为无家可归者提供初级保健的不同模式的整合、有效性和成本:一项评估研究。

Maureen Crane, Louise Joly, Blánaid Jm Daly, Heather Gage, Jill Manthorpe, Gaia Cetrano, Chris Ford, Peter Williams
{"title":"为无家可归者提供初级保健的不同模式的整合、有效性和成本:一项评估研究。","authors":"Maureen Crane,&nbsp;Louise Joly,&nbsp;Blánaid Jm Daly,&nbsp;Heather Gage,&nbsp;Jill Manthorpe,&nbsp;Gaia Cetrano,&nbsp;Chris Ford,&nbsp;Peter Williams","doi":"10.3310/WXUW5103","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There is a high prevalence of health problems among single people who are homeless. Specialist primary health care services for this population have been developed in several locations across England; however, there have been very few evaluations of these services.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study evaluated the work of different models of primary health care provision in England to determine their effectiveness in engaging people who are homeless in health care and in providing continuity of care for long-term conditions. It concerned single people (not families or couples with dependent children) staying in hostels, other temporary accommodation or on the streets. The influence on outcomes of contextual factors and mechanisms (service delivery factors), including integration with other services, were examined. Data from medical records were collated on participants' use of health care and social care services over 12 months, and costs were calculated.</p><p><strong>Design and setting: </strong>The evaluation involved four existing Health Service Models: (1) health centres primarily for people who are homeless (Dedicated Centres), (2) Mobile Teams providing health care in hostels and day centres, (3) Specialist GPs providing some services exclusively for patients who are homeless and (4) Usual Care GPs providing no special services for people who are homeless (as a comparison). Two Case Study Sites were recruited for each of the specialist models, and four for the Usual Care GP model.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>People who had been homeless during the previous 12 months were recruited as 'case study participants'; they were interviewed at baseline and at 4 and 8 months, and information was collected about their circumstances and their health and service use in the preceding 4 months. Overall, 363 participants were recruited; medical records were obtained for 349 participants. Interviews were conducted with 65 Case Study Site staff and sessional workers, and 81 service providers and stakeholders.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The primary outcome was the extent of health screening for body mass index, mental health, alcohol use, tuberculosis, smoking and hepatitis A among participants, and evidence of an intervention if a problem was identified. There were no overall differences in screening between the models apart from Mobile Teams, which scored considerably lower. Dedicated Centres and Specialist GPs were more successful in providing continuity of care for participants with depression and alcohol and drug problems. Service use and costs were significantly higher for Dedicated Centre participants and lower for Usual Care GP participants. Participants and staff welcomed flexible and tailored approaches to care, and related services being available in the same building. Across all models, dental needs were unaddressed and staff reported poor availability of mental health services.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>There were difficulties recruiting mainstream general practices for the Usual Care GP model. Medical records could not be accessed for 14 participants of this model.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Participant characteristics, contextual factors and mechanisms were influential in determining outcomes. Overall, outcomes for Dedicated Centres and for one of the Specialist GP sites were relatively favourable. They had dedicated staff for patients who were homeless, 'drop-in' services, on-site mental health and substance misuse services, and worked closely with hospitals and homelessness sector services.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (HSDR 13/156/03) and will be published in full in <i>Health and Social Care Delivery Research</i>; Vol. 11, No. 16. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.</p>","PeriodicalId":73204,"journal":{"name":"Health and social care delivery research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Integration, effectiveness and costs of different models of primary health care provision for people who are homeless: an evaluation study.\",\"authors\":\"Maureen Crane,&nbsp;Louise Joly,&nbsp;Blánaid Jm Daly,&nbsp;Heather Gage,&nbsp;Jill Manthorpe,&nbsp;Gaia Cetrano,&nbsp;Chris Ford,&nbsp;Peter Williams\",\"doi\":\"10.3310/WXUW5103\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There is a high prevalence of health problems among single people who are homeless. Specialist primary health care services for this population have been developed in several locations across England; however, there have been very few evaluations of these services.