scholarly journals Editorial

2007 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 498
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Care Management ◽  
Models Of Care ◽  
Care Model ◽  
The Public ◽  
Australian Health ◽  
Care Models ◽  
Effectiveness And Efficiency ◽  
Regular Section ◽  
Health Review

THIS IS THE FOURTH ISSUE of Australian Health Review which has featured a ?Models of Care? section; now a regular section of the Journal. As 2007 draws to a close, the breadth of formalised care models (such as self-care management, case management and disease management) being implemented in the Australian health care system continues to be publicised. The number of Australian studies which evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of care model interventions is increasing. Being the optimist, I predict that the rate of publication of these studies will also increase. This is fundamental because the value of any intervention needs carefully constructed evaluation that enables results to be debated by experts in the public domain.

scholarly journals Editorial

2007 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 172
Author(s):  
Deborah Yarmo-Roberts
Keyword(s):  
Case Management ◽  
Models Of Care ◽  
Chronic Illnesses ◽  
Original Research ◽  
Australian Health ◽  
Care Models ◽  
Research Findings ◽  
System 2 ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Health Review

THE INTENT OF the ?Models of Care? section is to provide quality articles relating to a range of models of care. It is also a forum for presenting original research findings, debate and discussion in this area. As this issue of Australian Health Review features the theme of meeting needs for ongoing care, there are a plethora of care models claiming to be the panacea to effectively treat clients with chronic illnesses and conditions. Many articles conclude that care models (such as case management, disease management, chronic condition self-management and others) assist clients in receiving the level of care they need, when they need it, and where they want it. Yet there is mixed evidence on the impact of ?models of care?, and searching available peerreviewed literature is not straightforward. For example, some recent studies evaluating case management have found reduction in the risk of institutionalisation1 while others have found that case management makes no difference and costs more for the system.2

scholarly journals Models of Care for Chronic Pain

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (6) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kendra Brett ◽  
Danielle MacDougall
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Chronic Pain ◽  
Models Of Care ◽  
Stepped Care ◽  
Care Utilization ◽  
Care Model ◽  
Hub And Spoke ◽  
Delivery Of Care ◽  
Care Models ◽  
Oncology Care

For chronic pain, 1 hub-and-spoke model and 4 stepped care models for the delivery of care in Canada and internationally were identified and described. No information was found on the use of the Oncology Care Model for chronic pain. For other medical conditions, 9 stepped care models, 5 hub-and-spoke models, and the Oncology Care Model for the delivery of care in Canada and internationally were identified and described. Patient-related outcomes used to evaluate the effectiveness of models of care for chronic pain include pain measures (e.g., intensity, duration), psychosocial outcomes (e.g., anxiety, depression), functional outcomes (e.g., disability, employment status), and health care utilization (e.g., opioid prescriptions, health care visits). Various barriers and facilitators to providing care for patients with chronic pain were identified in the consultations and the literature. The most common factors that influenced the care provided to patients with chronic pain pertained to funding, support, and collaboration from the government and locally; having a centralized intake and referral system; and leveraging existing resources. There appears to be considerable variation in the models of care used to address the care needs of patients with chronic pain. In Canada, there are provincial, regional, and local models, and local programs; some regions do not have a formalized approach for the provision of care for chronic pain patients.

Australian Health Review call for papers

2007 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 7
Author(s):  
Sandra G Leggat
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Information Management ◽  
Information And Communication Technologies ◽  
Care Delivery ◽  
Communication Technologies ◽  
Australian Health ◽  
Information And Communication ◽  
The Right ◽  
Health Review

Technology in health care: are we delivering on the promise? Australian Health Review invites contributions for an upcoming issue on information management and information and communication technology in health care. Submission deadline: 15 May 2007 Despite a reputation for less spending on information and communication technologies (ICT), the health care sector has an imperative to ensure the ?right? information has been made available and accessible to the ?right? person at the ?right? time. While there is increasing evidence that the strategic application of ICT in innovative ways can improve the effectiveness of health care delivery, we don?t often discuss the substantial changes to the way health care organisations operate that are required for best practice information management. In an upcoming issue, Australian Health Review is looking to publish feature articles, research papers, case studies and commentaries related to information management and information and communication technologies in health care. We are particularly interested in papers that report on the successes, or failures, of initiatives in Australia and New Zealand that have brought together the research, the technology and the clinical, managerial and organisational expertise. Submissions related to international initiatives with lessons for Australia and New Zealand will also be welcomed. Submissions can be short commentaries of 1000 to 2000 words, or more comprehensive reviews of 2000 to 4000 words. Please consult the AHR Guidelines for Authors for information on formatting and submission. The deadline for submission is 15 May 2007.

