PubMed · 10178434
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
D R List, D D Ullrich. 1998. Innovative group practices.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10178434/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
BACKGROUND: Concerns have been raised about the scope and generalizability of much community mental health research. In particular, both experimental and control services are poorly characterized. METHODS: To review the effectiveness of 'home treatment' for mental health problems in terms of hospitalization, we conducted a systematic review, using Cochrane methodology but with a wider remit. Non-randomized studies were included in response to concerns about RCTs' generalizability. All authors were followed up for data on service components. 'Home treatment' was defined broadly for the purposes of the literature search, but included studies were then assessed against service components specifically focused on delivering treatment at home. The study tested components and other features for associations with days in hospital, as well as conducting a conventional meta-analysis of data on days in hospital. RESULTS: We found 91 studies, 18 comparing home to in-patient treatment. Sixty per cent of authors responded to follow-up. The vast majority of the services studied had a 'home treatment function' and regularly visited patients at home. The heterogeneity of control services made meta-analysis problematical as did the limited availability of data. There was some evidence that 'regular' home visiting and combined responsibility for health and social care were associated with reduced hospitalization. The inclusion of non-randomized studies rarely affected the findings. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence concerning the effectiveness of home treatment remains inconclusive. A centrally coordinated research strategy is recommended, with attention to study design. Experimental and control service components should be prospectively recorded and reported to enable meaningful analysis.
This paper explores a single dimension of the nurse practitioner role - whether community mental health nurse practitioners should have authority to prescribe medications. The paper is taken from a larger study about how these nurses promote wellness with clients experiencing an early episode of psychotic illness. The focus is timely as several Australian States have recently passed nurse practitioner legislation. This qualitative study used interviews and participant observation to collect data. The fieldwork was undertaken in the community, in regional and rural New South Wales, Australia and involved community mental health nurses. The findings show that expanding the nurse practitioner role to include authority to prescribe medications is currently contentious. Respondents envisaged that prescribing authority would include most medications that are used to treat mental illness but exclude drugs that treat medical illness. They identified a need for an appropriate educational course, and called for a system of clinical supervision and ongoing support for nurses assuming this role. Participants also claimed that individual nurses who choose to forgo prescribing authority should not be coerced into undertaking this role. The findings have professional, clinical, legal and educational implications for nurses as they seek authority to prescribe within the context of a nurse practitioner role and these are discussed.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.