ArticleIrish journal of medical science2022
A decade of service development: audit of service users' experience of a rural Psychiatry of Later Life (POLL) service.
Article in Irish journal of medical science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Service user involvement in mental health service commissioning, development and delivery: A systematic review of service level outcomes.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023Pooled it
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe HSE "Vision for change", national service plan and other policies emphasise the importance of incorporating the views of service users and carers in the design and delivery of mental health services.
aimsTo obtain the views of service users in relation to a rural POLL service. Compare our service to best practice and address issues identified. Repeat the audit cycle based on recommendations. METHODOLOGY: New referrals to the POLL service were identified, and a pseudo-anonymised audit tool questionnaire was posted to these patients after initially making a telephone contact and obtaining informed consent. Results were compared to standards set by our team based on local and national policies. We used Microsoft Excel and performed a thematic analysis of qualitative data in the fourth cycle. This audit has been repeated on four occasions: 2012, 2013, 2016 and 2019.
resultsMore than 90% of patients marked as being benefited by the POLL team. Overall, most positive responses pertained to supportive and professional staff, resolution of disease symptoms, psycho-education and attentive follow-up whereas negative responses were in relation to limited access to disabled parking spaces, perceived inadequate discharge planning and non-resolution of disease symptoms in few patients.
conclusionInvolving POLL patients in audit provided useful insights to improve the quality of service. We resolved the issue of disabled parking access and have developed a service information leaflet and a discharge leaflet. We intend to focus more on psychoeducation and discharge planning based on the results of the current cycle.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.