2224 research outputs found
Sort by
Unidades de cuidados intensivos versus nao intensivos em patologia cerebrovascular
No full textinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio
The European Consultation-Liaison Workgroup (ECLW) Collaborative Study. I. General outline.
Full text linkPrevious C-L psychiatric service research is seriously limited by its parochial nature; very few results can be generalized outside of the hospital in which the original study was performed because of differences in the nature of the hospital and the type of C-L service. This article presents the general outline and methodology of a European multicentered C-L service delivery study effected by the European Consultation-Liaison Workgroup for General Hospital Psychiatry and Psychosomatics (ECLW). The study is unique in its kind as it allows the comparison of very different C-L services; for example, some services are run by C-L psychiatrists, others are run by C-L psychosomaticists and the study encompasses a large variety of different settings. As a result, both common factors in C-L service delivery and specific local patterns can be explored. The overall hypothesis tested in this study was that the most developed services would see (as well as more patients) a wider variety of clinical problems than small services. The implication is that the absence of well-developed C-L services in a general hospital may mean that there are patients with unmet mental health needs. In separate articles the training and reliability testing of the new Patient Registration Form (PRF) and the Institutional and Provider characteristics will be described. The former includes the use of ICD-10 in the general hospital setting. This study is a collaborative effort made by 226 consultants from 56 psychiatric C-L services in 11 countries. Each consultant recorded details of 1 year's caseload leading to a thorough description of 14,717 patients collected between 1991 and 1993. The advanced methodology included a multicentered international approach, rigid training for all participating consultants, and the development and testing of new instruments. This will allow us to assess the impact of important structural and process variables on the outcome of C-L service delivery in several European countries. These results will be reported in papers both in the international and national literature of the participating countries
The ECLW Collaborative study II: patient registration form (PRF) instrument, training and reliability. European Consultation/Liaison Work group.
No full textThis paper describes the development and testing of the Patient Registration Form (PRF), a standardized instrument for the description of patients seen by consultation-liaison (C-L) psychiatrists and psychosomatists in general hospitals, the referral patterns, the C-L interventions and their outcomes. The PRF study is part of a large multi-centre. European investigation on the effectiveness of mental health service delivery, conducted by the European C-L Workgroup for General Hospital Psychiatry and Psychosomatics (ECLW) and performed in the framework of the of the E.C. 4th Medical and Health Research Program. The final version of the PRF consists of 68 items. It was developed by the Program Management Group (PMG) and National Coordinators (NC) after long preparatory studies to assure both face and content validity and pilot testing. Two hundred and twenty consultants, who required 40 hours of training and came from 14 different European countries and 90 different sites, participated in the final reliability study. The PRF was tested in 13 written case histories. A "gold standard' for the correct answers in each item was decided by "consensus ratings' of the PMG and a subsequent 80% agreement by the NCs. A high standard (average kappa (k) > or = 0.70; at least 2/3 of the PRF items, kappa > or = 0.70) was required for the rater to be considered as "reliable' (RR). The consultants considered the PRF both "feasible' and 93.2% of them fulfilled the RR criteria. The calculated rater-"gold standard' reliability was satisfactory: only four PRF items were identified with low agreement coefficients and no biases were observed cross-nationally in the ratings. Given the implications of misclassification for evaluating C-L effectiveness and services, these results are important and the achievement unprecedented
