精神疾病团队护理临床高危人群服务保真度量表的编制。

IF 3.2 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Psychiatric services Pub Date : 2025-04-01 Epub Date: 2025-02-27 DOI:10.1176/appi.ps.20240107
Mark Savill, Lindsay M Banks, Briana T Sepulveda, Savinnie Ho, Valerie L Tryon, Kathleen E Nye, Christopher Blay, Misha M Carlson, Adrian F Asbun, Sabrina Ereshefsky, Kristin L LaCross, Stephania L Hayes, Tara A Niendam, Donald E Addington
{"title":"精神疾病团队护理临床高危人群服务保真度量表的编制。","authors":"Mark Savill, Lindsay M Banks, Briana T Sepulveda, Savinnie Ho, Valerie L Tryon, Kathleen E Nye, Christopher Blay, Misha M Carlson, Adrian F Asbun, Sabrina Ereshefsky, Kristin L LaCross, Stephania L Hayes, Tara A Niendam, Donald E Addington","doi":"10.1176/appi.ps.20240107","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to develop and pilot the Clinical High Risk for Psychosis Services Fidelity Scale (CHRPS-FS).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A literature review was conducted to identify evidence-based treatments for individuals at clinical high risk for psychosis (CHRP). These findings were compared with the First-Episode Psychosis Services Fidelity Scale (FEPS-FS). Common items were retained, and others were added, modified, or deleted. Next, the Delphi process was conducted with 17 clinical and academic experts in CHRP care to determine consensus on the importance and validity of each item. Concurrently, the preliminary tool was piloted in eight coordinated specialty care (CSC) clinics serving individuals with CHRP.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The literature review identified two components of CHRP care that were not detailed in the FEPS-FS and were added to the CHRPS-FS; furthermore, one FEPS-FS item was modified and six were removed. In the Delphi process, clinical and academic experts achieved a consensus of >80% in two rounds, with some changes in item wording and the addition of one item (stepped care approach). A CHRPS-FS assessment was successfully piloted in eight CSC clinics. The mean CHRPS-FS rating score was 3.96 (range 3.75-4.23), and the median proportion of items rated at good to high fidelity was 72% (range 66%-78%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The CHRP-FS is feasible to implement, has face validity based on expert consensus, can be completed in conjunction with a FEPS-FS assessment or alone, and captures variability across programs. The CHRPS-FS measures service delivery and is suitable for clinical trials, learning health care systems, and quality improvement efforts.</p>","PeriodicalId":20878,"journal":{"name":"Psychiatric services","volume":" ","pages":"373-380"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Development of the Clinical High Risk for Psychosis Services Fidelity Scale (CHRPS-FS) for Team-Based Care.\",\"authors\":\"Mark Savill, Lindsay M Banks, Briana T Sepulveda, Savinnie Ho, Valerie L Tryon, Kathleen E Nye, Christopher Blay, Misha M Carlson, Adrian F Asbun, Sabrina Ereshefsky, Kristin L LaCross, Stephania L Hayes, Tara A Niendam, Donald E Addington\",\"doi\":\"10.1176/appi.ps.20240107\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to develop and pilot the Clinical High Risk for Psychosis Services Fidelity Scale (CHRPS-FS).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A literature review was conducted to identify evidence-based treatments for individuals at clinical high risk for psychosis (CHRP). These findings were compared with the First-Episode Psychosis Services Fidelity Scale (FEPS-FS). Common items were retained, and others were added, modified, or deleted. Next, the Delphi process was conducted with 17 clinical and academic experts in CHRP care to determine consensus on the importance and validity of each item. Concurrently, the preliminary tool was piloted in eight coordinated specialty care (CSC) clinics serving individuals with CHRP.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The literature review identified two components of CHRP care that were not detailed in the FEPS-FS and were added to the CHRPS-FS; furthermore, one FEPS-FS item was modified and six were removed. In the Delphi process, clinical and academic experts achieved a consensus of >80% in two rounds, with some changes in item wording and the addition of one item (stepped care approach). A CHRPS-FS assessment was successfully piloted in eight CSC clinics. The mean CHRPS-FS rating score was 3.96 (range 3.75-4.23), and the median proportion of items rated at good to high fidelity was 72% (range 66%-78%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The CHRP-FS is feasible to implement, has face validity based on expert consensus, can be completed in conjunction with a FEPS-FS assessment or alone, and captures variability across programs. The CHRPS-FS measures service delivery and is suitable for clinical trials, learning health care systems, and quality improvement efforts.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20878,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychiatric services\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"373-380\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychiatric services\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.20240107\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/2/27 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychiatric services","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.20240107","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本研究旨在开发和试点临床精神病高危服务保真度量表(CHRPS-FS)。方法:通过文献回顾,确定临床精神病高危患者(CHRP)的循证治疗方法。这些结果与首发精神病服务保真度量表(FEPS-FS)进行比较。普通的项目被保留,其他的项目被添加、修改或删除。接下来,与17位CHRP护理的临床和学术专家进行德尔菲过程,以确定每个项目的重要性和有效性的共识。同时,该初步工具在八家为CHRP患者提供服务的协调专科护理(CSC)诊所进行了试点。结果:通过文献综述,我们发现了两个在FEPS-FS中没有详细描述的CHRP护理组成部分,并将其添加到CHRPS-FS中;此外,修改了1个FEPS-FS项目,删除了6个。在德尔菲过程中,临床和学术专家在两轮中达成了bbbb80 %的共识,在项目措辞上有一些变化,并增加了一个项目(阶梯护理法)。CHRPS-FS评估在8个CSC诊所成功试行。CHRPS-FS评分平均为3.96分(范围3.75-4.23),被评为良好至高保真度的项目比例中位数为72%(范围66%-78%)。结论:CHRP-FS是可行的,具有基于专家共识的面效度,可以与FEPS-FS评估一起完成,也可以单独完成,并捕获了项目之间的可变性。CHRPS-FS衡量服务提供,适用于临床试验、学习卫生保健系统和质量改进工作。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Development of the Clinical High Risk for Psychosis Services Fidelity Scale (CHRPS-FS) for Team-Based Care.

