走向加拿大的全面护理一体化:研究人员、临床医生、患者和决策者的德尔菲过程研究结果。

Q2 Medicine Healthcare Policy Pub Date : 2023-10-01 DOI:10.12927/hcpol.2023.27181
Émilie Dionne, Jeannie Haggerty, Catherine M Scott, Shelley Doucet, Tara Stewart, Amélie Quesnel-Vallée, William Montelpare, Robin Urquhart, Jason M Sutherland, Yves Couturier
{"title":"走向加拿大的全面护理一体化:研究人员、临床医生、患者和决策者的德尔菲过程研究结果。","authors":"Émilie Dionne, Jeannie Haggerty, Catherine M Scott, Shelley Doucet, Tara Stewart, Amélie Quesnel-Vallée, William Montelpare, Robin Urquhart, Jason M Sutherland, Yves Couturier","doi":"10.12927/hcpol.2023.27181","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>From a larger study examining policy and program information on how Canadian provinces integrate care services, this study aimed to create \"priority lists\" of 10-15 services that are \"absolutely needed\" for care integration.</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>A diverse group of over 50 Canadian stakeholders participated in virtual consensus-building using the nominal group technique and a modified e-Delphi method to identify services that focused on two different groups: children and youth with high functional health needs and older adults in functional decline.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Three lists - containing services, processes and infrastructure elements - emerged: one per tracer condition group and a consolidated list. The latter identified the following five services as top priority for primary care integration: mental health and addictions services; home care; transition between urgent-emergency-acute care; medication reconciliation in community pharmacies; and respite care. No single social service was a clear priority, but those that mitigate material deprivation emerged within the top 10.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>This humble pan-Canadian study shows that priority services in health and social services are neither well integrated nor connected to primary care. It also suggests that effective policy strategizing for primary care integration for those with complex care needs may require thinking beyond the logic of services - given their siloed organization.</p>","PeriodicalId":39389,"journal":{"name":"Healthcare Policy","volume":"19 SP","pages":"24-38"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10594939/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Toward Comprehensive Care Integration in Canada: Delphi Process Findings from Researchers, Clinicians, Patients and Decision Makers.\",\"authors\":\"Émilie Dionne, Jeannie Haggerty, Catherine M Scott, Shelley Doucet, Tara Stewart, Amélie Quesnel-Vallée, William Montelpare, Robin Urquhart, Jason M Sutherland, Yves Couturier\",\"doi\":\"10.12927/hcpol.2023.27181\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>From a larger study examining policy and program information on how Canadian provinces integrate care services, this study aimed to create \\\"priority lists\\\" of 10-15 services that are \\\"absolutely needed\\\" for care integration.</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>A diverse group of over 50 Canadian stakeholders participated in virtual consensus-building using the nominal group technique and a modified e-Delphi method to identify services that focused on two different groups: children and youth with high functional health needs and older adults in functional decline.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Three lists - containing services, processes and infrastructure elements - emerged: one per tracer condition group and a consolidated list. The latter identified the following five services as top priority for primary care integration: mental health and addictions services; home care; transition between urgent-emergency-acute care; medication reconciliation in community pharmacies; and respite care. No single social service was a clear priority, but those that mitigate material deprivation emerged within the top 10.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>This humble pan-Canadian study shows that priority services in health and social services are neither well integrated nor connected to primary care. It also suggests that effective policy strategizing for primary care integration for those with complex care needs may require thinking beyond the logic of services - given their siloed organization.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":39389,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Healthcare Policy\",\"volume\":\"19 SP\",\"pages\":\"24-38\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10594939/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Healthcare Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.12927/hcpol.2023.27181\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Healthcare Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12927/hcpol.2023.27181","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

引言:根据一项更大的研究,研究了加拿大各省如何整合护理服务的政策和计划信息,这项研究旨在创建10-15项护理整合“绝对需要”的服务的“优先名单”。方法:由50多名加拿大利益相关者组成的多元化小组使用名义小组技术和改进的e-Delphi方法参与了虚拟共识建立,以确定针对两个不同群体的服务:功能健康需求高的儿童和青年以及功能衰退的老年人。结果:出现了三个包含服务、流程和基础设施元素的列表:每个跟踪条件组一个,以及一个合并列表。后者将以下五项服务确定为初级保健一体化的首要优先事项:心理健康和成瘾服务;家庭护理;紧急急性护理之间的过渡;社区药房的药物协调;以及临时护理。没有一项社会服务是明确的优先事项,但那些减轻物质匮乏的服务出现在前十名中。讨论:这项不起眼的泛加拿大研究表明,卫生和社会服务中的优先服务既没有很好地整合,也没有与初级保健相联系。它还表明,为那些有复杂护理需求的人制定有效的初级保健整合政策战略,可能需要超越服务的逻辑——考虑到他们的组织是孤立的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Toward Comprehensive Care Integration in Canada: Delphi Process Findings from Researchers, Clinicians, Patients and Decision Makers.

Introduction: From a larger study examining policy and program information on how Canadian provinces integrate care services, this study aimed to create "priority lists" of 10-15 services that are "absolutely needed" for care integration.

Methodology: A diverse group of over 50 Canadian stakeholders participated in virtual consensus-building using the nominal group technique and a modified e-Delphi method to identify services that focused on two different groups: children and youth with high functional health needs and older adults in functional decline.

Results: Three lists - containing services, processes and infrastructure elements - emerged: one per tracer condition group and a consolidated list. The latter identified the following five services as top priority for primary care integration: mental health and addictions services; home care; transition between urgent-emergency-acute care; medication reconciliation in community pharmacies; and respite care. No single social service was a clear priority, but those that mitigate material deprivation emerged within the top 10.

Discussion: This humble pan-Canadian study shows that priority services in health and social services are neither well integrated nor connected to primary care. It also suggests that effective policy strategizing for primary care integration for those with complex care needs may require thinking beyond the logic of services - given their siloed organization.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Healthcare Policy
Healthcare Policy Medicine-Health Policy
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
42
期刊最新文献
"Whatever Job I'm In, I'm Going to Find a Way to Make a Difference" - A Black Community Leader's Perspective on Engagement and Advocacy. "You Can't Let Go" - A Black Community Leader's Perspective on Engagement and Advocacy. Black Community Health Advocates in Ontario: A Look at Health Policy Engagement From the Ground Up. Engaging Canadians in Health Policy Is no Trivial Matter. Ethical and Transformative Scholarly Public Engagement: Pitfalls, Possibilities and Promises.
×
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