請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件：
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/26161完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 鄭守夏 | |
| dc.contributor.author | Yen-Fei Hou | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 侯艷妃 | zh_TW |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-08T07:01:42Z | - |
| dc.date.copyright | 2009-09-16 | |
| dc.date.issued | 2009 | |
| dc.date.submitted | 2009-02-13 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | 英文部分
Bice TW, Boxerman SB: A quantitative measure of continuity of care. Med Care 1977, 1 A quantitative measure of continuity of care 5(4):347-349. Billings J. et al. Analysis of variation in hospital admission rates associated with area income in New York City. March 4. 1992 (Unpublished manuscript available from United Hospital Fund of New York City) Billings J, Anderson G, Newman L. Recent findings of preventable hospitalizations. Health Affairs 1996;15:239–49 Bindman AB, Grumbach K, Osmond D, et al. Preventable hospitalizations and access to health care. JAMA. 1995;274:305-311. Breslau N, Reeb KG: Continuity of care in a university-based practice. J Med Educ 1975, 50(10):965-969. Continutiy of care. Center to Improve Care of the Dying; http://wwwgwuedu/~cicd/toolkit/continhtm. Chen T J, Chou L F, Hwang SJ: Patterns of ambulatory care utilization in Taiwan. BMC Health Services Research 2006,6:54 Christakis DA, Mell L, Koepsell TD, Zimmerman FJ, Connell FA: Association of lower continuity of care with greater risk of emergency department use and hospitalization in children. Pediatrics 2001, 107(3):524-529. Dietrich AJ, Marton KI: Does continuous care from a physician make a difference? J Fam Pract 1982, 15(5):929-937. Ejlertsson G, Berg S: Continuity-of-care measures. An analytic and empirical comparison. Med Care 1984, 22(3):231-239. Ejlertsson G, Berg S: Continuity of care in health care teams. A comparison of continuity measures and organisational solutions. Scand J Prim Health Care 1985, 3(2):79-85. Eriksson EA: Continuity-of-care measures. Random assignment of patients to providers and the impact of utilization level. Med Care 1990, 28(2):180-190. Eriksson EA, Mattsson LG: Quantitative measurement of continuity of care. Measures in use and an alternative approach. Med Care 1983, 21(9):858-875. Falik M, Needleman J, wells BL, Korb J: Ambulatory are sensitive hospitalization and emergency visits: experiences of Medicaid patients using federally qualified health centers. Medical Care 2001,39(6):551-561 Freeman GK, Richards SC. How much personal care in four group practices? BMJ. 1990;301:1028-1030 Gill JM. Can hospitalizations be avoided by having regular souce of care? Fam Med. 1997;29:166-171. Gill JM, Mainous AG, 3rd: The role of provider continuity in preventing hospitalizations. Arch Fam Med 1998, 7(4):352-357. Hanninen J, Takala J, Keinanen-Kiukaanniemi S: Good continuity of care may improve quality of life in Type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2001, 51(1):21-27. Haggerty JL, Reid RJ, Freeman GK, Starfield BH, Adair CE, McKendry R: Continuity of care: a multidisciplinary review. BMJ 2003, 327(7425):1219-1221. HCUP Chronic Condition Indicator(CCI) [http://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/toolssofware/chronic/chronic.jsp.] Jee, S. H., & Cabana, M. D. (2006). Indices for continuity of care: a systematic review of the literature. Med Care Res Rev, 63(2), 158-188 Lambrew JM, DeFriese