A pragmatic mixed-methods review of changing “case-complexity” of referrals to an intensive support service

A. Clifford, Francesca Georgina Kemp
{"title":"A pragmatic mixed-methods review of changing “case-complexity” of referrals to an intensive support service","authors":"A. Clifford, Francesca Georgina Kemp","doi":"10.1108/amhid-10-2019-0030","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"“Case-complexity” is a widely used but under-explored concept across health and social care. A region’s Intensive Support Teams (ISTs) had been reporting an increase in “case-complexity”, but had not tested this hypothesis against data. This study aims to investigate this question through a pragmatic mixed-methods approach as part of a wider service evaluation.,Health of the Nation Outcome Scales for People with Learning Disabilities (HoNOS-LD) scores were used (n = 1,766) to estimate average “case-complexity” of referrals over an eight-year sample period. Two focus groups for IST staff (n = 18) explored why “case-complexity” appears to be increasing. Participant perspectives were subjected to thematic analysis.,Average HoNOS-LD scores have steadily increased over the sample period, suggestive of increasing “case-complexity”. Focus groups identified three broad themes to potentially explain the increased complexity: effects of Transforming Care; people’s changing and unchanging support systems; and issues related to mild and borderline intellectual disability. Many perspectives are grounded in or supported by evidence.,Implications and limitations of findings are discussed, including areas for further consideration and research. The well-designed “short-cut” is promoted as a strategy for busy professionals in need of practice-based evidence but with limited research time and resources.,The findings and discussion will be of value to anyone involved in the design, commissioning and delivery of mental health and challenging behaviour services to people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) under Transforming Care. Study methodology is easily replicable to build broader picture about “case-complexity” among UK’s IDD population.","PeriodicalId":44693,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Mental Health and Intellectual Disabilities","volume":"14 1","pages":"111-124"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2020-05-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1108/amhid-10-2019-0030","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in Mental Health and Intellectual Disabilities","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/amhid-10-2019-0030","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

“Case-complexity” is a widely used but under-explored concept across health and social care. A region’s Intensive Support Teams (ISTs) had been reporting an increase in “case-complexity”, but had not tested this hypothesis against data. This study aims to investigate this question through a pragmatic mixed-methods approach as part of a wider service evaluation.,Health of the Nation Outcome Scales for People with Learning Disabilities (HoNOS-LD) scores were used (n = 1,766) to estimate average “case-complexity” of referrals over an eight-year sample period. Two focus groups for IST staff (n = 18) explored why “case-complexity” appears to be increasing. Participant perspectives were subjected to thematic analysis.,Average HoNOS-LD scores have steadily increased over the sample period, suggestive of increasing “case-complexity”. Focus groups identified three broad themes to potentially explain the increased complexity: effects of Transforming Care; people’s changing and unchanging support systems; and issues related to mild and borderline intellectual disability. Many perspectives are grounded in or supported by evidence.,Implications and limitations of findings are discussed, including areas for further consideration and research. The well-designed “short-cut” is promoted as a strategy for busy professionals in need of practice-based evidence but with limited research time and resources.,The findings and discussion will be of value to anyone involved in the design, commissioning and delivery of mental health and challenging behaviour services to people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) under Transforming Care. Study methodology is easily replicable to build broader picture about “case-complexity” among UK’s IDD population.
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
对转诊到强化支持服务的“案件复杂性”变化的务实混合方法审查
“病例复杂性”是一个在卫生和社会保健领域广泛使用但未得到充分探索的概念。一个地区的密集支持小组(ISTs)一直在报告“案件复杂性”的增加,但没有根据数据检验这一假设。本研究旨在通过一种实用的混合方法来研究这个问题,作为更广泛的服务评估的一部分。研究人员使用国家学习障碍患者健康结果量表(HoNOS-LD)得分(n = 1,766)来估计八年样本期内转诊的平均“病例复杂性”。IST工作人员的两个焦点小组(n = 18)探讨了为什么“案件复杂性”似乎在增加。对与会者的观点进行了专题分析。在样本期间,平均HoNOS-LD分数稳步上升,这表明“案件复杂性”不断增加。焦点小组确定了三个广泛的主题,以潜在地解释日益增加的复杂性:转变护理的影响;人的变化和不变的支持系统;以及与轻度和边缘性智力残疾有关的问题。许多观点都是基于证据或有证据支持的。讨论了研究结果的意义和局限性,包括需要进一步考虑和研究的领域。精心设计的“捷径”被推广为繁忙的专业人员的策略,他们需要基于实践的证据,但研究时间和资源有限。研究结果和讨论将对参与设计、调试和提供智力和发育障碍者(IDD)心理健康和挑战性行为服务的任何人都有价值。研究方法很容易复制,以建立关于英国IDD人群“病例复杂性”的更广泛的图景。
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
1.60
自引率
18.20%
发文量
22
期刊最新文献
Kind minds: using the ‘compassionate kitbag’ in a compassion focused therapy group for adults with intellectual disabilities To say (sexual fetish)… or not to say (sexual fetish). That is the question Assessing adherence to National Institute for Health and Care Excellence dementia assessment and diagnosis guidelines in adults with intellectual disability: a retrospective cohort study Project ECHO-AIDD: recommendations for care of adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities Forensic mental health intellectual and developmental disability service: an analysis of referral patterns and comparison with community mental health intellectual disability (MHID) services in Ireland
×
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