Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
1.
Health Serv Insights ; 15: 11786329221134349, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2113814

ABSTRACT

An evaluation of accessibility, appropriateness, acceptability and efficiency of telephone consultations, implemented at Monash Health Refugee Health and Wellbeing (MH RHW) throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, was conducted. A convergent mix-methods design was used, with both patients (n = 50) and clinicians (n = 11) participating in a survey, and two focus groups (n = 14) involving clinicians being conducted. Service utilization data was sourced from the MH RHW database. During May to December 2020, 61% (n = 3012) of the consultations were conducted by telephone, 42% (n = 11) of these required interpreters in a 3-way conversation Most patients were satisfied with telephone as a medium for providing care and with the quality of telephone-based care. Similarly, clinicians considered telephone consultations to be an acceptable mode-of-care for most patients during the pandemic, however, expressed caution in relation to certain patient cohort. Finally, the provision of care by telephone was considered no more efficient than face-to-face service provision, as reflected in the time required for each consultation, with some clinicians reporting adverse workload outcomes. This study highlighted the benefits and challenges of telephone consultations from patient and clinician perspectives. It also highlighted the types of patients that may not be suited to telephone consultations. Overall, this study showed that telephone service delivery is a feasible option in providing care to people of refugee background and should be considered in future decisions as an ongoing Medicare (Australia's universal healthcare insurance scheme) billing item. However, clinical discretion should prevail in determining the most appropriate means of delivering care.

2.
Lancet Psychiatry ; 8(10): 929-936, 2021 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1415873

ABSTRACT

Informal (unpaid) carers are an integral part of all societies and the health and social care systems in the UK depend on them. Despite the valuable contributions and key worker status of informal carers, their lived experiences, wellbeing, and needs have been neglected during the COVID-19 pandemic. In this Health Policy, we bring together a broad range of clinicians, researchers, and people with lived experience as informal carers to share their thoughts on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on UK carers, many of whom have felt abandoned as services closed. We focus on the carers of children and young people and adults and older adults with mental health diagnoses, and carers of people with intellectual disability or neurodevelopmental conditions across different care settings over the lifespan. We provide policy recommendations with the aim of improving outcomes for all carers.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/psychology , Caregivers/psychology , Health Policy/legislation & jurisprudence , Health Services Needs and Demand/legislation & jurisprudence , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/virology , Caregivers/economics , Child , Child, Preschool , Female , Health Services Needs and Demand/trends , Humans , Intellectual Disability/epidemiology , Intellectual Disability/psychology , Life Change Events , Male , Mental Disorders/epidemiology , Mental Disorders/psychology , Morbidity/trends , Neurodevelopmental Disorders/epidemiology , Neurodevelopmental Disorders/psychology , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Social Support , United Kingdom/epidemiology , Young Adult
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL