↓ Skip to main content

An evaluation of a model for the systematic documentation of hospital based health promotion activities: results from a multicentre study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, September 2007
Altmetric Badge

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
56 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
An evaluation of a model for the systematic documentation of hospital based health promotion activities: results from a multicentre study
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, September 2007
DOI 10.1186/1472-6963-7-145
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hanne Tønnesen, Mette E Christensen, Oliver Groene, Ann O'Riordan, Fabrizio Simonelli, Lagle Suurorg, Denise Morris, Peder Vibe, Susan Himel, Poul Erik Hansen

Abstract

The first step of handling health promotion (HP) in Diagnosis Related Groups (DRGs) is a systematic documentation and registration of the activities in the medical records. So far the possibility and tradition for systematic registration of clinical HP activities in the medical records and in patient administrative systems have been sparse. Therefore, the activities are mostly invisible in the registers of hospital services as well as in budgets and balances.A simple model has been described to structure the registration of the HP procedures performed by the clinical staff. The model consists of two parts; first part includes motivational counselling (7 codes) and the second part comprehends intervention, rehabilitation and after treatment (8 codes).The objective was to evaluate in an international study the usefulness, applicability and sufficiency of a simple model for the systematic registration of clinical HP procedures in day life. The multi centre project was carried out in 19 departments/hospitals in 6 countries in a clinical setup. The study consisted of three parts in accordance with the objectives.A: Individual test. 20 consecutive medical records from each participating department/hospital were coded by the (coding) specialists at local department/hospital, exclusively (n = 5,529 of 5,700 possible tests in total).B: Common test. 14 standardized medical records were coded by all the specialists from 17 departments/hospitals, who returned 3,046 of 3,570 tests.C: Specialist evaluation. The specialists from the 19 departments/hospitals evaluated if the codes were useful, applicable and sufficient for the registration in their own department/hospital (239 of 285). A: In 97 to 100% of the local patient pathways the specialists were able to evaluate if there was documentation of HP activities in the medical record to be coded.B: Inter rater reliability on the use of the codes were 93% (57 to 100%) and 71% (31 to 100%), respectively.C: The majority of the study participants found the codes to be useful (71%), applicable (92%) and sufficient (92%). Systematic registration of HP activities is relevant in clinical day life and the suggested codes proved to be applicable for international use. HP is an essential part of the clinical pathway or the value chain. This model promises to improve the documentation and thereby facilitate analysis of records for evidence based medicine as well as cost and policy analyses.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 4%
Spain 2 4%
Iran, Islamic Republic of 1 2%
United Kingdom 1 2%
Denmark 1 2%
Unknown 49 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 25%
Researcher 9 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 13%
Other 6 11%
Student > Bachelor 3 5%
Other 9 16%
Unknown 8 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 36%
Social Sciences 8 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 7%
Computer Science 2 4%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 10 18%