A review of effective methods of delivery of care: skill-mix and service transfer to primary care settings.

David M Williams, Jibby Medina, Desmond Wright, Kate Jones, Jennifer E Gallagher
{"title":"A review of effective methods of delivery of care: skill-mix and service transfer to primary care settings.","authors":"David M Williams,&nbsp;Jibby Medina,&nbsp;Desmond Wright,&nbsp;Kate Jones,&nbsp;Jennifer E Gallagher","doi":"10.1308/135576110791013884","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>Health policy in England is seeking to minimise hospital use and provide access to services in a primary healthcare setting and maximise skill-mix, driven by issues such as cost and access. The aim of this review was to determine the effectiveness of increased use of skill-mix and service transfer within general and oral healthcare. Secondary outcome measures were related to cost, quality, access, health outcomes and satisfaction.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data sources were the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination DARE, British Nursing Index, CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO from 1996 to August 2008. The reference lists of relevant papers were scanned to identify additional studies.</p><p><strong>Data selection: </strong>A rapid appraisal of systematic reviews, randomised controlled trials, controlled trials and service evaluations in relation to specialist services, practitioners with a special interest, medical and dental, nursing and dental care professionals, together with evidence of service shifts from secondary to primary care was undertaken.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 206 papers were reviewed. All titles and abstracts of articles and papers found were extracted and validated according to predefined criteria. They were screened for relevance by two researchers, who assessed trial quality and extracted data. Twenty-six papers met the inclusion criteria. The literature demonstrated limited evidence of the cost-effectiveness and health outcomes associated with changes in setting and skill-mix. However, there was evidence of improved access, patient and professional satisfaction.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There is an overwhelming need for well-designed interventions with robust evaluation to examine cost-effectiveness and benefits to patients and the health workforce.</p>","PeriodicalId":79454,"journal":{"name":"Primary dental care : journal of the Faculty of General Dental Practitioners (UK)","volume":"17 2","pages":"53-60"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2010-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1308/135576110791013884","citationCount":"20","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Primary dental care : journal of the Faculty of General Dental Practitioners (UK)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1308/135576110791013884","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 20

Abstract

Aims: Health policy in England is seeking to minimise hospital use and provide access to services in a primary healthcare setting and maximise skill-mix, driven by issues such as cost and access. The aim of this review was to determine the effectiveness of increased use of skill-mix and service transfer within general and oral healthcare. Secondary outcome measures were related to cost, quality, access, health outcomes and satisfaction.

Methods: Data sources were the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination DARE, British Nursing Index, CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO from 1996 to August 2008. The reference lists of relevant papers were scanned to identify additional studies.

Data selection: A rapid appraisal of systematic reviews, randomised controlled trials, controlled trials and service evaluations in relation to specialist services, practitioners with a special interest, medical and dental, nursing and dental care professionals, together with evidence of service shifts from secondary to primary care was undertaken.

Results: A total of 206 papers were reviewed. All titles and abstracts of articles and papers found were extracted and validated according to predefined criteria. They were screened for relevance by two researchers, who assessed trial quality and extracted data. Twenty-six papers met the inclusion criteria. The literature demonstrated limited evidence of the cost-effectiveness and health outcomes associated with changes in setting and skill-mix. However, there was evidence of improved access, patient and professional satisfaction.

Conclusions: There is an overwhelming need for well-designed interventions with robust evaluation to examine cost-effectiveness and benefits to patients and the health workforce.

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
审查提供护理的有效方法:向初级保健机构转移技能组合和服务。
目标:英格兰的卫生政策是在诸如成本和可及性等问题的推动下,尽量减少医院的使用,在初级卫生保健环境中提供获得服务的机会,并最大限度地提高技能组合。本综述的目的是确定在普通和口腔保健中增加使用技能组合和服务转移的有效性。次要结果测量与成本、质量、可及性、健康结果和满意度相关。方法:数据来源为Cochrane系统评价数据库、Cochrane文献评价与传播中心DARE、英国护理指数、CINAHL、EMBASE、MEDLINE和PsycINFO。扫描相关论文的参考文献列表以确定其他研究。数据选择:对系统评价、随机对照试验、对照试验和与专家服务、有特殊兴趣的从业人员、医疗和牙科、护理和牙科保健专业人员有关的服务评估进行了快速评估,并对服务从二级保健转向初级保健的证据进行了评估。结果:共审阅论文206篇。所有找到的文章和论文的标题和摘要都按照预先设定的标准进行提取和验证。两名研究人员对它们进行了相关性筛选,他们评估了试验质量并提取了数据。26篇论文符合纳入标准。文献表明,与环境和技能组合变化相关的成本效益和健康结果证据有限。然而,有证据表明,就诊机会、患者满意度和专业满意度都有所提高。结论:迫切需要设计良好的干预措施,并进行强有力的评估,以检查成本效益和对患者和卫生工作者的益处。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Reflections on the Faculty of General Dental Practice (UK) at 20 years. A patient's view of dentistry 20 years ago, now, and in 20 years' time. Primary Dental Care: past, present and future. Primary dental care: time to revise the definition? Prim Dent Care 2000. 7(3):93-96. Dental specialist lists: are they necessary?
×
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