Multi-disciplinary Psychiatric Case Management Model in Hong Kong: Service Coverage and Risk Stratification.

Q3 Medicine East Asian Archives of Psychiatry Pub Date : 2020-03-01 DOI:10.12809/eaap1848
C C Lee, W W H Chui, S L Wong, T C B Wong, S P F Lau, P K Kwong, S F Hung, S S W Yau
{"title":"Multi-disciplinary Psychiatric Case Management Model in Hong Kong: Service Coverage and Risk Stratification.","authors":"C C Lee,&nbsp;W W H Chui,&nbsp;S L Wong,&nbsp;T C B Wong,&nbsp;S P F Lau,&nbsp;P K Kwong,&nbsp;S F Hung,&nbsp;S S W Yau","doi":"10.12809/eaap1848","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Community mental health services in Hong Kong follow a multi-disciplinary case management model. We investigated whether at-risk patients received higher intensity care and whether risk stratification concorded between personalised care programmes and integrated community centres of mental wellness.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Records of all patients in North Lantau and Mongkok districts who received case management services (from personalised care programmes and/or integrated community centres of mental wellness) between 1 April 2014 and 30 June 2015 were reviewed. Patients' levels of risk, demographic data, and clinical characteristics were analysed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Identified at-risk patients received high-intensity care from personalised care programmes and integrated community centres of mental wellness. Case management was coordinated between the Hospital Authority and non-government organisations. However, risk stratification did not correlate with assessment rating scores of psychopathology or psychosocial functioning. Assessment rating scales appear unsuitable to provide any optimal cut-off scores for risk stratification.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Risk stratification should be a structured clinical judgement based on comprehensive and accurate information of protective and risk factors, rather than relying on cut-off scores of assessment rating scales.</p>","PeriodicalId":39171,"journal":{"name":"East Asian Archives of Psychiatry","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"East Asian Archives of Psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12809/eaap1848","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Introduction: Community mental health services in Hong Kong follow a multi-disciplinary case management model. We investigated whether at-risk patients received higher intensity care and whether risk stratification concorded between personalised care programmes and integrated community centres of mental wellness.

Methods: Records of all patients in North Lantau and Mongkok districts who received case management services (from personalised care programmes and/or integrated community centres of mental wellness) between 1 April 2014 and 30 June 2015 were reviewed. Patients' levels of risk, demographic data, and clinical characteristics were analysed.

Results: Identified at-risk patients received high-intensity care from personalised care programmes and integrated community centres of mental wellness. Case management was coordinated between the Hospital Authority and non-government organisations. However, risk stratification did not correlate with assessment rating scores of psychopathology or psychosocial functioning. Assessment rating scales appear unsuitable to provide any optimal cut-off scores for risk stratification.

Conclusions: Risk stratification should be a structured clinical judgement based on comprehensive and accurate information of protective and risk factors, rather than relying on cut-off scores of assessment rating scales.

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
香港多学科精神科个案管理模式:服务范围及风险分层。
简介:香港的社区精神健康服务采用多学科个案管理模式。我们调查了高危患者是否接受了更高强度的护理,以及个性化护理方案和综合社区心理健康中心之间的风险分层是否一致。方法:回顾2014年4月1日至2015年6月30日期间北大屿山和旺角地区所有接受病例管理服务(来自个性化护理计划和/或综合社区精神健康中心)的患者的记录。分析了患者的风险水平、人口统计数据和临床特征。结果:确定的高危患者接受了个性化护理方案和综合社区心理健康中心的高强度护理。医院管理局与非政府机构协调个案管理。然而,风险分层与精神病理或社会心理功能的评估评分没有相关性。评估等级量表似乎不适合为风险分层提供任何最佳分值。结论:风险分层应是基于全面准确的保护因素和危险因素信息的结构化临床判断,而不应依赖于评估评定量表的截止分数。
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
East Asian Archives of Psychiatry
East Asian Archives of Psychiatry Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
13
期刊最新文献
Developing the Youth Mental Health Clinic in Hong Kong: refocus and revisit of clinical practice for youth in the new millennium. Factor analysis of the Chinese version of the Autism Spectrum Quotient 10 and its association with schizotypal traits in adolescents and young adults in Hong Kong. Normal pressure hydrocephalus disguising psychosis: a case report. Paediatric bipolar disorder with Duchenne muscular dystrophy: a case report. Rivastigmine for treatment-refractory posttraumatic stress disorder: a systematic review.
×
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