BACKGROUND: Community-based mental healthcare (CBMH) aims at supplying psychiatric patients with rehabilitative care outside the hospital. The aim of this study was to compare the organization of CBMH in a cross-border region of Germany and the Netherlands. METHOD: Semi-structured interviews gave insight into characteristics of CBMH approaches applied in the German region of Aachen (IHP) and the Dutch Province of Limburg (FACT). We applied a Delphi technique to select a performance indicator (PI) set for CBMH, which served as a conceptual model to allow comparison. RESULTS: Both approaches are flexible, patient-centred and include the evaluation of quality. Both provide financial and administrative support for the access. CONCLUSION: CBMH approaches appear to be equally valid from several perspectives even if they revealed, at the same time, important differences related to scope, integration with non-CBMH care resources and geographic coverage. Secondarily, the study provides a contribution to the development of a PI set to compare and evaluate CBMH approaches.
Lohmeyer, F., Commers, M., Leoncini, E., Specchia, M. L., Boccia, S., Ricciardi, W., De Belvis, A., Community-based Mental Healthcare: A Case Study in a Cross-border Region of Germany and the Netherlands, <<GESUNDHEITSWESEN>>, 2018; (/): /-/. [doi:10.1055/a-0664-0579] [http://hdl.handle.net/10807/130392]
Community-based Mental Healthcare: A Case Study in a Cross-border Region of Germany and the Netherlands
Leoncini, Emanuele;Specchia, Maria Lucia;Boccia, Stefania;Ricciardi, Walter;De Belvis, Antonio
2018
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Community-based mental healthcare (CBMH) aims at supplying psychiatric patients with rehabilitative care outside the hospital. The aim of this study was to compare the organization of CBMH in a cross-border region of Germany and the Netherlands. METHOD: Semi-structured interviews gave insight into characteristics of CBMH approaches applied in the German region of Aachen (IHP) and the Dutch Province of Limburg (FACT). We applied a Delphi technique to select a performance indicator (PI) set for CBMH, which served as a conceptual model to allow comparison. RESULTS: Both approaches are flexible, patient-centred and include the evaluation of quality. Both provide financial and administrative support for the access. CONCLUSION: CBMH approaches appear to be equally valid from several perspectives even if they revealed, at the same time, important differences related to scope, integration with non-CBMH care resources and geographic coverage. Secondarily, the study provides a contribution to the development of a PI set to compare and evaluate CBMH approaches.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.