Department of General Practice and Health Services Research, University of Zurich, University Hospital of Zurich, Sonneggstrasse 6, CH-8091 Zürich, Switzerland.
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2010 Oct 27;8:122. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-8-122.
In Switzerland the extent to which patients with chronic illnesses receive care congruent with the Chronic Care Model (CCM) is unknown.
According to guidelines we translated the Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (ACIC) into German (G-ACIC). We tested the instrument in different primary care settings and compared subscales with the original testing.
Difficulties encountered during the translation process consisted in the difference of health care settings in Switzerland and USA. However initial testing showed the G-ACIC to be a suitable instrument. The average ACIC subscale scores in Swiss managed care (MC)-, group (GP)- and single handed practices (SP) were higher for MC practices than for group- and single handed practices: Organization of the healthcare delivery system: MC mean (m) = 6.80 (SD 1.55), GP m = 5.42 (SD 0.99), SP m = 4.60 (SD 2.07); community linkages: MC m = 4.19 (SD 1.47), GP m = 4.83 (SD 1.81), SP m = 3.10 (SD 2.12); self-management support: MC m = 4.96 (SD 1.13), GP m = 4.73 (SD 1.40), SP m = 4.43 (SD 1.34); decision support: MC m = 4.75 (SD 1.06); GP m = 4.20 (SD 0.87), SP m = 3.25 (SD 1.59); delivery system design: MC m = 5.98 (SD 1.61), GP m = 5.05 (SD 2.05), SP m = 3.86 (SD 1.51) and clinical information systems: MC m = 4.34 (SD = 2.49), GP m = 2.06 (SD 1.35), SP m = 3.20 (SD 1.57).
The G-ACIC is applicable and useful for comparing different health care settings in German speaking countries. Managed care organizations seem to implement the different components of the CCM in a greater extend than group and single handed practices. However, much room exists for further improvement.
在瑞士，患有慢性病的患者接受与慢性病照护模式（CCM）相符的照护的程度尚不清楚。
根据指南，我们将慢性病照护评估（ACIC）翻译为德语（G-ACIC）。我们在不同的初级保健环境中对该工具进行了测试，并将子量表与原始测试进行了比较。
翻译过程中遇到的困难在于瑞士和美国的医疗保健环境存在差异。然而，初步测试表明 G-ACIC 是一种合适的工具。瑞士管理式医疗（MC）、全科医生（GP）和单人执业（SP）实践中的平均 ACIC 子量表评分，MC 实践的评分高于 GP 和 SP 实践：医疗提供系统的组织：MC 平均值（m）=6.80（SD 1.55），GP m=5.42（SD 0.99），SP m=4.60（SD 2.07）；社区联系：MC m=4.19（SD 1.47），GP m=4.83（SD 1.81），SP m=3.10（SD 2.12）；自我管理支持：MC m=4.96（SD 1.13），GP m=4.73（SD 1.40），SP m=4.43（SD 1.34）；决策支持：MC m=4.75（SD 1.06）；GP m=4.20（SD 0.87），SP m=3.25（SD 1.59）；交付系统设计：MC m=5.98（SD 1.61），GP m=5.05（SD 2.05），SP m=3.86（SD 1.51）；临床信息系统：MC m=4.34（SD=2.49），GP m=2.06（SD 1.35），SP m=3.20（SD 1.57）。
G-ACIC 适用于比较德语国家的不同医疗保健环境，且具有实用性。管理式医疗组织似乎比 GP 和单人执业更广泛地实施 CCM 的不同组成部分。然而，仍有很大的改进空间。
