• 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

DOI:10.3310/hsdr07010
PMID:30668065
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Community hospitals have been part of England’s health-care landscape since the mid-nineteenth century. Evidence on them has not kept pace with their development.

AIM

To provide a comprehensive analysis of the profile, characteristics, patient experience and community value of community hospitals.

DESIGN

A multimethod study with three phases. Phase 1 involved national mapping and the construction of a new database of community hospitals through data set reconciliation and verification. Phase 2 involved nine case studies, including interviews and focus groups with patients ( = 60), carers ( = 28), staff ( = 132), volunteers ( = 68), community stakeholders ( = 74) and managers and commissioners ( = 9). Phase 3 involved analysis of Charity Commission data on voluntary support.

SETTING

Community hospitals in England.

RESULTS

The study identified 296 community hospitals with beds in England. Typically, the hospitals were small (< 30 beds), in rural communities, led by doctors/general practitioners (GPs) and nurses, without 24/7 on-site medical cover and provided step-down and step-up inpatient care, with an average length of stay of < 30 days and a variable range of intermediate care services. Key to patients’ and carers’ experiences of community hospitals was their closeness to ‘home’ through their physical location, environment and atmosphere and the relationships that they support; their provision of personalised, holistic care; and their role in supporting patients through difficult psychological transitions. Communities engage with and support their hospitals through giving time (average 24 volunteers), raising money (median voluntary income £15,632), providing services (voluntary and community groups) and giving voice (e.g. taking part in communication and consultation). This can contribute to hospital utilisation and sustainability, patient experience, staff morale and volunteer well-being. Engagement varies between and within communities and over time. Community hospitals are important community assets, representing direct and indirect value: instrumental (e.g. health care), economic (e.g. employment), human (e.g. skills development), social (e.g. networks), cultural (e.g. identity and belonging) and symbolic (e.g. vitality and security). Value varies depending on place and time.

LIMITATIONS

There were limitations to the secondary data available for mapping community hospitals and tracking charitable funds and to the sample of case study respondents, which concentrated on people with a connection to the hospitals.

CONCLUSIONS

Community hospitals are diverse but are united by a set of common characteristics. Patients and carers experience community hospitals as qualitatively different from other settings. Their accounts highlight the importance of considering the functional, interpersonal, social and psychological dimensions of experience. Community hospitals are highly valued by their local communities, as demonstrated through their active involvement as volunteers and donors. Community hospitals enable the provision of local intermediate care services, delivered through an embedded, relational model of care, which generates deep feelings of reassurance. However, current developments may undermine this, including the withdrawal of GPs, shifts towards step-down care for non-local patients and changing configurations of services, providers and ownership.

FUTURE WORK

Comparative studies of patient experience in different settings; longitudinal studies of community support and value; studies into the implications of changes in community hospital function, GP involvement, provider-mix and ownership; and international comparative studies could all be undertaken.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

摘要

相似文献

1
2
Communities as 'renewable energy' for healthcare services? a multimethods study into the form, scale and role of voluntary support for community hospitals in England.社区是否能成为医疗服务的“可再生能源”?对英格兰社区医院中志愿支持的形式、规模和作用的多方法研究。
BMJ Open. 2019 Oct 7;9(10):e030243. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-030243.
3
Exploring voluntary sector specialist services for victim-survivors of sexual violence in England: the PROSPER co-production study.探索英格兰为性暴力受害者幸存者提供的志愿部门专业服务:PROSPER联合制作研究
Health Soc Care Deliv Res. 2025 Apr;13(10):1-104. doi: 10.3310/WWKT3077.
4
Consequences of how third sector organisations are commissioned in the NHS and local authorities in England: a mixed-methods study.英格兰国民保健制度和地方当局委托第三部门组织的后果:混合方法研究。
Health Soc Care Deliv Res. 2024 Oct;12(39):1-180. doi: 10.3310/NTDT7965.
5
Lessons from a research partnership in southwest England to understand community palliative care needs in rural, coastal and low-income communities.英格兰西南部一项研究合作项目的经验教训,旨在了解农村、沿海和低收入社区的社区姑息治疗需求。
Public Health Res (Southampt). 2024 Feb 28:1-40. doi: 10.3310/ATFA4287.
6
Understanding and addressing factors affecting carers' mental health during end-of-life caregiving: synopsis of meta synthesis of literature and stakeholder collaboration.理解并应对临终护理期间影响照料者心理健康的因素:文献综合分析与利益相关者合作概述
Health Soc Care Deliv Res. 2025 Feb;13(8):1-27. doi: 10.3310/RTHW8493.
7
A rapid mixed-methods evaluation of remote home monitoring models during the COVID-19 pandemic in England.英格兰 COVID-19 大流行期间远程家庭监护模式的快速混合方法评估。
Health Soc Care Deliv Res. 2023 Jul;11(13):1-151. doi: 10.3310/FVQW4410.
8
Women's Health Hubs: a rapid mixed-methods evaluation.妇女健康中心:快速混合方法评估。
Health Soc Care Deliv Res. 2024 Sep;12(30):1-138. doi: 10.3310/JYFT5036.
9
Reducing unplanned hospital admissions from care homes: a systematic review.减少养老院的非计划性住院:系统评价。
Health Soc Care Deliv Res. 2023 Oct;11(18):1-130. doi: 10.3310/KLPW6338.
10
Impact of summer programmes on the outcomes of disadvantaged or 'at risk' young people: A systematic review.暑期项目对处境不利或“有风险”的年轻人的影响:一项系统综述。
Campbell Syst Rev. 2024 Jun 13;20(2):e1406. doi: 10.1002/cl2.1406. eCollection 2024 Jun.