Objective: This study aimed to develop and pilot the Clinical High Risk for Psychosis Services Fidelity Scale (CHRPS-FS).

Methods: A literature review was conducted to identify evidence-based treatments for individuals at clinical high risk for psychosis (CHRP). These findings were compared with the First-Episode Psychosis Services Fidelity Scale (FEPS-FS). Common items were retained, and others were added, modified, or deleted. Next, the Delphi process was conducted with 17 clinical and academic experts in CHRP care to determine consensus on the importance and validity of each item. Concurrently, the preliminary tool was piloted in eight coordinated specialty care (CSC) clinics serving individuals with CHRP.

Results: The literature review identified two components of CHRP care that were not detailed in the FEPS-FS and were added to the CHRPS-FS; furthermore, one FEPS-FS item was modified and six were removed. In the Delphi process, clinical and academic experts achieved a consensus of >80% in two rounds, with some changes in item wording and the addition of one item (stepped care approach). A CHRPS-FS assessment was successfully piloted in eight CSC clinics. The mean CHRPS-FS rating score was 3.96 (range 3.75-4.23), and the median proportion of items rated at good to high fidelity was 72% (range 66%-78%).

Conclusions: The CHRP-FS is feasible to implement, has face validity based on expert consensus, can be completed in conjunction with a FEPS-FS assessment or alone, and captures variability across programs. The CHRPS-FS measures service delivery and is suitable for clinical trials, learning health care systems, and quality improvement efforts.

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
Psychiatric services
Psychiatric services 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
5.80
自引率
7.90%
发文量
295
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Psychiatric Services, established in 1950, is published monthly by the American Psychiatric Association. The peer-reviewed journal features research reports on issues related to the delivery of mental health services, especially for people with serious mental illness in community-based treatment programs. Long known as an interdisciplinary journal, Psychiatric Services recognizes that provision of high-quality care involves collaboration among a variety of professionals, frequently working as a team. Authors of research reports published in the journal include psychiatrists, psychologists, pharmacists, nurses, social workers, drug and alcohol treatment counselors, economists, policy analysts, and professionals in related systems such as criminal justice and welfare systems. In the mental health field, the current focus on patient-centered, recovery-oriented care and on dissemination of evidence-based practices is transforming service delivery systems at all levels. Research published in Psychiatric Services contributes to this transformation.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信