Suppr超能文献

初级保健中的福利权利建议:患病率、流程及专科服务

Welfare rights advice in primary care: prevalence, processes and specialist provision.

作者信息

Harding Richard, Sherr Lorraine, Sherr Avrom, Moorhead Richard, Singh Surinder

机构信息

Department of Primary Care and Population Sciences, Royal Free University College Medical School, Rowland Hill Street, London NW3 2PF, UK.

出版信息

Fam Pract. 2003 Feb;20(1):48-53. doi: 10.1093/fampra/20.1.48.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Despite persistent poverty-related health inequalities, few sustained responses have been developed in primary care. Welfare rights provision has been proposed as one potential pathway to addressing health inequalities.

OBJECTIVES

This study was set up to address the prevalence of welfare rights issues in general practice, and the practitioner response to unmet need.

METHODS

A postal questionnaire was sent to practitioners in GP surgeries of an inner city health authority with high levels of deprivation. By means of a 'most recent case audit', data on welfare advice needs were collected. Practices with in-house welfare rights provision were compared with those surgeries with no such provision.

RESULTS

Questionnaires were returned by 153 practitioners, describing their most recent case with a welfare rights need (mean 10.41 days ago). Of the respondents, 70.6% felt that there was a mental health element to this consultation, 49.8% of problems were described as urgent, and 65.8% of patients requested information or guidance. Those practitioners with specialist advisers in the surgery (n = 81) were significantly more likely to find referring patients to advisers easy, that quality of advice for patients was good, that welfare providers enhanced their ability to practice effectively and that such provision improves the health and well-being of patients. In those surgeries without provision (n = 72), patients were more likely to approach their practitioner for advice. GPs were more likely than nurses and other practising staff to see a case with welfare rights needs. Practitioners were more likely to raise the welfare issues if they had specialist advice in the surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

A large amount of practitioner consultation time is spent on welfare rights-related issues. Although practitioners are skilled in detecting need, and their practice is enhanced by specialist support, expansion is needed to provide the advice which cannot be met by clinical consultation.

摘要

背景

尽管与贫困相关的健康不平等现象持续存在,但初级保健领域几乎没有制定出持续的应对措施。提供福利权利被提议作为解决健康不平等问题的一条潜在途径。

目的

本研究旨在探讨全科医疗中福利权利问题的普遍性,以及从业者对未满足需求的应对情况。

方法

向一个贫困程度较高的市中心卫生当局的全科医生诊所的从业者发送了一份邮政调查问卷。通过“最近病例审计”收集有关福利咨询需求的数据。将设有内部福利权利服务的诊所与没有此类服务的诊所进行比较。

结果

153名从业者回复了问卷,描述了他们最近处理的有福利权利需求的病例(平均为10.41天前)。在受访者中,70.6%认为此次咨询涉及心理健康因素,49.8%的问题被描述为紧急情况,65.8%的患者寻求信息或指导。诊所设有专科顾问的从业者(n = 81)明显更有可能认为将患者转介给顾问很容易、患者得到的建议质量良好、福利服务提供者提高了他们有效执业的能力,以及这种服务改善了患者的健康和福祉。在没有此类服务的诊所(n = 72)中,患者更有可能向他们的从业者寻求建议。全科医生比护士和其他执业人员更有可能遇到有福利权利需求的病例。如果诊所设有专科顾问,从业者更有可能提出福利问题。

结论

大量的从业者咨询时间花在了与福利权利相关的问题上。尽管从业者善于发现需求,且专科支持增强了他们的执业能力,但仍需要扩大服务范围,以提供临床咨询无法满足的建议。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验