GH, Carey TS, Ricketts TC, Biddle AK. The effects of having a regular doctor on access to primary care. Med Care. 1996;34:138-151. Laditka, J.N., Laditka, S.B. & Mastanduno, M.P. (2003). Hospital Utilization for Ambulatory Care Sensitive Conditions: Health Outcome Disparities Associated with Race and Ethnicity. Social Science and Medicine, 57(8), 1429-1441. Mainous AG, 3rd, Gill JM: The importance of continuity of care in the likelihood of future hospitalization: is site of care equivalent to a primary clinician? Am J Public Health 1998, 88(10):1539-1541. Menec, V. H., Sirski, M., Attawar, D., & Katz, A. (2006). Does continuity of care with a family physician reduce hospitalizations among older adults? J Health Serv Res Policy, 11(4), 196-201. Nutting PA, Goodwin MA, Flocke SA, Zuzanski SJ, Stange KC. Continuity of primary care: to whom does it matter and when. Ann Fam Med 2003;1:149–55. O'Malley AS: Current evidence on the impact of continuity of care. Curr Opin Pediatr 2004, 16(6):693-699. O'Malley AS, Forrest CB: Continuity of care and delivery of ambulatory services to children in community health clinics. J Community Health 1996, 21(3):159-173. Mold JW, Fryer GE, Roberts AM. When do older patients chang primary care physicians？JABFP Nov-Dec 2004, 17(6):453-460. Pappas G, et al. Potentially avoidable hospitalizations: Inequalities in rates between US socioeconomic groups. American Journal of Public Health 1997;87(5), 811-816. Parchman ML, Culler S. Primary care physicians and avoidable hospitalizations. J Fam Pract. 1994;39:123-128. Parchman, M. L., Pugh, J. A., Noel, P. H., & Larme, A. C. (2002). Continuity of care, self-management behaviors, and glucose control in patients with type 2 diabetes. Med Care, 40(2), 137-144. Parker, J. D., & Schoendorf, K. C. (2000). Variation in hospital discharges for ambulatory care-sensitive conditions among children. Pediatrics, 106(4 Suppl), 942-948. Perrin EC, Newacheck P, Pless IB, Drotar D, Gortmaker SL, Leventhal J, Perrin JM, Stein RE, Walker DK, Weitzman M: Issues involved in the definition and classification of chronic health conditions. Pediatrics 1993, 91(4):787-793. Reid RJ HJ, McKendry R: Defusing the confusion: concepts and measures of continuity of healthcare. Ottawa:Canadian Health Services Research Foundation (CHSRF) 2002. Rogers, J., & Curtis, P. (1980). The concept and measurement of continuity in primary care. Am J Public Health, 70(2), 122-127 Saultz, J. W., & Albedaiwi, W. (2004). Interpersonal continuity of care and patient satisfaction: a critical review. Ann Fam Med, 2(5), 445-451. Saultz JW, Lochner J: Interpersonal continuity of care and care outcomes: a critical review. Ann Fam Med 2005, 3(2):159-166. Shear CL, Gipe BT, Mattheis JK, Levy MR: Provider continuity and quality of medical care. A retrospective analysis of prenatal and perinatal outcome. Med Care 1983, 21(12):1204-1210. Shortell SM. Continuity of medical care: conceptualization and measurement. Med Care 1976;14:377–91 Starfield B, Simborg D, Johns C, Horn S: Coordination of care and its relationship to continuity and medical records. Med Care 1977, 15(11):929-938. Starfield B: Continuous confusion? Am J Public Health 1980, 70(2):117-119. Starfield BH, Simborg DW, Horn SD, Yourtee SA: Continuity and coordination in primary care: their achievement and utility. Med Care 1976, 14(7):625-636. Steinwachs DM: Measuring provider continuity in ambulatory care. Medical Care 1979, 17:551-565. Stewart AL, Grumbach K, Osmond DH, Vranizan K, Komaromy M, Bindman AB. Primary care and patient perceptions of access to care. J Fam Pract. 