Multi-disciplinary psychiatric case management model in Hong Kong: Service coverage and risk stratification

Introduction: Community mental health services in Hong Kong follow a multi-disciplinary case management model. We investigated whether at-risk patients received higher intensity care and whether risk stratification concorded between personalised care programmes and integrated community centres of me...

Full description

Saved in:

Bibliographic Details
Published in:	East Asian archives of psychiatry Vol. 30; no. 1; pp. 12 - 19
Main Authors:	Lee, C C, Chui, W W H, Wong, S L, Wong, T C B, Lau, S P F, Kwong, P K, Hung, S F, Yau, S S W
Format:	Journal Article
Language:	English
Published:	Hong Kong Hong Kong College of Psychiatrists 01-03-2020 The Hong Kong College of Psychiatrists Ltd Hong Kong Academy of Medicine
Subjects:	Case management Case reports Child & adolescent psychiatry Community mental health services Endorsements Health aspects Health services Hospitals Intensive care Management Medical research Mental disorders Mental health Mental health care Mental health services Mental illness Patients Psychiatric hospital patients Psychiatric hospitals Psychopathology Public health Risk assessment Risk factors Social aspects Suicides & suicide attempts Violence Hong Kong Hong Kong China China Mental disorders Community mental health services
Online Access:	Get full text
Tags:	Add Tag No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!

Description
Summary:	Introduction: Community mental health services in Hong Kong follow a multi-disciplinary case management model. We investigated whether at-risk patients received higher intensity care and whether risk stratification concorded between personalised care programmes and integrated community centres of mental wellness. Methods: Records of all patients in North Lantau and Mongkok districts who received case management services (from personalised care programmes and/or integrated community centres of mental wellness) between 1 April 2014 and 30 June 2015 were reviewed. Patients' levels of risk, demographic data, and clinical characteristics were analysed. Results: Identified at-risk patients received high-intensity care from personalised care programmes and integrated community centres of mental wellness. Case management was coordinated between the Hospital Authority and non-government organisations. However, risk stratification did not correlate with assessment rating scores of psychopathology or psychosocial functioning. Assessment rating scales appear unsuitable to provide any optimal cut-off scores for risk stratification. Conclusions: Risk stratification should be a structured clinical judgement based on comprehensive and accurate information of protective and risk factors, rather than relying on cut-off scores of assessment rating scales.
Bibliography:	Informit, Melbourne (Vic) East Asian Archives of Psychiatry, Vol. 30, No. 1, Mar 2020, 12-19 ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 23
ISSN:	2078-9947 2224-7041
DOI:	10.12809/eaap1848