Slade M, Phelan M, Thornicroft G, Parkman S
PRiSM (Psychiatric Research in Service Measurement) Institute of Psychiatry, London, UK.
Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 1996 Jun;31(3-4):109-13. doi: 10.1007/BF00785756.
The association between the assessment of need by staff and by severely mentally ill patients was examined using a new needs assessment instrument, the Camberwell Assessment of Need (CAN). In all, 49 staff patient pairs were interviewed separately using the CAN as part of a larger reliability study. For each of 22 areas of need, we assessed agreement on (1) the presence of need, (2) the informal and formal help currently being given, (3) the formal help needed and (4) satisfaction with the type of help being received. Staff and patients rated a similar number of needs, but not in the same areas. There was better agreement between staff and patients regarding needs that have a specific service intervention. Agreement between staff and patient ratings of help received, help given and service satisfaction was low. We concluded that needs are very often assessed differently by staff and patients, which has implications for how needs are assessed in clinical practice.
使用一种新的需求评估工具——坎伯韦尔需求评估量表(CAN),对工作人员和重症精神病患者所做的需求评估之间的关联进行了研究。作为一项更大规模信度研究的一部分,总共49对工作人员与患者分别使用CAN接受了访谈。对于22个需求领域中的每一个,我们评估了在以下方面的一致性:(1)需求的存在;(2)当前正在提供的非正式和正式帮助;(3)所需的正式帮助;(4)对所接受帮助类型的满意度。工作人员和患者评定的需求数量相近,但涉及的领域不同。对于有特定服务干预的需求,工作人员和患者之间的一致性更好。工作人员与患者在接受帮助、提供帮助和服务满意度评分方面的一致性较低。我们得出结论,工作人员和患者对需求的评估往往差异很大,这对临床实践中需求的评估方式有影响。