1997;44:177-185. Sturmberg J: Continuity of care: towards a definition based on experiences of practising GPs. Fam Pract 2000, 17(1):16-20. Wasson JH, Sauvigne AE, Mogielnicki RP, et al. Continuity of outpatient medical care in elderly men: a randomized trial. JAMA. 1984;252:2413-2417. Weinberger M, Oddone EZ, Henderson WG. Does increased access to primary care reduce hospital readmissions? Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study Groupon Primary Care and Hospital Readmission. N Engl J Med. 1996;334:1441-1447. 中文部分 行政院衛生署。統計資料查詢系統網址： http://www.doh.gov.tw/stastistic/index.htm。 國家衛生研究院。國家衛生研究院網站全民健康保險學術資料庫說明：http://www.nhri.org.tw/nhird/date_01.htm。 王馨儀 (2006)，氣喘門診照護對可避免住院之影響，國立台灣大學公共衛生學院醫療機構管理研究所碩士論文。 梁亞文、陳芬如、鄭瑛琳（2008）。台灣衛誌2008；27（1）：81-90。 陳怡蒨 (2006)。「全民健保家庭醫師整合性照護試辦計晝」對照護持續性之影響，國立陽明大學醫務管理研究所碩士論文。 蔡雙卉 (2005)。可避免住院研究-以急性腎盂腎炎為例，台灣大學醫療機構管理研究所碩士論文。 蔡佳希 (2007)。 台灣可避免住院情況之整體性分析，國立中山大學醫務管理研究所碩士論文。 陳昕明 (2007)。臺灣地區榮民可避免住院情況之研究，國立陽明大學醫務管理研究所碩士論文。 黃馨玉（2005）。可避免住院之研究-以細菌性肺炎為例，台灣大學醫療機構管理研究所碩士論文。 劉貞娟 (2003)。全民健保氣喘疾病管理計畫成效評估--以南部某健保分局資料為例，義守大學管理科學研究所碩士論文。 支伯生 (2007)。照護連續性與急診醫療利用之相關性探討，台灣大學衛生政策與管理研究所碩士論文。 黃郁清 (2008撰寫中)。台灣照護連續性對醫療照護結果的影響， | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/26161 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 前言：全民健保實施以來，確實增加了就醫可近性，然而國內尚未建立完整的轉診制度，doctor-shopping (逛醫師) 的情形嚴重，造成許多醫療資源的浪費。國內在醫療品質的管理上多著重於住院醫療品質的監控，然而影響整體醫療照護品質、效率的根源卻是初級醫療照護，其中「可避免住院」(Hospitalization for Ambulatory Care Sensitivity Conditions；Avoidable Hospitalization)在國際上已廣泛的作為評估初級醫療照護可近性、品質及效率的指標，而照護連續性更是影響醫療照護結果的重要因素。在缺乏完整家庭醫師制度的台灣，病人接受連續之醫療照護，是否可減少不必要的住院，進而降低醫療成本，確值得吾人進一步探討。
研究目的：本研究旨在探討國內照護連續性之相關影響因子，檢視照護連續性與住院醫療利用及可避免住院之相關性，並進一步探討是否照護連續性提高，其可避免之住院能夠減少。 研究方法：本研究採縱向研究法，利用國家衛生研究院全民健康保險學術資料庫，以2004年至2006年抽樣歸人檔為本研究之樣本母群體，取第一組總計約4萬人資料為此研究主要分析樣本。利用所推算的照護連續性指標為自變項，分為高、中、低三組，以住院醫療利用及可避免住院為依變項，檢視其住院及可避免住院之差異。其中控制變項包含年齡、性別、就醫方便性(投保地分局別、投保地醫師密度) 及醫療需求(慢性病指標和門診就醫總次數)等。 研究結果：在34728名研究對象中，2006年未曾住院者31825人，占91.64%。有住院者2903人，占8.36%。有門診照護敏感病況(Ambulatory Care Sensitivity Conditions, ACSC)住院(即可避免住院)者431人，占1.24%。若以醫師為基準，照護連續性指標平均為0.26。其中孩童、老年人、男性、有慢性病者、及高門診次數者，其醫療照護連續性指標較高。多變項邏輯斯迴歸分析顯示，照護連續性低及中間者之住院危險性及ACSC住院危險性，均較照護連續性高者為高，分別為其1.33倍、1.14倍(住院危險性)，及1.96倍和1.44倍(ACSC住院危險性)。而住院、ACSC住院次數方面，經負二項迴歸分析結果亦顯示相同趨勢，且均達到統計學上顯著意義，並具有劑量反應關係。故照護連續性愈高者，其住院、ACSC住院危險性及次數均愈低。 結論：本研究發現照護連續性的高低的確對可避免住院有相當的影響，因此，如何增加國人的醫療照護連續性，改變國人的就醫習性，成為當前重要課題。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | Background: The accessibility to health care in our country has improved after the implementation of National Health Insurance. Nevertheless, the doctor-shopping phenomena are still widely seen, which will erode health resource. While our major focus in monitoring the quality of hospitalization, it is the quality of primary care that determines the quality and efficiency of our healthcare system. Hospitalization for ambulatory care sensitivity conditions, the avoidable hospitalization, has been widely accepted as the indicator to evaluate the accessibility, quality and efficiency of primary care. It has been well documented that continuity of care may be an important factor related to the outcome of healthcare. Since the family doctor and patient referral system has not been well established in Taiwan, it is our major concern to interrogate the cost-effectiveness of our health care system through continuity of care and reduction of avoidable hospitalization.
