PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 447219

Phasing down state hospitals: integrated versus nonintegrated services.

P S Feldman·T M Sadtler·R Lipman·L F Schiff
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Two mental health catchment areas in Massachusetts that were in the process of phasing down state hospitals and building up community care provided an opportunity for studying the effectiveness of an integrated service delivery model and a nonintegrated model. The area that integrated state hospital and community services was more successful in the phase-down. It had a lower admission rate, the patients who were readmitted did not stay as long, and patients discharged spent more time in the community. Specific adminstrative and clinical structures that facilitated the patients' progress included investing community-based, administrative authority in one person; having a centralized intake and referral system; and using case managers to follow the clients through the service delivery system.

Explore related subjects

Catchment Area, HealthCommunity Mental Health CentersCommunity-Institutional RelationsDeinstitutionalizationHealth Facility ClosureHospital AdministrationHospitals, PublicHospitals, StateLength of StayMassachusettsPatient AdmissionComparative StudyJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

P S Feldman, T M Sadtler, R Lipman, L F Schiff. 1979. Phasing down state hospitals: integrated versus nonintegrated services.. https://doi.org/10.1176/ps.30.5.334

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2006

The Barents project in psychiatry: a systematic comparative mental health services study between Northern Norway and Archangelsk County.

BACKGROUND: There is virtually no readily accessible systematically recorded evidence on how the organization of mental health services in Europe's largest country, Russia, may differ from other national systems. This study systematically compares the mental health services in Archangelsk County and Northern Norway using instruments developed for trans-cultural use. METHODS: The European Service Mapping Schedule (ESMS) and The International Classification of Mental Health Care (ICMHC) were used to describe: (i) resources, organisation and utilisation of the services; (ii) their decentralisation and differentiation; (iii) some interventions delivered by the mental health service units (n = 132) in both regions. RESULTS: The Norwegian services are more decentralised and differentiated, while the Russian services are largely hospital-based. The GPs are of considerable importance to the Norwegian services, functioning as gatekeepers-both centrally and peripherally. In contrast, the GP model is still poorly established in Archangelsk County. There are more units for long term stay in the Russian services than in Norway. General health care and taking over daily living activities are more organised in Archangelsk County, while psychopharmacological treatment and psychosocial interventions are more developed in Norway. CONCLUSION: The study has revealed several differences in resources, organisation and utilisation of the mental health services between the two compared areas. The very large variations indicate that underlying local patterns of service delivering must be further investigated and taken into account in the planning of the services development.

Catchment Area, Health↗
PubMed2006

Wanganui Hospital.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Catchment Area, Health↗
PubMed2006

Cross sectional study of performance indicators for English Primary Care Trusts: testing construct validity and identifying explanatory variables.

BACKGROUND: The performance of Primary Care Trusts in England is assessed and published using a number of different performance indicators. Our study has two broad purposes. Firstly, to find out whether pairs of indicators that purport to measure similar aspects of quality are correlated (as would be expected if they are both valid measures of the same construct). Secondly, we wanted to find out whether broad (global) indicators correlated with any particular features of Primary Care Trusts, such as expenditure per capita. METHODS: Cross sectional quantitative analysis using data from six 2004/05 PCT performance indicators for 303 English Primary Care Trusts from four sources in the public domain: Star Rating, aggregated Quality and Outcomes Framework scores, Dr Foster mortality index, Dr Foster equity index (heart by-pass and hip replacements), NHS Litigation Authority Risk Management standards and Patient Satisfaction scores from the Star Ratings. Forward stepwise multiple regression analysis to determine the effect of Primary Care Trust characteristics on performance. RESULTS: Star Rating and Quality and Outcomes Framework total, both summary measures of global quality, were not correlated with each other (F = 0.66, p = 0.57). There were however positive correlations between Quality and Outcomes Framework total and patient satisfaction (r = 0.61, p < 0.001) and between screening/'additional services' indicators on the Star Ratings and Quality and Outcomes Framework (F = 24, p < 0.001). There was no correlation between different measures of access to services. Likewise we found no relationship between either Star Rating or Litigation Authority Standards and hospital mortality (F = 0.61, p = 0.61; F = 0.31, p = 0.73). CONCLUSION: Performance assessment in healthcare remains on the Government's agenda, with new core and developmental standards set to replace the Star Ratings in 2006. Yet the results of this analysis provide little evidence that the current indicators have sufficient construct validity to measure the underlying concept of quality, except when the specific area of screening is considered.

Catchment Area, Health↗