scholarly journals Policy Research Challenges in Comparing Care Models for Dual-Eligible Beneficiaries

2017 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 72-83 ◽  
Author(s):  
Janet H. Van Cleave ◽  
Brian L. Egleston ◽  
Sarah Brosch ◽  
Elizabeth Wirth ◽  
Molly Lawson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Integrated Care ◽  
Exploratory Study ◽  
Coordinated Care ◽  
Care Model ◽  
Community Based ◽  
Research Challenges ◽  
Care Models ◽  
Dual Eligible ◽  
Community Based Services

Providing affordable, high-quality care for the 10 million persons who are dual-eligible beneficiaries of Medicare and Medicaid is an ongoing health-care policy challenge in the United States. However, the workforce and the care provided to dual-eligible beneficiaries are understudied. The purpose of this article is to provide a narrative of the challenges and lessons learned from an exploratory study in the use of clinical and administrative data to compare the workforce of two care models that deliver home- and community-based services to dual-eligible beneficiaries. The research challenges that the study team encountered were as follows: (a) comparing different care models, (b) standardizing data across care models, and (c) comparing patterns of health-care utilization. The methods used to meet these challenges included expert opinion to classify data and summative content analysis to compare and count data. Using descriptive statistics, a summary comparison of the two care models suggested that the coordinated care model workforce provided significantly greater hours of care per recipient than the integrated care model workforce. This likely represented the coordinated care model's focus on providing in-home services for one recipient, whereas the integrated care model focused on providing services in a day center with group activities. The lesson learned from this exploratory study is the need for standardized quality measures across home- and community-based services agencies to determine the workforce that best meets the needs of dual-eligible beneficiaries.

scholarly journals AHR Moving forward

2009 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
pp. 532
Author(s):  
Sandra G Leggat
Keyword(s):  
Health Policy ◽  
Models Of Care ◽  
Service Utilisation ◽  
Australian Health ◽  
Scholarly Publications ◽  
Student Paper ◽  
The Future ◽  
Medical Publishing ◽  
Health Review

It is with growing sadness (but with expectations of time for some new activities in my life) that I announce that this is my final issue as editor of Australian Health Review (AHR). The new editor, Dr Gary Day from Griffith University in Queensland, is well suited to take over, with continued support from Dr Deborah Roberts, the Models of Care editor, and from the Editorial Board. Australian Health Review is over 30 years old and has achieved growing recognition both nationally and internationally. It has been a pleasure to have contributed to this excellent journal. The landscape of Australian health policy and management journals has changed over the past few years and further changes, to better meet the needs of authors and readers, are in store for AHR in 2010 and beyond. Over my tenure as editor, with much assistance from Professor Judith Dwyer, Dr Deborah Roberts, Dr Gary Day, Prue Power and the Editorial Board, and the publishing team at the Australasian Medical Publishing Company, we have achieved many milestones. Amalgamation of AHR with other journals will continue to strengthen the Australian presence in international scholarly publications. The online manuscript service has proved an efficient and effective mechanism for authors, reviewers and editors. The number of papers submitted for consideration has continued to grow, with over 100 papers submitted each year, of which about 60% are published. This large number of papers has meant that I am enormously grateful to the AHR reviewers. The 2009 reviewers are acknowledged in this issue (page 696). Thank you for volunteering your precious time to this most important task. The large number of papers has also meant that the page numbers of each issue have crept up to try to ensure authors do not have to wait too long to see their work in print. This year we established the Australian Health Review student paper awards, and in this issue we have published the undergraduate (page 541) and postgraduate (page 549) student award papers. Please ensure you read these excellent papers by Australian students. We have had an impressive set of guest editors who demonstrate the importance of AHR in Australian health policy and management and who enabled the journal to present at the forefront of key developments in these areas. This issue has a wide variety of papers on topics such as health information, health service utilisation, models of care, public health, quality and safety and workforce ? areas of critical importance for health policy and management now and into the future. Best wishes for the future. Signing off now, Sandra G Leggat, Editor Australian Health Review.