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study evaluated the work of different models of primary health care provision in England to determine their effectiveness in engaging people who are homeless in health care and in providing continuity of care for long-term conditions. It concerned single people (not families or couples with dependent children) staying in hostels, other temporary accommodation or on the streets. The influence on outcomes of contextual factors and mechanisms (service delivery factors), including integration with other services, were examined. Data from medical records were collated on participants' use of health care and social care services over 12 months, and costs were calculated.</p><p><strong>Design and setting: </strong>The evaluation involved four existing Health Service Models: (1) health centres primarily for people who are homeless (Dedicated Centres), (2) Mobile Teams providing health care in hostels and day centres, (3) Specialist GPs providing some services exclusively for patients who are homeless and (4) Usual Care GPs providing no special services for people who are homeless (as a comparison). Two Case Study Sites were recruited for each of the specialist models, and four for the Usual Care GP model.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>People who had been homeless during the previous 12 months were recruited as 'case study participants'; they were interviewed at baseline and at 4 and 8 months, and information was collected about their circumstances and their health and service use in the preceding 4 months. Overall, 363 participants were recruited; medical records were obtained for 349 participants. Interviews were conducted with 65 Case Study Site staff and sessional workers, and 81 service providers and stakeholders.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The primary outcome was the extent of health screening for body mass index, mental health, alcohol use, tuberculosis, smoking and hepatitis A among participants, and evidence of an intervention if a problem was identified. There were no overall differences in screening between the models apart from Mobile Teams, which scored considerably lower. Dedicated Centres and Specialist GPs were more successful in providing continuity of care for participants with depression and alcohol and drug problems. Service use and costs were significantly higher for Dedicated Centre participants and lower for Usual Care GP participants. Participants and staff welcomed flexible and tailored approaches to care, and related services being available in the same building. Across all models, dental needs were unaddressed and staff reported poor availability of mental health services.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>There were difficulties recruiting mainstream general practices for the Usual Care GP model. Medical records could not be accessed for 14 participants of this model.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Participant characteristics, contextual factors and mechanisms were influential in determining outcomes. Overall, outcomes for Dedicated Centres and for one of the Specialist GP sites were relatively favourable. They had dedicated staff for patients who were homeless, 'drop-in' services, on-site mental health and substance misuse services, and worked closely with hospitals and homelessness sector services.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (HSDR 13/156/03) and will be published in full in <i>Health and Social Care Delivery Research</i>; Vol. 11, No. 16. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73204,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health and social care delivery research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health and social care delivery research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3310/WXUW5103\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health and social care delivery research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3310/WXUW5103","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:在无家可归的单身人士中,健康问题的发生率很高。在英格兰的几个地方已经为这一人群开发了专门的初级卫生保健服务;然而,对这些服务的评价很少。目的:本研究评估了英格兰不同初级卫生保健模式的工作,以确定其在让无家可归者参与卫生保健和为长期疾病提供连续性护理方面的有效性。它涉及住在旅馆、其他临时住所或街头的单身人士(而不是有受抚养子女的家庭或夫妇)。研究了情境因素和机制(服务提供因素)对结果的影响,包括与其他服务的整合。对来自医疗记录的数据进行了整理,记录了参与者在12个月内使用医疗保健和社会护理服务的情况,并计算了费用。设计和设置:评估涉及四种现有的医疗服务模式:(1)主要为无家可归者提供的医疗中心(专门中心);(2)在宿舍和日托中心提供医疗服务的流动团队,(3)专门为无家可归的患者提供一些服务的全科医生和(4)不为无家可归的人提供特殊服务的普通护理全科医生(作为比较)。每个专家模型招募了两个案例研究点,普通护理全科医生模型招募了四个。参与者:在过去12个月内无家可归的人被招募为“案例研究参与者”;他们在基线、4个月和8个月时接受了访谈,并收集了关于他们的情况以及他们在前4个月的健康和服务使用情况的信息。总共招募了363名参与者;获得了349名参与者的医疗记录。对65名案例研究现场工作人员和会期工作人员以及81名服务提供者和利益攸关方进行了访谈。结果:主要结果是参与者的身体质量指数、心理健康、饮酒、肺结核、吸烟和甲型肝炎的健康筛查程度,以及如果发现问题则进行干预的证据。除了得分低得多的Mobile Teams之外,这两个模型在筛选方面没有总体差异。专门的中心和全科医生在为有抑郁症、酒精和毒品问题的参与者提供连续性护理方面更为成功。专用中心参与者的服务使用和成本明显更高,普通护理全科医生参与者的使用和成本更低。与会者和工作人员欢迎灵活和量身定制的护理方法,以及在同一栋大楼内提供的相关服务。在所有模式中,牙科需求都没有得到解决,工作人员报告说,心理健康服务的可用性很差。局限性:常规护理全科医生模式在招募主流全科医生方面存在困难。该模型的14名参与者的医疗记录无法访问。结论:参与者特征、情境因素和机制对决定结果有影响。总的来说,专门中心和其中一个全科医生诊所的结果相对有利。他们有专门的工作人员为无家可归的患者提供“临时”服务、现场心理健康和药物滥用服务,并与医院和无家可归者部门服务部门密切合作。资助:该项目由国家卫生与护理研究所(NIHR)卫生与社会护理提供研究计划(HSDR 13/156/03)资助,并将在《卫生与社会保健提供研究》上全文发表;第11卷第16期。有关更多项目信息,请访问NIHR期刊图书馆网站。
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
Integration, effectiveness and costs of different models of primary health care provision for people who are homeless: an evaluation study.

