将常规收集的国家医疗服务系统数据与评估联络心理健康服务联系起来:挑战与经验教训。

Elspeth Guthrie, Allan House, Chris Smith, Sam Relton, Daniel Romeu, Sonia Saraiva, Peter Trigwell, Robert West, Farag Shuweihdi, Mike Crawford, Matt Fossey, Jenny Hewison, Claire Hulme, Sandy Tubeuf
{"title":"将常规收集的国家医疗服务系统数据与评估联络心理健康服务联系起来:挑战与经验教训。","authors":"Elspeth Guthrie, Allan House, Chris Smith, Sam Relton, Daniel Romeu, Sonia Saraiva, Peter Trigwell, Robert West, Farag Shuweihdi, Mike Crawford, Matt Fossey, Jenny Hewison, Claire Hulme, Sandy Tubeuf","doi":"10.3310/WCPA5283","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Liaison mental health services provide mental health care to patients in acute hospital settings. Evaluation of liaison services is challenging due to their heterogeneous organisation and delivery, high case throughput and varied patient case mix. We aimed to link routinely collected National Health Service data from secondary care settings, chosen for their service characteristics, to data from primary care to evaluate hospital-based liaison mental health services in England.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We planned to compare patients referred to hospital-based liaison services with comparable patients in the same hospital not referred to liaison services and comparable patients in hospitals without any liaison services. We designed and enacted a methodology to link data from: (1) Hospital Episode Statistics, a database controlled by the National Health Service Digital and (2) ResearchOne, a primary care database controlled by The Phoenix Partnership.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Obtaining approvals for the steps prespecified in the methodological protocol took 907 days. Enactment following approvals took 385 days. Data supplied from Hospital Episode Statistics contained 181,063 patients from 6 hospitals (mean = 30,177, standard deviation = 28,875.86) who matched the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data supplied from ResearchOne contained 33,666 (18.6%) of these patients from the 6 hospitals (mean = 5611, standard deviation = 5206.59).</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Time required for approvals and enactment was attributable to slowness of data handling processes within each data holder and to resolution of technical and organisational queries between them. Variation in number of patients for which data was supplied between databases and between hospitals was attributable to coding inconsistencies and to the limited intersection of patient populations between databases and variation in recording practices between hospitals.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Although it is technically feasible to link primary and secondary care data, the current system is challenging, complicated, unnecessarily bureaucratic, time consuming and costly. This limits the number of studies that could be conducted with these rich data sources.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>This article presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme as award number 13/58/08.</p>","PeriodicalId":519880,"journal":{"name":"Health and social care delivery research","volume":" ","pages":"1-15"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Linkage of routinely collected NHS data to evaluate liaison mental health services: challenges and lessons learned.\",\"authors\":\"Elspeth Guthrie, Allan House, Chris Smith, Sam Relton, Daniel Romeu, Sonia Saraiva, Peter Trigwell, Robert West, Farag Shuweihdi, Mike Crawford, Matt Fossey, Jenny Hewison, Claire Hulme, Sandy Tubeuf\",\"doi\":\"10.3310/WCPA5283\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Liaison mental health services provide mental health care to patients in acute hospital settings. Evaluation of liaison services is challenging due to their heterogeneous organisation and delivery, high case throughput and varied patient case mix. We aimed to link routinely collected National Health Service data from secondary care settings, chosen for their service characteristics, to data from primary care to evaluate hospital-based liaison mental health services in England.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We planned to compare patients referred to hospital-based liaison services with comparable patients in the same hospital not referred to liaison services and comparable patients in hospitals without any liaison services. We designed and enacted a methodology to link data from: (1) Hospital Episode Statistics, a database controlled by the National Health Service Digital and (2) ResearchOne, a primary care database controlled by The Phoenix Partnership.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Obtaining approvals for the steps prespecified in the methodological protocol took 907 days. Enactment following approvals took 385 days. Data supplied from Hospital Episode Statistics contained 181,063 patients from 6 hospitals (mean = 30,177, standard deviation = 28,875.86) who matched the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data supplied from ResearchOne contained 33,666 (18.6%) of these patients from the 6 hospitals (mean = 5611, standard deviation = 5206.59).</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Time required for approvals and enactment was attributable to slowness of data handling processes within each data holder and to resolution of technical and organisational queries between them. Variation in number of patients for which data was supplied between databases and between hospitals was attributable to coding inconsistencies and to the limited intersection of patient populations between databases and variation in recording practices between hospitals.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Although it is technically feasible to link primary and secondary care data, the current system is challenging, complicated, unnecessarily bureaucratic, time consuming and costly. This limits the number of studies that could be conducted with these rich data sources.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>This article presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme as award number 13/58/08.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":519880,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health and social care delivery research\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-15\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-01\",\"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/WCPA5283\",\"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/WCPA5283","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:心理健康联络服务为急症医院的患者提供心理健康护理。由于联络服务的组织和提供方式不尽相同,病例吞吐量大,病例组合各异,因此对其进行评估具有挑战性。我们的目标是将从二级医疗机构定期收集的国民健康服务数据(根据其服务特点进行选择)与初级医疗机构的数据联系起来,对英格兰的医院心理健康联络服务进行评估:我们计划将转诊至医院联络服务机构的患者与同一医院未转诊至联络服务机构的可比患者以及未提供任何联络服务的医院的可比患者进行比较。我们设计并实施了一种方法,将以下两个数据库中的数据联系起来:(1) 医院事件统计(Hospital Episode Statistics),这是一个由英国国家卫生服务数字部(National Health Service Digital)控制的数据库;(2) ResearchOne,这是一个由凤凰合作组织(The Phoenix Partnership)控制的初级医疗数据库:方法学协议中规定的步骤获得批准耗时 907 天。批准后的执行工作耗时 385 天。医院事件统计提供的数据包含来自 6 家医院的 181063 名符合纳入和排除标准的患者(平均值 = 30177,标准差 = 28875.86)。ResearchOne提供的数据包含来自6家医院的33666名(18.6%)符合纳入和排除标准的患者(平均值=5611,标准差=5206.59):讨论:批准和颁布所需的时间可归因于每个数据持有者内部数据处理流程的缓慢,以及他们之间技术和组织问题的解决。数据库之间和医院之间提供数据的病人数量存在差异,原因是编码不一致、数据库之间病人群体的交叉有限以及医院之间记录方法的差异:尽管将初级和二级医疗数据联系起来在技术上是可行的,但目前的系统具有挑战性、复杂性、不必要的官僚主义、耗时且成本高昂。这限制了利用这些丰富的数据源开展研究的数量:本文为独立研究,由美国国家健康与护理研究所(NIHR)健康与社会护理服务研究项目资助,获奖编号为 13/58/08。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Linkage of routinely collected NHS data to evaluate liaison mental health services: challenges and lessons learned.

