• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

相似文献

1
Primary care provider preferences for working with a collaborative support team.基层医疗服务提供者对于与协作支持团队合作的偏好。
Implement Sci. 2007 May 30;2:16. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-2-16.
2
Concurrent treatment of patients with depression in the community: provider practices, attitudes, and barriers to collaboration.社区中抑郁症患者的联合治疗:医疗服务提供者的做法、态度及合作障碍。
J Fam Pract. 1999 Mar;48(3):180-7.
3
Communicating Findings of Delayed Diagnostic Evaluation to Primary Care Providers.将延迟诊断评估结果告知初级保健提供者。
J Am Board Fam Med. 2016 Jul-Aug;29(4):469-73. doi: 10.3122/jabfm.2016.04.150363.
4
Effects of Primary Care Provider Characteristics on Changes in Behavioral Health Delivery During a Collaborative Care Trial.初级保健提供者特征对协作式护理试验中行为健康服务提供变化的影响。
Acad Pediatr. 2020 Apr;20(3):399-404. doi: 10.1016/j.acap.2019.11.008. Epub 2019 Nov 21.
5
Cost-effectiveness analysis of a rural telemedicine collaborative care intervention for depression.农村远程医疗协作式抑郁症护理干预的成本效益分析
Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2010 Aug;67(8):812-21. doi: 10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2010.82.
6
Understanding the distinct experience of rural interprofessional collaboration in developing palliative care programs.了解农村跨专业合作在制定姑息治疗计划方面的独特经验。
Rural Remote Health. 2014;14(2):2711. Epub 2014 May 14.
7
Veterans' decision-making preferences and perceived involvement in care for chronic heart failure.退伍军人对慢性心力衰竭护理的决策偏好及感知参与度
Heart Lung. 2008 Nov-Dec;37(6):440-8. doi: 10.1016/j.hrtlng.2008.02.003. Epub 2008 Sep 30.
8
Telemedicine-based collaborative care for posttraumatic stress disorder: a randomized clinical trial.基于远程医疗的创伤后应激障碍协同护理:一项随机临床试验。
JAMA Psychiatry. 2015 Jan;72(1):58-67. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2014.1575.
9
A process for developing community consensus regarding the diagnosis and management of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.一个就注意力缺陷/多动障碍的诊断和管理达成社区共识的过程。
Pediatrics. 2005 Jan;115(1):e97-104. doi: 10.1542/peds.2004-0953.
10
Understanding health care communication preferences of veteran primary care users.了解退伍军人初级保健用户的医疗保健沟通偏好。
Patient Educ Couns. 2012 Sep;88(3):420-6. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2012.06.004. Epub 2012 Jul 4.

引用本文的文献

1
Analysis of Variation in Organizational Definitions of Primary Care Panels: A Systematic Review.分析初级保健小组组织定义的差异:系统评价。
JAMA Netw Open. 2022 Apr 1;5(4):e227497. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.7497.
2
Management of common mental disorders should take place in primary health or specialized care? Clinical decisions of psychiatrists from Latin American countries.常见精神障碍的管理应在初级保健或专科治疗中进行?来自拉丁美洲国家的精神科医生的临床决策。
PLoS One. 2022 Apr 5;17(4):e0265308. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0265308. eCollection 2022.
3
"It's Tricky": Care Managers' Perspectives on Interacting with Primary Care Clinicians.“这很棘手”:照护管理者与初级保健临床医生互动的观点。
Popul Health Manag. 2021 Jun;24(3):338-344. doi: 10.1089/pop.2020.0082. Epub 2020 Aug 4.
4
Primary Care Physician Panel Size and Quality of Care: A Population-Based Study in Ontario, Canada.初级保健医生小组规模与医疗质量:加拿大安大略省的一项基于人群的研究。
Ann Fam Med. 2016 Jan-Feb;14(1):26-33. doi: 10.1370/afm.1864.
5
Implementation of the veterans health administration national pain management strategy.实施退伍军人健康管理局国家疼痛管理战略。
Transl Behav Med. 2011 Dec;1(4):635-43. doi: 10.1007/s13142-011-0094-3.
6
Conditions that influence a primary care clinician's decision to refer patients for depression care.影响基层医疗临床医生决定将患者转诊至抑郁症治疗机构的因素。
Rehabil Nurs. 2010 May-Jun;35(3):113-22. doi: 10.1002/j.2048-7940.2010.tb00286.x.

