Helge GarÃ¥sen The Trondheim Model - NSDM

More documents

Recommendations

Info

170. Robinson T, White GL, Houchins JC. Improving Communication With Older Patients: Tips From the Literature. Family Practice Management 2006;13:73-8. 171. Clarke M, Clarke S, Jagger C. Social intervention and the elderly: a randomized controlled trial. American Journal of Epidemiology 1992; 136:1517-1523. 172. Coulter A. shifting the balance from secondary to primary care. Editorial. BMJ 1995;311:1447-1448 173. Campion EW. Specialized Care for Elderly Patients. NEJM 2002;346:874-5. 174. Jiwa M, Coleman M, McKinley RK. Measuring the quality of referral letters about patients with upper gastrointestinal symptoms. Postgraduate Medical Journal. 2005;81:467-469. 175. Core Electronic Health Record (CEHR). Utviklingsprosjekt i <strong>Trondheim</strong> kommune på oppdrag for SHdir (S@mspill2007).[In Norwegian]. [http://www.kith.no/templates/kith_WebPage____2020.aspx] (05.05.2007), 176. Melis RJF, Rikkert MGMO, Parker SG, van Eijken MIJ. What is intermediate care? BMJ 2004;329:360-1. 96
10.0. Appendices 10.1 VAS for referral letters. Study I VURDERING AV INNLEGGELSESSKRIV FOR PASIENT NR . 1. Formålet ved innleggelsen Klart formulert problemstilling 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 dårlig god Grunnlag for valg av avdeling på RiT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 intet god Grunnlag for valg av behandling/utredning 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 intet god 2. Tilstrekkelige opplysninger om somatiske forhold i innleggelsesskrivet Sykehistorie 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 dårlig god Aktuell situasjon 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 dårlig god Symptomer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 dårlig god Funn 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Supplerende undersøkelser 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 dårlig god Faste medisiner 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 dårlig god Funksjonsnivå 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 dårlig god 3. Tilstrekkelig informasjon om nettverk Boforhold Ja Nei Ingen informasjon Familie Ja Nei Ingen informasjon Aktivitetsnivå Ja Nei Ingen informasjon Omsorgstjenester Ja Nei Ingen informasjon Angitt fastlege Ja Nei Ingen informasjon 97
Page 1 and 2:
Helge Garåsen The Trondheim Model
Page 3 and 4:
Trondheimsmodellen Forbedring av ko
Page 5 and 6:
Table of content Summary...........
Page 7 and 8:
Summary Study I Background Optimal
Page 9 and 10:
(p=0.003), and mean difference in c
Page 11 and 12:
Studie II Bakgrunn Formålet med st
Page 13 and 14:
Acknowledgments These studies were
Page 15 and 16:
List of papers The thesis is based
Page 17 and 18:
1.0 Introduction 1.1 Are older pati
Page 19 and 20:
documented the benefits of using mu
Page 21 and 22:
When composing an expert panel, it
Page 23 and 24:
1.8 Are there any alternatives to g
Page 25 and 26:
In the publication Scenario 2030 th
Page 27 and 28:
trust between the patient and healt
Page 29 and 30:
structured communication formulas (
Page 31 and 32:
predicted increases in per capita h
Page 33 and 34:
A study in Denmark has shown that a
Page 35 and 36:
general hospital care. One of the c
Page 37 and 38:
the municipalities of Trondheim and
Page 39 and 40:
As the study in question dealt with
Page 41 and 42:
quality of life and/or life expecta
Page 43 and 44:
4.2.0 Study population Study II - I
Page 45 and 46: All data was collected by the autho
Page 47 and 48: An important task was to write disc
Page 49 and 50: to the community health system, and
Page 51 and 52: to information about the health car
Page 53 and 54: 2004 and 2005. This solution was us
Page 55 and 56: 100 % said they were treated with r
Page 57 and 58: compared between groups using covar
Page 59 and 60: care and need for long-term nursing
Page 61 and 62: 6.1 Study I - the panel study 6.1.1
Page 63 and 64: e difficult for only one profession
Page 65 and 66: there were eleven cases with zero a
Page 67 and 68: trial. Participating departments at
Page 69 and 70: circumstances, successful diagnoses
Page 71 and 72: 6.4 Costs 6.4.1. Cost assessments E
Page 73 and 74: workers, physiotherapists, occupati
Page 75 and 76: The good results shown in several s
Page 77 and 78: 6.8 Discussion of the results 6.8.1
Page 79 and 80: to be increased with more than 99 %
Page 81 and 82: In study I all patient data was han
Page 83 and 84: Main conclusions study II: 1. Care
Page 85 and 86: 12. Slaets JP, Kaufmann RH, Duivnvo
Page 87 and 88: 40. Jakobsen G. Specialised palliat
Page 89 and 90: 69. Ramrakha S, Giles A: Take a let
Page 91 and 92: 98. Kvamme OJ. Samarbeid mellom leg
Page 93 and 94: 127. Krummenauer F. Differenzenplot
Page 95: 157. Kaplan RM. The significance of
Page 99 and 100: 10.2 VAS for discharge letters. Stu
Page 101 and 102: 10.3 Criteria for inclusion. Study
Page 103 and 104: 10.4 Procedures for including patie
Page 105 and 106: Behov for følge av sykepleier / hj
Page 107 and 108: 10.6 Consent formula. Study II SAMT
Page 109 and 110: Recruitment 14 Dates defining the p
Page 111 and 112: Personlig hygiene Ja Av og til Nei
Page 113 and 114: eller andre steder der personen van
Page 115 and 116: Ikke med i pleietyngdegrunnlaget i
Page 117 and 118: Tjenester IPLOS Lov om sosiale tjen
Page 119: 11.0 Original papers I-IV 119
Page 123 and 124: BMC Health Services Research BioMed
Page 125 and 126: BMC Health Services Research 2007,
Page 127 and 128: BMC Health Services Research 2007,
Page 129: BMC Health Services Research 2007,
Page 133 and 134: BMC Public Health BioMed Central Re
Page 135 and 136: BMC Public Health 2007, 7:68 http:/
Page 141: BMC Public Health 2007, 7:68 http:/
Page 145 and 146: Medisin og vitenskap Originalartikk
Page 147:
Originalartikkel MEDISIN OG VITENSK
Page 151 and 152:
Scandinavian Journal of Public Heal
Page 153 and 154:
Dissertations at the Faculty of Med
Page 155 and 156:
68. Trond Sand: THE EFFECTS OF CLIC
Page 157 and 158:
139. Fabio Antonaci: CHRONIC PAROXY
Page 159 and 160:
198. Nanna Kurtze: THE SIGNIFICANCE
Page 161 and 162:
251. Aslak Steinsbekk: HOMEOPATHY I
Page 163 and 164:
305. Elisabeth Olstad: GLUTAMATE AN
show all

Helge GarÃ¥sen The Trondheim Model - NSDM

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?