scholarly journals "Models of Care" — a new section in Australian Health Review

2007 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 8
Author(s):  
Deborah Yarmo-Roberts
Keyword(s):  
Health Care Systems ◽  
The United States ◽  
Models Of Care ◽  
Model Of Care ◽  
Kaiser Permanente ◽  
Australian Health ◽  
Department Of Health ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Care Systems ◽  
Health Review

HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS in Australia and abroad encompass multiple ?models of care?. While diversity is inevitable, the models of care can be contradictory and controversial. International influences are acknowledged. From a policy perspective, the Department of Health in the United Kingdom has issued a number of documents outlining models of care that are being trialled or mainstreamed. These include an NHS (National Health Service) and social care model and a chronic disease management model.1,2 These models are based on a version of a health insurer model of care from the United States that originated with Kaiser Permanente.

scholarly journals Australian Health Review call for papers

2007 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 331
Author(s):  
Sandra G Leggat
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Case Studies ◽  
Service Management ◽  
Policy Decision ◽  
Models Of Care ◽  
Model Of Care ◽  
Australian Health ◽  
Policy Decision Making ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Health Review

Models of care: do they make the difference? Australian Health Review invites contributions for the models of care section of the journal. This is a regular section and we welcome ongoing article submissions. Health care is delivered in countless ways for those who have debilitating illnesses or conditions. Stakeholders boast that it is the particular ?model of care? that makes the positive difference to patients and clients ? but, it has been difficult to ascertain the true impact of models of care on patient/client or system outcomes. To assist in clarifying this important area for health service management and policy decision making, we are looking for articles on case studies or research projects that suggest either positive or negative outcomes for specific models of care. Australian Health Review is looking to publish feature articles, research papers, case studies and commentaries related to your experience with specific models of care. We are particularly interested in papers that measure the model's effectiveness at a system, organisation and/or client level. Australian and New Zealand submissions are welcome, as well as international initiatives with lessons for Australia and New Zealand. Submissions can be short commentaries of 1000 to 2000 words, or more comprehensive reviews of 2000 to 4000 words. Please consult the AHR Guidelines for Authors for information on formatting and submission.

scholarly journals Mind the gap

2006 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 416
Author(s):  
Sandra G Leggat
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Health Policy ◽  
Policy Development ◽  
Management Practice ◽  
Research And Practice ◽  
Australian Health ◽  
Development And Management ◽  
Health Review

In this issue of Australian Health Review, the contributing authors explore the issues associated with their attempts to bridge the well recognised gap between research and practice in health policy and management. We have heard that it took nearly 200 years from the time that a cure was found for scurvy to the time when the new practices were adopted by the British navy.1 Perhaps the timeframes are not as long, but there still appears to be little evidence of research informing policy development and management practice in health care. There have been discussions over many years in many disciplines on the most appropriate ways to bridge this gap.

Models of Care

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tyson Sawchuk ◽  
Joan K. Austin ◽  
Debbie Terry
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Health Care Services ◽  
Care Delivery ◽  
Hospital Setting ◽  
Models Of Care ◽  
Stepped Care ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Care Approach ◽  
Centered Care ◽  
Care Models

This chapter addresses common barriers to care delivery in psychogenic nonepileptic seizures (PNES) and limitations of current approaches. Theoretical and practical considerations in delivering PNES care are discussed. These include a stepped-care approach, which offers a strategy for efficiently managing health care resources and has promise in treatment of PNES. Patient-centered care, a general approach to providing health care services in a manner that takes into consideration the patients’ expressed needs, desires, and preferences, is also considered. Examples of care models are presented, including a pediatric model for PNES recently developed and being tested in a Canadian hospital setting. Future directions for the development of care models in PNES are discussed and a list of recommendations is provided.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document