本文引用的文献

1
Physicians' satisfaction with a collaborative disease management program for late-life depression in primary care.医生对初级保健中针对老年抑郁症的协作式疾病管理项目的满意度。
Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2005 Nov-Dec;27(6):383-91. doi: 10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2005.06.001.
2
Opportunities for administrators to promote disease management.管理人员促进疾病管理的机会。
J Healthc Manag. 2005 Sep-Oct;50(5):297-309; discussion 309-10.
3
Is physician gender associated with the quality of diabetes care?医生性别与糖尿病护理质量有关联吗?
Diabetes Care. 2005 Jul;28(7):1594-8. doi: 10.2337/diacare.28.7.1594.
4
Motivation to change chronic illness care: results from a national evaluation of quality improvement collaboratives.
Health Care Manage Rev. 2005 Apr-Jun;30(2):139-56. doi: 10.1097/00004010-200504000-00008.
5
Educational and organizational interventions to improve the management of depression in primary care: a systematic review.改善初级保健中抑郁症管理的教育与组织干预措施:一项系统综述
JAMA. 2003 Jun 18;289(23):3145-51. doi: 10.1001/jama.289.23.3145.
6
The acceptability of chronic disease management programmes to patients, general practitioners and practice nurses.慢性病管理项目对患者、全科医生及执业护士的可接受性。
N Z Med J. 2003 Feb 21;116(1169):U331.
7
How are health plans supporting physician practice? The physician perspective.健康计划如何支持医生执业?医生视角。
Health Aff (Millwood). 2003 Jan-Feb;22(1):181-9. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.22.1.181.
8
Collaborative care management of late-life depression in the primary care setting: a randomized controlled trial.初级保健环境中晚期抑郁症的协作式护理管理:一项随机对照试验。
JAMA. 2002 Dec 11;288(22):2836-45. doi: 10.1001/jama.288.22.2836.
9
A three-component model for reengineering systems for the treatment of depression in primary care.一种用于重新设计初级保健中抑郁症治疗系统的三组件模型。
Psychosomatics. 2002 Nov-Dec;43(6):441-50. doi: 10.1176/appi.psy.43.6.441.
10
Interventions used in disease management programmes for patients with chronic illness-which ones work? Meta-analysis of published reports.用于慢性病患者疾病管理项目的干预措施——哪些有效?已发表报告的荟萃分析。
BMJ. 2002 Oct 26;325(7370):925. doi: 10.1136/bmj.325.7370.925.

基层医疗服务提供者对于与协作支持团队合作的偏好。

Primary care provider preferences for working with a collaborative support team.

作者信息

Dobscha Steven K, Leibowitz Ruth Q, Flores Jennifer A, Doak Melanie, Gerrity Martha S

机构信息

Columbia Center for the Study of Chronic, Comorbid Mental and Physical Disorders, Portland VA Medical Center, Portland, Oregon, USA.

出版信息

Implement Sci. 2007 May 30;2:16. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-2-16.

DOI:10.1186/1748-5908-2-16
PMID:17537251
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1892568/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Clinical interventions based on collaborative models require effective communication between primary care providers (PCPs) and collaborative support teams. Despite growing interest in collaborative care, we have identified no published studies describing how PCPs prefer to communicate and interact with collaborative support teams. This manuscript examines the communication and interaction preferences of PCPs participating in an ongoing randomized clinical trial of a collaborative intervention for chronic pain and depression.

METHODS

The trial is being conducted in five primary care clinics of a Veterans Affairs Medical Center. Twenty-one PCPs randomized to the study intervention completed a survey regarding preferences for interacting with the collaborative support team.

RESULTS

A majority of PCPs identified email (95%) and telephone calls (68%) as preferred modes for communicating with members of the support team. In contrast, only 29% identified in-person communications as preferred. Most PCPs preferred that the care manager and physician pain specialist assess patients (76%) and make initial treatment changes (71%) without first conferring with the PCP. One-half wanted to be designated cosigners of all support team notes in the electronic medical record, one-half wanted to receive brief and focused information rather than in-depth information about their patients, and one-half wanted their practice nurses automatically included in communications. Panel size was strongly associated (p < 0.001) with preference for brief, to-the-point discussions about patients.

CONCLUSION

The substantial variation in PCP communication preferences suggests the need for knowledge of these preferences when designing and implementing collaborative interventions. Additional research is needed to understand relationships between clinician and practice characteristics and interaction preferences.

摘要

背景

基于协作模式的临床干预需要初级保健提供者(PCP)与协作支持团队之间进行有效的沟通。尽管人们对协作护理的兴趣日益浓厚,但我们尚未发现有已发表的研究描述PCP更喜欢如何与协作支持团队进行沟通和互动。本文探讨了参与一项正在进行的针对慢性疼痛和抑郁症的协作干预随机临床试验的PCP的沟通和互动偏好。

方法

该试验在一家退伍军人事务医疗中心的五个初级保健诊所进行。随机分配到研究干预组的21名PCP完成了一项关于与协作支持团队互动偏好的调查。

结果

大多数PCP将电子邮件(95%)和电话(68%)确定为与支持团队成员沟通的首选方式。相比之下,只有29%的人将面对面沟通确定为首选。大多数PCP希望护理经理和疼痛专科医生在不首先与PCP协商的情况下评估患者(76%)并进行初始治疗调整(71%)。一半的人希望被指定为电子病历中所有支持团队记录的共同签署人,一半的人希望收到简短而重点突出的信息而非关于其患者的详细信息,还有一半的人希望其执业护士自动纳入沟通范围。小组规模与对关于患者的简短、切中要害的讨论的偏好密切相关(p<0.001)。

结论

PCP沟通偏好的显著差异表明,在设计和实施协作干预时需要了解这些偏好。需要进一步的研究来理解临床医生和实践特征与互动偏好之间的关系。