PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

M Sergison

Publications and source records attributed to M Sergison.

8 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2003

Evaluation of cultural competence and antiracism training in child health services.

AIMS: To evaluate the acceptability and effectiveness of cultural competence and antiracism training to professionals providing services to ill or disabled children. METHODS: Immediate post-training and retrospective questionnaire survey of trainees. Main outcome measures were acceptability; perceived relevance to practice; previous training in this area; perceived impact on professionals' confidence in providing care to diverse communities; and reported changes in behaviour and practice. RESULTS: Cultural competence and antiracism training has been neglected in the health sector but is well received by professionals. It is a positive experience for trainees and perceived to be relevant to their practice. Appropriate and non-threatening training in cultural competence changes attitudes, behaviours, and practice, including promoting good practice in communication across linguistic and cultural differences. CONCLUSIONS: Appropriate cultural competence and antiracism training is both effective and acceptable in child health services.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗
PubMed2001

Impact of payment method on behaviour of primary care physicians: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To review the impact of payment systems on the behaviour of primary care physicians. METHODS: All randomised trials, controlled before and after studies, and interrupted time series studies that compared capitation, salary, fee-for-service or target payments (mixed or separately) that were identified by computerised searches of the literature. Methodological quality assessment and data extraction were undertaken independently by two reviewers using a data checklist. Study results were qualitatively analysed. RESULTS: Six studies met the inclusion criteria. There was considerable variation in the quality of reporting, study setting and the range of outcomes measured. Fee-for-service resulted in a higher quantity of primary care services provided compared with capitation but the evidence of the impact on the quantity of secondary care services was mixed. Fee-for-service resulted in more patient visits, greater continuity of care, higher compliance with a recommended number of visits, but lower patient satisfaction with access to a physician compared with salary payment. The evidence of the impact of target payment on immunisation rates was inconclusive. CONCLUSIONS: There is some evidence to suggest that how a primary care physician is paid does affect his/her behaviour but the generalisability of these studies is unknown. Most policy changes in the area of payment systems are inadequately informed by research. Future changes to doctor payment systems need to be rigorously evaluated.

Capitation Fee↗
PubMed2000

Target payments in primary care: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The method by which physicians are paid may affect their professional practice. Although payment systems may be used to achieve policy objectives (e.g. improving quality of care, cost containment and recruitment to under-served areas), little is known about the effects of different payment systems in achieving these objectives. Target payments are a payment system which remunerate professionals only if they provide a minimum level of care. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of target payments on the professional practice of primary care physicians (PCPs) and health care outcomes. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group specialised register; the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register; MEDLINE (1966 to October 1997); BIDS EMBASE (1980 to October 1997); BIDS ISI (1981 to October 1997); EconLit (1969 to October 1997); HealthStar (1975 to October 1997) Helmis (1984 to October 1997); health economics discussion paper series of the Universities of York, Aberdeen, Sheffield, Bristol, Brunel, and McMaster; Swedish Institute of Health Economics; RAND corporation; and reference lists of articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials, controlled before and after studies and interrupted time series analyses of interventions comparing the impact of target payments to primary care professionals with alternative methods of payment, on patient outcomes, health services utilisation, health care costs, equity of care, and PCP satisfaction with working environment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed study quality. MAIN RESULTS: Two studies were included involving 149 practices. The use of target payments in the remuneration of PCPs was associated with improvements in immunisation rates, but the increase was statistically significant in only one of the two studies. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: The evidence from the studies identified in this review is not of sufficient quality or power to obtain a clear answer to the question as to whether target payment remuneration provides a method of improving primary health care. Additional efforts should be directed in evaluating changes in physicians' remuneration systems. Although it would not be difficult to design a randomised controlled trial to evaluate the impact of such payment systems, it would be difficult politically to conduct such trials.

Humans↗
PubMed2000

Capitation, salary, fee-for-service and mixed systems of payment: effects on the behaviour of primary care physicians.

BACKGROUND: It is widely believed that the method of payment of physicians may affect their clinical behaviour. Although payment systems may be used to achieve policy objectives (e.g. cost containment or improved quality of care), little is known about the effects of different payment systems in achieving these objectives. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of different methods of payment (capitation, salary, fee for service and mixed systems of payment) on the clinical behaviour of primary care physicians (PCPs). SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group specialised register; the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register; MEDLINE (1966 to October 1997); BIDS EMBASE (1980 to October 1997); BIDS ISI (1981 to October 1997); EconLit (1969 to October 1997); HealthStar (1975 to October 1997) Helmis (1984 to October 1997); health economics discussion paper series of the Universities of York, Aberdeen, Sheffield, Bristol, Brunel, and McMaster; Swedish Institute of Health Economics; RAND corporation; and reference lists of articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials, controlled before and after studies and interrupted time series analyses of interventions comparing the impact of capitation, salary, fee for service (FFS) and mixed systems of payment on primary care physician satisfaction with working environment; cost and quantity of care; type and pattern of care; equity of care; and patient health status and satisfaction. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed study quality. MAIN RESULTS: Four studies were included involving 640 primary care physicians and more than 6400 patients. There was considerable variation in study setting and the range of outcomes measured. FFS resulted in more primary care visits/contacts, visits to specialists and diagnostic and curative services but fewer hospital referrals and repeat prescriptions compared with capitation. Compliance with a recommended number of visits was higher under FFS compared with capitation payment. FFS resulted in more patient visits, greater continuity of care, higher compliance with a recommended number of visits, but patients were less satisfied with access to their physician compared with salaried payment. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: It is noteworthy that so few studies met the inclusion criteria. There is some evidence to suggest that the method of payment of primary care physicians affects their behaviour, but the findings' generalisability is unknown. More evaluations of the effect of payment systems on PCP behaviour are needed, especially in terms of the relative impact of salary versus capitation payments.

Capitation Fee↗
PubMed1999

"If a patient is too costly they tend to get rid of you:" the impact of people's perceptions of rationing on the use of primary care.

Despite the increasing focus on rationing, and rationing decisions in the NHS, little attention has been given to patient's perceptions of rationing and the potential impact this might have on people's use of services. Drawing on the qualitative findings of a study conducted in the North West of England which was concerned with the pattern and processes of primary care help seeking, this paper sets out to examine perceptions and experiences of rationing in primary care and the potential impact this has on people's use of services. In relation to primary care services people had experienced rationing by deterrence, dilution and delay. There was some evidence that perceptions of rationing impacted on help seeking and the use of primary care services. The implications for understanding the way in which perceptions of rationing might influence the formulation of demand and help seeking by people using primary care services are discussed.

Appointments and Schedules↗
PubMed1999

Skill mix in primary care--creating a bibliography.

Skill mix in primary care should be governed by research-based evidence of how skills may best be distributed among health professionals in order to optimize the cost-effectiveness of health service delivery. There is a dearth of research in this area, yet many changes in skill mix within primary care have still to be adequately researched. Existing evidence of the nature and cost-effectiveness of skill mix change is scattered across the specialist literature of many different disciplinary groups, making it difficult to form a coherent overview of service provision. This paper reports on a project that sought to create a comprehensive database bringing together specialist literature relating to skill mix in primary care, as resource for health services researchers, providers and purchasers in the UK.

Cost-Benefit Analysis↗