"How well do we know our patients?": Further validation of a complexity rating scale for HIV.

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q4 IMMUNOLOGY International Journal of STD & AIDS Pub Date : 2024-12-01 Epub Date: 2024-09-02 DOI:10.1177/09564624241279604
Kim Begley, Don Smith, Handan Wand, Derek Chan, Virginia Furner, Melissa Louise Kelly, Patrick McGrath, Ruth Hennessy, Anthony Price, Lia Purnomo, Bruce Hamish Bowden, Shiraze M Bulsara
{"title":"\"How well do we know our patients?\": Further validation of a complexity rating scale for HIV.","authors":"Kim Begley, Don Smith, Handan Wand, Derek Chan, Virginia Furner, Melissa Louise Kelly, Patrick McGrath, Ruth Hennessy, Anthony Price, Lia Purnomo, Bruce Hamish Bowden, Shiraze M Bulsara","doi":"10.1177/09564624241279604","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Despite advances in the management and treatment of HIV, identifying risks for disengagement are essential to maximize positive outcomes. The current study investigated the validity of the Clinical Complexity Rating Scale for HIV (CCRS-HIV), a risk-prediction tool, by assessing agreement between patient and clinician scores of patient complexity.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>207 patients completed the patient version of the CCRS-HIV (CCRS-HIV<sup>P</sup>), and six Attending Medical Officers (AMOs) caring for those individuals completed the original clinician version (CCRS-HIV<sup>C</sup>). Kappa statistics, sensitivity and specificity were used to assess patient-clinician agreement.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Patient-clinician agreement was highest for problematic crystal methamphetamine use (86%), polypharmacy (84%) and other physical health concerns (67%). Cut-offs of 40 and 45 for the total CCRS-HIV score were identified as most appropriate, with high sensitivity (79.31% and 76.0% respectively).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Overall agreement between the clinician and patient complexity scores was high. These findings provide further evidence of the validity of the scale. The study demonstrates that the unique role of AMOs at the center contributes to them knowing their patients well, allowing them to manage and refer when required for interdisciplinary care which likely contributes to their ongoing engagement in care and may account for the high level of agreement.</p>","PeriodicalId":14408,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of STD & AIDS","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of STD & AIDS","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09564624241279604","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/9/2 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"IMMUNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Despite advances in the management and treatment of HIV, identifying risks for disengagement are essential to maximize positive outcomes. The current study investigated the validity of the Clinical Complexity Rating Scale for HIV (CCRS-HIV), a risk-prediction tool, by assessing agreement between patient and clinician scores of patient complexity.

Methods: 207 patients completed the patient version of the CCRS-HIV (CCRS-HIVP), and six Attending Medical Officers (AMOs) caring for those individuals completed the original clinician version (CCRS-HIVC). Kappa statistics, sensitivity and specificity were used to assess patient-clinician agreement.

Results: Patient-clinician agreement was highest for problematic crystal methamphetamine use (86%), polypharmacy (84%) and other physical health concerns (67%). Cut-offs of 40 and 45 for the total CCRS-HIV score were identified as most appropriate, with high sensitivity (79.31% and 76.0% respectively).

Conclusions: Overall agreement between the clinician and patient complexity scores was high. These findings provide further evidence of the validity of the scale. The study demonstrates that the unique role of AMOs at the center contributes to them knowing their patients well, allowing them to manage and refer when required for interdisciplinary care which likely contributes to their ongoing engagement in care and may account for the high level of agreement.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
"我们对病人了解多少?进一步验证艾滋病复杂性评分量表。
背景:尽管在艾滋病的管理和治疗方面取得了进步,但识别脱离治疗的风险对于最大限度地提高积极疗效至关重要。方法:207 名患者完成了患者版 CCRS-HIV (CCRS-HIVP),照顾这些患者的 6 名主治医师 (AMO) 完成了原始临床医师版 CCRS-HIVC (CCRS-HIVC)。采用卡帕统计、灵敏度和特异性来评估患者与医生的一致性:结果:患者与临床医生在使用冰毒问题(86%)、多种药物(84%)和其他身体健康问题(67%)方面的一致性最高。CCRS-HIV总分的临界值分别为40分和45分,灵敏度较高(分别为79.31%和76.0%):临床医生和患者的复杂性评分之间的总体一致性很高。这些发现进一步证明了量表的有效性。该研究表明,医疗中心助理医师的独特角色使他们非常了解自己的病人,从而能够对病人进行管理,并在需要时将病人转诊至跨学科医疗机构,这可能有助于他们持续参与医疗服务,也可能是双方评分高度一致的原因。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
7.10%
发文量
144
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: The International Journal of STD & AIDS provides a clinically oriented forum for investigating and treating sexually transmissible infections, HIV and AIDS. Publishing original research and practical papers, the journal contains in-depth review articles, short papers, case reports, audit reports, CPD papers and a lively correspondence column. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
期刊最新文献
"How well do we know our patients?": Further validation of a complexity rating scale for HIV. British Association of Sexual Health and HIV (BASHH) UK guidelines for the management of syphilis in pregnancy and children 2024. Electronic Health interventions for HIV in Pakistan: Is it the only way out? Successful outcome of performing CO2 laser ablation in a middle-aged female with angiokeratoma of Fordyce. Mycobacterium avium complex (MAC) infection in severely immunocompromised people living with HIV: Findings from a five-year cohort.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1