Background: Liaison mental health services provide mental health care to patients in acute hospital settings. Evaluation of liaison services is challenging due to their heterogeneous organisation and delivery, high case throughput and varied patient case mix. We aimed to link routinely collected National Health Service data from secondary care settings, chosen for their service characteristics, to data from primary care to evaluate hospital-based liaison mental health services in England.

Methods: We planned to compare patients referred to hospital-based liaison services with comparable patients in the same hospital not referred to liaison services and comparable patients in hospitals without any liaison services. We designed and enacted a methodology to link data from: (1) Hospital Episode Statistics, a database controlled by the National Health Service Digital and (2) ResearchOne, a primary care database controlled by The Phoenix Partnership.

Results: Obtaining approvals for the steps prespecified in the methodological protocol took 907 days. Enactment following approvals took 385 days. Data supplied from Hospital Episode Statistics contained 181,063 patients from 6 hospitals (mean = 30,177, standard deviation = 28,875.86) who matched the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data supplied from ResearchOne contained 33,666 (18.6%) of these patients from the 6 hospitals (mean = 5611, standard deviation = 5206.59).

Discussion: Time required for approvals and enactment was attributable to slowness of data handling processes within each data holder and to resolution of technical and organisational queries between them. Variation in number of patients for which data was supplied between databases and between hospitals was attributable to coding inconsistencies and to the limited intersection of patient populations between databases and variation in recording practices between hospitals.

Conclusion: Although it is technically feasible to link primary and secondary care data, the current system is challenging, complicated, unnecessarily bureaucratic, time consuming and costly. This limits the number of studies that could be conducted with these rich data sources.

Funding: This article presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme as award number 13/58/08.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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