These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Care management in three practices--scope for improvement?
    Author: Hamilton BA, Primrose WR, Muir KT.
    Journal: Health Bull (Edinb); 2000 Sep; 58(5):380-4. PubMed ID: 12813790.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: The process of assessment of older people for residential/nursing home care may take place by hospital based social workers, or by care managers working in the community. We sought to compare the assessment process in each setting. The standards for the audit were that the data collection for both groups was equivalent, that both groups had a multi-disciplinary assessment, and that outcomes in both settings were appropriate. DESIGN: Identification of all older people assessed as requiring residential/nursing home care from 1/7/97-31/12/97, who were registered with the three general practices in Aberdeen participating in this study. Social Work case files and care plans were reviewed. All individuals were visited and dependency scores obtained--Abbreviated Mental Test, Barthel Index, and CAPE (Clifton Assessment Procedures for the elderly--Behaviour Rating Scale component) score. SETTING: Review of hospital social work case files, and community based case files. Interviewing of the older person in their own home, hospital, residential or nursing home to obtain dependency scores. SUBJECTS: Thirty three people were referred-17 from the community, and 16 from hospital. RESULTS: Case files in both groups were well maintained. There were differences in procedures between the assessment processes, but outcomes appeared to be similar. There was no statistical difference in mean dependency scores between each group. However, information on levels of support in the files was limited, particularly for the community group. Dependency scores correlated with residential/nursing home care being appropriate for the 33 individuals, but only 50% of people were identified as wanting such arrangements. Evidence of a recorded medical assessment was absent in 47% of the community referred population. CONCLUSION: Evidence of a multi-disciplinary assessment was not always available, especially for the community referred individuals. A greater emphasis on a multi-disciplinary assessment could highlight a need for rehabilitation, which might allow for the improvement and maintenance of some frail older people in the community, this often being in accordance with their wishes.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]