Background: There is a high prevalence of health problems among single people who are homeless. Specialist primary health care services for this population have been developed in several locations across England; however, there have been very few evaluations of these services.

Objectives: This study evaluated the work of different models of primary health care provision in England to determine their effectiveness in engaging people who are homeless in health care and in providing continuity of care for long-term conditions. It concerned single people (not families or couples with dependent children) staying in hostels, other temporary accommodation or on the streets. The influence on outcomes of contextual factors and mechanisms (service delivery factors), including integration with other services, were examined. Data from medical records were collated on participants' use of health care and social care services over 12 months, and costs were calculated.

Design and setting: The evaluation involved four existing Health Service Models: (1) health centres primarily for people who are homeless (Dedicated Centres), (2) Mobile Teams providing health care in hostels and day centres, (3) Specialist GPs providing some services exclusively for patients who are homeless and (4) Usual Care GPs providing no special services for people who are homeless (as a comparison). Two Case Study Sites were recruited for each of the specialist models, and four for the Usual Care GP model.

Participants: People who had been homeless during the previous 12 months were recruited as 'case study participants'; they were interviewed at baseline and at 4 and 8 months, and information was collected about their circumstances and their health and service use in the preceding 4 months. Overall, 363 participants were recruited; medical records were obtained for 349 participants. Interviews were conducted with 65 Case Study Site staff and sessional workers, and 81 service providers and stakeholders.

Results: The primary outcome was the extent of health screening for body mass index, mental health, alcohol use, tuberculosis, smoking and hepatitis A among participants, and evidence of an intervention if a problem was identified. There were no overall differences in screening between the models apart from Mobile Teams, which scored considerably lower. Dedicated Centres and Specialist GPs were more successful in providing continuity of care for participants with depression and alcohol and drug problems. Service use and costs were significantly higher for Dedicated Centre participants and lower for Usual Care GP participants. Participants and staff welcomed flexible and tailored approaches to care, and related services being available in the same building. Across all models, dental needs were unaddressed and staff reported poor availability of mental health services.

Limitations: There were difficulties recruiting mainstream general practices for the Usual Care GP model. Medical records could not be accessed for 14 participants of this model.

Conclusions: Participant characteristics, contextual factors and mechanisms were influential in determining outcomes. Overall, outcomes for Dedicated Centres and for one of the Specialist GP sites were relatively favourable. They had dedicated staff for patients who were homeless, 'drop-in' services, on-site mental health and substance misuse services, and worked closely with hospitals and homelessness sector services.

Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (HSDR 13/156/03) and will be published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 11, No. 16. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

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
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Causes and solutions to workplace psychological ill-health for nurses, midwives and paramedics: the Care Under Pressure 2 realist review. Relationship between staff and quality of care in care homes: StaRQ mixed methods study. Practices of falls risk assessment and prevention in acute hospital settings: a realist investigation. Safer and more efficient vital signs monitoring protocols to identify the deteriorating patients in the general hospital ward: an observational study. Reducing health inequalities through general practice: a realist review and action framework.
×
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