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":"香港多学科精神科个案管理模式:服务范围及风险分层。","authors":"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","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":"{\"title\":\"Multi-disciplinary Psychiatric Case Management Model in Hong Kong: Service Coverage and Risk Stratification.\",\"authors\":\"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\",\"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}","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}
Multi-disciplinary Psychiatric Case Management Model in Hong Kong: Service Coverage and Risk Stratification.
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.