Head Start, and other programs, including home visitation and parenting, particularly around developmental screening. The identification of problems should lead to developmental and medical evaluations, diagnosis, counseling, and treatment, in addition to early developmental intervention. Children with diagnosed developmental disorders are identified as having special health care needs, with initiation of chronic condition management in the pediatric medical home.

Effectiveness of shared care across the interface between primary and specialty care in chronic disease management

Abstract: Background Shared care has been used in the management of many chronic conditions with the assumption that it delivers better care than either primary or specialty care alone. It has been defined as the joint participation of primary care physicians and specialty care physicians in the planned delivery of care, informed by an enhanced information exchange over and above routine discharge and referral notices. It has the potential to offer improved quality and coordination of care delivery across the primary-specialty care interface and to improve outcomes for patients. Objectives To determine the effectiveness of shared-care health service interventions designed to improve the management of chronic disease across the primary-specialty care interface. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group (EPOC) Specialised Register (and the database of studies awaiting assessment); Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE); MEDLINE (from 1966); EMBASE (from 1980) and CINAHL (from 1982). We also searched the reference lists of included studies. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials, controlled before and after studies and interrupted time series analyses of shared-care interventions for chronic disease management. The participants were primary care providers, specialty care providers and patients. The outcomes included physical health outcomes, mental health outcomes, and psychosocial health outcomes, treatment satisfaction, measures of care delivery including participation in services, delivery of care and prescribing of appropriate medications, and costs of shared care. Data collection and analysis Three review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility, extracted data and assessed study quality. Main results Twenty studies of shared care interventions for chronic disease management were identified, 19 of which were randomised controlled trials. The majority of studies examined complex multifaceted interventions and were of relatively short duration. The results were mixed. Overall there were no consistent improvements in physical or mental health outcomes, psychosocial outcomes, psychosocial measures including measures of disability and functioning, hospital admissions, default or participation rates, recording of risk factors and satisfaction with treatment. However, there were clear improvements in prescribing in the studies that considered this outcome. The methodological quality of studies varied considerably with only a minority of studies of high-quality design. Cost data were limited and difficult to interpret across studies. Authors' conclusions This review indicates that there is, at present, insufficient evidence to demonstrate significant benefits from shared care apart from improved prescribing. Methodological shortcomings, particularly inadequate length of follow-up, may partially account for this lack of evidence. This review indicates that there is no evidence to support the widespread introduction of shared care services at present. Future shared-care interventions should only be developed within research settings and with account taken of the complexity of such interventions and the need to carry out longer studies to test the effectiveness and sustainability of shared care over time.