"我们如何强迫消费者接受六次就诊?在医疗补助收费服务下,以人为本的护理所面临的窘境和策略。

Emmy Tiderington, Victoria Stanhope, Deborah Padgett
{"title":"\"我们如何强迫消费者接受六次就诊?在医疗补助收费服务下,以人为本的护理所面临的窘境和策略。","authors":"Emmy Tiderington, Victoria Stanhope, Deborah Padgett","doi":"10.7282/t3-abqz-4q92","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This qualitative study examines the delivery of person-centered care in Medicaid-funded supportive housing for adults with serious mental illness. While much work has been done to promote the uptake of a person-centered approach in healthcare, less is known about how this approach functions in homeless services and supportive housing where many individuals with mental health issues receive rehabilitative services. A total of 84 semi-structured interviews were collected from a purposeful sample of 35 frontline providers. Transcripts were analyzed inductively using Boytazis' thematic analysis. Three principle themes characterize the dilemmas experienced by street-level workers in these programs: (1) Putting the \"consumer first\" vs. achieving maximum billing; (2) Doing the \"real work\" vs. paperwork; and (3) Juggling clinical supervision vs. administrative oversight. In order to meet the demands of Medicaid, as well as the expectation for person-centered care delivery, providers enacted several discretionary strategies at the street-level: (1) Staying late and taking work home; (2) Padding the numbers; (3) Offering service recipients small choices; (4) Redirecting small talk to get to billable goal talk; and (5) Keeping consumers home. Findings highlight tensions between the accountability-focused fee-for-service model and the prioritization of consumer choice and individualization of services in person-centered care delivery.</p>","PeriodicalId":72174,"journal":{"name":"American journal of psychiatric rehabilitation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6812544/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"\\\"How do we force six visits on a consumer?\\\": Street-level dilemmas and strategies for person-centered care under Medicaid fee-for-service.\",\"authors\":\"Emmy Tiderington, Victoria Stanhope, Deborah Padgett\",\"doi\":\"10.7282/t3-abqz-4q92\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This qualitative study examines the delivery of person-centered care in Medicaid-funded supportive housing for adults with serious mental illness. While much work has been done to promote the uptake of a person-centered approach in healthcare, less is known about how this approach functions in homeless services and supportive housing where many individuals with mental health issues receive rehabilitative services. A total of 84 semi-structured interviews were collected from a purposeful sample of 35 frontline providers. Transcripts were analyzed inductively using Boytazis' thematic analysis. Three principle themes characterize the dilemmas experienced by street-level workers in these programs: (1) Putting the \\\"consumer first\\\" vs. achieving maximum billing; (2) Doing the \\\"real work\\\" vs. paperwork; and (3) Juggling clinical supervision vs. administrative oversight. In order to meet the demands of Medicaid, as well as the expectation for person-centered care delivery, providers enacted several discretionary strategies at the street-level: (1) Staying late and taking work home; (2) Padding the numbers; (3) Offering service recipients small choices; (4) Redirecting small talk to get to billable goal talk; and (5) Keeping consumers home. Findings highlight tensions between the accountability-focused fee-for-service model and the prioritization of consumer choice and individualization of services in person-centered care delivery.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72174,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American journal of psychiatric rehabilitation\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6812544/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American journal of psychiatric rehabilitation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7282/t3-abqz-4q92\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of psychiatric rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7282/t3-abqz-4q92","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

本定性研究探讨了在医疗补助计划资助的支持性住房中为患有严重精神疾病的成年人提供以人为本的医疗服务的情况。虽然在医疗保健领域已经做了很多工作来推广以人为本的方法,但对于这种方法如何在无家可归者服务和支持性住房中发挥作用却知之甚少。我们从 35 位一线医疗服务提供者中收集了 84 个半结构化访谈样本。访谈记录采用博伊塔齐斯主题分析法进行归纳分析。在这些计划中,街道工作人员所经历的两难困境主要有三个主题:(1)"消费者至上 "与实现最大化计费;(2)做 "真正的工作 "与文书工作;(3)临床监督与行政监督之间的权衡。为了满足医疗补助(Medicaid)的要求,以及提供以人为本的护理服务的期望,医疗服务提供者在街道一级采取了几种自由裁量的策略:(1)加班和把工作带回家;(2)增加数字;(3)为服务对象提供小的选择;(4)重新引导小的谈话,以实现计费目标谈话;以及(5)把消费者留在家里。研究结果凸显了以问责为重点的收费服务模式与以人为本的护理服务中优先考虑消费者选择和个性化服务之间的矛盾。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
"How do we force six visits on a consumer?": Street-level dilemmas and strategies for person-centered care under Medicaid fee-for-service.

This qualitative study examines the delivery of person-centered care in Medicaid-funded supportive housing for adults with serious mental illness. While much work has been done to promote the uptake of a person-centered approach in healthcare, less is known about how this approach functions in homeless services and supportive housing where many individuals with mental health issues receive rehabilitative services. A total of 84 semi-structured interviews were collected from a purposeful sample of 35 frontline providers. Transcripts were analyzed inductively using Boytazis' thematic analysis. Three principle themes characterize the dilemmas experienced by street-level workers in these programs: (1) Putting the "consumer first" vs. achieving maximum billing; (2) Doing the "real work" vs. paperwork; and (3) Juggling clinical supervision vs. administrative oversight. In order to meet the demands of Medicaid, as well as the expectation for person-centered care delivery, providers enacted several discretionary strategies at the street-level: (1) Staying late and taking work home; (2) Padding the numbers; (3) Offering service recipients small choices; (4) Redirecting small talk to get to billable goal talk; and (5) Keeping consumers home. Findings highlight tensions between the accountability-focused fee-for-service model and the prioritization of consumer choice and individualization of services in person-centered care delivery.

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