4.2 Article

Use of the Measure of Process of Care for families (MPOC-56) and service providers (MPOC-SP) to evaluate family-centred services in a paediatric disability setting

期刊

CHILD CARE HEALTH AND DEVELOPMENT
卷 32, 期 2, 页码 167-176

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2214.2006.00604.x

关键词

disability; family-centred service; paediatrics; service evaluation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The value of family-centred principles in paediatric professional caregiving services is widely acknowledged. However, the degree to which such services adhere to these principles is not well documented. Aim: To examine the perceptions of both families and service providers of the extent to which family-centred services were being implemented by a paediatric disability service provider and to pinpoint areas for improvement. Method: A sample of 158 families receiving services from the Cerebral Palsy Association of Western Australia completed the Measure of Processes of Care for families (MPOC-56) and 43 clinicians (most of them physiotherapists, speech pathologists and occupational therapists) completed the Measure of Processes of Care for service providers (MPOC-SP). Results: As in previous studies, the families rated 'respectful and supportive care' highest and 'providing general information' lowest. Clinicians rated 'showing interpersonal sensitivity' highest and 'providing general information' lowest. Analysis of individual items revealed that the following areas of family-centred services were in need of improvement: provision of general written information to families on a range of issues, continuity of care, greater involvement of the family in therapy and provision of more detailed information about therapy issues and provision of more general support to whole families. Conclusions: The MPOC tools have been found useful in enabling disability service providers to identify areas for improvement and move towards providing services that are more family centred.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据