CO-WORK-CARE 模式的过程评估:针对初级医疗保健中常见精神障碍患者的协作和以人为本的对话会议。

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q2 NURSING
Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences Pub Date : 2024-09-01 Epub Date: 2024-05-08 DOI:10.1111/scs.13268
Eva-Lisa Petersson, Karin Törnbom, Cecilia Björkelund, Margaretha Jerlock, Dominique Hange, Camilla Udo, Irene Svenningsson
{"title":"CO-WORK-CARE 模式的过程评估:针对初级医疗保健中常见精神障碍患者的协作和以人为本的对话会议。","authors":"Eva-Lisa Petersson, Karin Törnbom, Cecilia Björkelund, Margaretha Jerlock, Dominique Hange, Camilla Udo, Irene Svenningsson","doi":"10.1111/scs.13268","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Rationale: </strong>To ensure optimal patient care based on evidence, it is crucial to understand how to implement new methods in practice. However, intervention studies often overlook parts of the implementation process. A comprehensive process evaluation is necessary to understand why interventions succeed or fail in specific contexts and to integrate new knowledge into daily practice. This evaluation examines the full implementation of the Co-Work-Care model in Swedish primary healthcare to identify strengths and weaknesses.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>This study aimed to evaluate the process of implementing the CO-WORK-CARE model that focuses on close collaboration and the use of a person-centred dialogue meeting in primary healthcare for patients on sick leave due to common mental disorders.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>The CO-WORK-CARE model emphasises collaboration among the GP, rehabilitation coordinator and care manager, along with person-centred dialogue meetings involving employers. Following UK Medical Research Council guidelines, we conducted a process evaluation. Data from previous studies were reanalysed. We also analysed field notes and meeting notes using Malterud's qualitative method.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The evaluation identified key facilitators for model implementation, including regular visits by facilitators and guidance from the research physician. Peer support meetings also bolstered implementation. However, challenges emerged due to conflicts with existing structures and limitations in person-centred dialogue meetings.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Adapting the CO-WORK-CARE model to Swedish primary care is feasible and beneficial, with collaboration among the care manager, rehabilitation coordinator and GP and person-centred dialogue meetings. Thorough preparations, ongoing facilitator and peer support and integrated information enhanced implementation efficiency, despite challenges posed by existing structures.</p>","PeriodicalId":48171,"journal":{"name":"Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Process evaluation of the CO-WORK-CARE model: Collaboration and a person-centred dialogue meeting for patients with common mental disorder in primary health care.\",\"authors\":\"Eva-Lisa Petersson, Karin Törnbom, Cecilia Björkelund, Margaretha Jerlock, Dominique Hange, Camilla Udo, Irene Svenningsson\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/scs.13268\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Rationale: </strong>To ensure optimal patient care based on evidence, it is crucial to understand how to implement new methods in practice. However, intervention studies often overlook parts of the implementation process. A comprehensive process evaluation is necessary to understand why interventions succeed or fail in specific contexts and to integrate new knowledge into daily practice. This evaluation examines the full implementation of the Co-Work-Care model in Swedish primary healthcare to identify strengths and weaknesses.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>This study aimed to evaluate the process of implementing the CO-WORK-CARE model that focuses on close collaboration and the use of a person-centred dialogue meeting in primary healthcare for patients on sick leave due to common mental disorders.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>The CO-WORK-CARE model emphasises collaboration among the GP, rehabilitation coordinator and care manager, along with person-centred dialogue meetings involving employers. Following UK Medical Research Council guidelines, we conducted a process evaluation. Data from previous studies were reanalysed. We also analysed field notes and meeting notes using Malterud's qualitative method.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The evaluation identified key facilitators for model implementation, including regular visits by facilitators and guidance from the research physician. Peer support meetings also bolstered implementation. However, challenges emerged due to conflicts with existing structures and limitations in person-centred dialogue meetings.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Adapting the CO-WORK-CARE model to Swedish primary care is feasible and beneficial, with collaboration among the care manager, rehabilitation coordinator and GP and person-centred dialogue meetings. Thorough preparations, ongoing facilitator and peer support and integrated information enhanced implementation efficiency, despite challenges posed by existing structures.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48171,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/scs.13268\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/5/8 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"NURSING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/scs.13268","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

