International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024
Evaluation of a Virtual Health Hub for People Experiencing Homelessness in Sydney, Australia: Ensuring Physical and Psychological Primary Health Care in Crisis Accommodation.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
O'Callaghan Cathy, Clenaghan Paul, Putra Alenda Dwiadila Matra, Haigh Fiona, Amanatidis Sue, Raffan Freya, Lynch Nicole, Barr Margo
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Individuals experiencing homelessness have higher rates of chronic disease and face challenges accessing primary care. Virtual health care can reduce health inequity but needs user acceptance. A virtual health hub (VHH) for people experiencing homelessness in Sydney provided virtual GP and psychologist care within a crisis accommodation service. This included nursing assistance.
METHOD: The VHH evaluation assessed the feasibility of the service specifically examining accessibility, efficiency, costs, technology, quality, and outcomes through attendance data, patient measures, stakeholder interviews, and case studies.
FINDINGS: Data indicated 40% client utilisation with high attendance for GPs and/or psychologists. All clients reported a high quality of care, appointment benefits, understanding clinicians, and treatment help, and that privacy was maintained. If the VHH was not available, one-third would not have sought treatment. The majority agreed that virtual care was the same or better than in-person care. Only a few experienced technical issues. Service provider interviews indicated the benefits of accessible and affordable care, perceived reduced hospital presentations, staff time saved, and reduced client costs. Limitations were the lack of physical examinations and lack of follow-up due to temporary accommodation. Strong stakeholder partnerships enabled implementation success.
CONCLUSIONS: The VHH service is feasible and replicable with on-site assistance and stakeholder commitment.
METHOD: The VHH evaluation assessed the feasibility of the service specifically examining accessibility, efficiency, costs, technology, quality, and outcomes through attendance data, patient measures, stakeholder interviews, and case studies.
FINDINGS: Data indicated 40% client utilisation with high attendance for GPs and/or psychologists. All clients reported a high quality of care, appointment benefits, understanding clinicians, and treatment help, and that privacy was maintained. If the VHH was not available, one-third would not have sought treatment. The majority agreed that virtual care was the same or better than in-person care. Only a few experienced technical issues. Service provider interviews indicated the benefits of accessible and affordable care, perceived reduced hospital presentations, staff time saved, and reduced client costs. Limitations were the lack of physical examinations and lack of follow-up due to temporary accommodation. Strong stakeholder partnerships enabled implementation success.
CONCLUSIONS: The VHH service is feasible and replicable with on-site assistance and stakeholder commitment.