Cargando…

Factors explaining priority setting at community mental health centres: a quantitative analysis of referral assessments

BACKGROUND: Clinicians at Norwegian community mental health centres assess referrals from general practitioners and classify them into three priority groups (high priority, low priority, and refusal) according to need where need is defined by three prioritization criteria (severity, effect, and cost...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Grepperud, Sverre, Holman, Per Arne, Wangen, Knut Reidar
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4272526/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25496562
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-014-0620-3
_version_ 1782349728573292544
author Grepperud, Sverre
Holman, Per Arne
Wangen, Knut Reidar
author_facet Grepperud, Sverre
Holman, Per Arne
Wangen, Knut Reidar
author_sort Grepperud, Sverre
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Clinicians at Norwegian community mental health centres assess referrals from general practitioners and classify them into three priority groups (high priority, low priority, and refusal) according to need where need is defined by three prioritization criteria (severity, effect, and cost-effectiveness). In this study, we seek to operationalize the three criteria and analyze to what extent they have an effect on clinical-level priority setting after controlling for clinician characteristics and organisational factors. METHODS: Twenty anonymous referrals were rated by 42 admission team members employed at 14 community mental health centres in the South-East Health Region of Norway. Intra-class correlation coefficients were calculated and logistic regressions were performed. RESULTS: Variation in clinicians’ assessments of the three criteria was highest for effect and cost-effectiveness. An ordered logistic regression model showed that all three criteria for prioritization, three clinician characteristics (education, being a manager or not, and “guideline awareness”), and the centres themselves (fixed effects), explained priority decisions. The relative importance of the explanatory factors, however, depended on the priority decision studied. For the classification of all admitted patients into high- and low-priority groups, all clinician characteristics became insignificant. For the classification of patients, into those admitted and non-admitted, one criterion (effect) and “being a manager or not” became insignificant, while profession (“being a psychiatrist”) became significant. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that variation in priority decisions can be reduced by: (i) reducing the disagreement in clinicians’ assessments of cost-effectiveness and effect, and (ii) restricting priority decisions to clinicians with a similar background (education, being a manager or not, and “guideline awareness”).
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4272526
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-42725262014-12-21 Factors explaining priority setting at community mental health centres: a quantitative analysis of referral assessments Grepperud, Sverre Holman, Per Arne Wangen, Knut Reidar BMC Health Serv Res Research Article BACKGROUND: Clinicians at Norwegian community mental health centres assess referrals from general practitioners and classify them into three priority groups (high priority, low priority, and refusal) according to need where need is defined by three prioritization criteria (severity, effect, and cost-effectiveness). In this study, we seek to operationalize the three criteria and analyze to what extent they have an effect on clinical-level priority setting after controlling for clinician characteristics and organisational factors. METHODS: Twenty anonymous referrals were rated by 42 admission team members employed at 14 community mental health centres in the South-East Health Region of Norway. Intra-class correlation coefficients were calculated and logistic regressions were performed. RESULTS: Variation in clinicians’ assessments of the three criteria was highest for effect and cost-effectiveness. An ordered logistic regression model showed that all three criteria for prioritization, three clinician characteristics (education, being a manager or not, and “guideline awareness”), and the centres themselves (fixed effects), explained priority decisions. The relative importance of the explanatory factors, however, depended on the priority decision studied. For the classification of all admitted patients into high- and low-priority groups, all clinician characteristics became insignificant. For the classification of patients, into those admitted and non-admitted, one criterion (effect) and “being a manager or not” became insignificant, while profession (“being a psychiatrist”) became significant. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that variation in priority decisions can be reduced by: (i) reducing the disagreement in clinicians’ assessments of cost-effectiveness and effect, and (ii) restricting priority decisions to clinicians with a similar background (education, being a manager or not, and “guideline awareness”). BioMed Central 2014-12-14 /pmc/articles/PMC4272526/ /pubmed/25496562 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-014-0620-3 Text en © Grepperud et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Grepperud, Sverre
Holman, Per Arne
Wangen, Knut Reidar
Factors explaining priority setting at community mental health centres: a quantitative analysis of referral assessments
title Factors explaining priority setting at community mental health centres: a quantitative analysis of referral assessments
title_full Factors explaining priority setting at community mental health centres: a quantitative analysis of referral assessments
title_fullStr Factors explaining priority setting at community mental health centres: a quantitative analysis of referral assessments
title_full_unstemmed Factors explaining priority setting at community mental health centres: a quantitative analysis of referral assessments
title_short Factors explaining priority setting at community mental health centres: a quantitative analysis of referral assessments
title_sort factors explaining priority setting at community mental health centres: a quantitative analysis of referral assessments
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4272526/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25496562
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-014-0620-3
work_keys_str_mv AT grepperudsverre factorsexplainingprioritysettingatcommunitymentalhealthcentresaquantitativeanalysisofreferralassessments
AT holmanperarne factorsexplainingprioritysettingatcommunitymentalhealthcentresaquantitativeanalysisofreferralassessments
AT wangenknutreidar factorsexplainingprioritysettingatcommunitymentalhealthcentresaquantitativeanalysisofreferralassessments