理由:为确保根据证据为患者提供最佳护理,了解如何在实践中实施新方法至关重要。然而,干预研究往往忽略了部分实施过程。要了解干预措施在特定情况下成功或失败的原因,并将新知识融入日常实践中,就必须进行全面的过程评估。目的:本研究旨在评估 CO-WORK-CARE 模式的实施过程,该模式注重密切合作,并在初级医疗保健中使用以人为本的对话会议,治疗因常见精神障碍而请病假的患者:CO-WORK-CARE模式强调全科医生、康复协调员和护理经理之间的合作,以及雇主参与的以人为本的对话会议。根据英国医学研究委员会的指导方针,我们进行了一项过程评估。我们重新分析了之前的研究数据。我们还使用 Malterud 的定性方法对现场记录和会议记录进行了分析:评估确定了模式实施的主要促进因素,包括促进者的定期访问和研究医生的指导。同伴互助会议也促进了模式的实施。然而,由于与现有结构的冲突和以人为本的对话会议的局限性,也出现了一些挑战:通过护理经理、康复协调员和全科医生之间的合作以及以人为本的对话会议,将 CO-WORK-CARE 模式应用于瑞典初级保健是可行且有益的。尽管现有结构存在挑战,但充分的准备工作、持续的促进者和同伴支持以及综合信息提高了实施效率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Process evaluation of the CO-WORK-CARE model: Collaboration and a person-centred dialogue meeting for patients with common mental disorder in primary health care.

Rationale: To ensure optimal patient care based on evidence, it is crucial to understand how to implement new methods in practice. However, intervention studies often overlook parts of the implementation process. A comprehensive process evaluation is necessary to understand why interventions succeed or fail in specific contexts and to integrate new knowledge into daily practice. This evaluation examines the full implementation of the Co-Work-Care model in Swedish primary healthcare to identify strengths and weaknesses.

Aim: This study aimed to evaluate the process of implementing the CO-WORK-CARE model that focuses on close collaboration and the use of a person-centred dialogue meeting in primary healthcare for patients on sick leave due to common mental disorders.

Method: The CO-WORK-CARE model emphasises collaboration among the GP, rehabilitation coordinator and care manager, along with person-centred dialogue meetings involving employers. Following UK Medical Research Council guidelines, we conducted a process evaluation. Data from previous studies were reanalysed. We also analysed field notes and meeting notes using Malterud's qualitative method.

Results: The evaluation identified key facilitators for model implementation, including regular visits by facilitators and guidance from the research physician. Peer support meetings also bolstered implementation. However, challenges emerged due to conflicts with existing structures and limitations in person-centred dialogue meetings.

Conclusion: Adapting the CO-WORK-CARE model to Swedish primary care is feasible and beneficial, with collaboration among the care manager, rehabilitation coordinator and GP and person-centred dialogue meetings. Thorough preparations, ongoing facilitator and peer support and integrated information enhanced implementation efficiency, despite challenges posed by existing structures.

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
4.60
自引率
5.30%
发文量
71
期刊介绍: Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences is an established quarterly, peer reviewed Journal with an outstanding international reputation. As the official publication of the Nordic College of Caring Science, the Journal shares their mission to contribute to the development and advancement of scientific knowledge on caring related to health, well-being, illness and the alleviation of human suffering. The emphasis is on research that has a patient, family and community focus and which promotes an interdisciplinary team approach. Of special interest are scholarly articles addressing and initiating dialogue on theoretical, empirical and methodological concerns related to critical issues. All articles are expected to demonstrate respect for human dignity and accountability to society. In addition to original research the Journal also publishes reviews, meta-syntheses and meta-analyses.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信