Purpose: This study aims to investigate factors related to continuity of care to determine if better continuity of care will cause reduction of avoidable hospitalization. Materials and methods: The longitudinal analysis was employed in this study. The academic database of National Health Insurance in National Health Research Institute was used. From year 2004 to 2006, there were about forty thousand records in section one as our total samples. The putative index of continuity of care (COC) was used as independent variable and divided into three groups. The hospitalization and avoidable hospitalization were the dependent variables. The controlled variables in this study included age, gender, accessibility of health care (location and physician density), and health inquiry (presence of chronic diseases and total ambulatory physician visits). Results: In this study, a total of 34728 patients were recruited. Of which, 31825 patients (91.64%) had not hospitalized, while 2903 patients (8.36%) had hospitalized. There were 431 patients (1.24%) presented with the hospitalizations in ambulatory care sensitivity conditions (ACSC), the avoidable hospitalization. As examined with a single provider, the mean COC index was 0.26. In this cohort, high COCI could be seen in the minority, the elderly, male, patients with chronic diseases, and those of higher ambulatory physician visits. In multiple logistic regression, groups of low and moderate COCI showed higher probability both in hospitalization and ACSC hospitalization than the group of high COCI, with 1.33 and 1.14 folds in hospitalization and 1.96 and 1.44 folds in ACSC hospitalization, respectively. The result of negative-binomial regression analysis also revealed similar trend. The trend for both hospitalization risk and frequency was significant suggesting a dose-response relationship. Higher COC would present with lower risk and frequency in both hospitalization and ACSC hospitalization. Conclusion: According to this study, the continuity of care plays an important role in hospitalization for ACSC. It is therefore an important issue to facilitate the continuity of healthcare and to promote correct pattern of doctor visit instead of doctor-shopping | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-08T07:01:42Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-98-P95845103-1.pdf: 461155 bytes, checksum: 4e06a92c48ae3b3d9edfef639a38c8dc (MD5) Previous issue date: 2009 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 口試委員會審定書……………………………………
中文摘要………………………………………………ii 英文摘要………………………………………………iv 目錄……………………………………………………vi 表目錄…………………………………………………viii 圖目錄…………………………………………………ix 第一章 緒論………………………………………………………1 第一節 前言與動機………………………………………………1 第二節 研究目的、假說與預期貢獻……………………………2 第二章 文獻探討…………………………………………………3 第一節 何謂可避免住院………………………………………3 第二節 醫療照護連續性及其測量………………………10 第三節 照護連續性與住院醫療利用及可避免住院………18 第三章 研究設計與方法…………………………………………20 第一節 研究設計與材料…………………………………………20 第二節 研究架構與對象…………………………………………21 第三節 資料處理流程……………………………………………24 第四節 資料分析方法……………………………………………27 第四章 研究結果…………………………………………………………………28 第一節 樣本特徵與各變項分布情形……………………………28 第二節 照護連續性指標與各變項相關分析……………………32 第三節 研究變項與住院及可避免住院之相關分析…………36 第四節 研究變項與住院及可避免住院之多項變分析………41 第五節 重要結果摘要……………………………………………51 第五章 討論…………………………………………………………53 第一節 綜合討論 …………………………………………………53 第二節 研究限制與建議 …………………………………………57 第六章 結 論………………………………………………………60 參考文獻……………………………………………………………61 附 錄 ………………………………………………………………66 附錄一：照護敏感病況與ICD-9-CM對照表………………………66 附綠二：健保資料之案件分類表…………………………………69 附綠三：健保六分局醫療資源密度………………………………71 附綠四：健保六分局醫療資源集散程度…………………………72 附錄五：健保六分局及其所屬轄區縣市…………………………73 附綠六：投保地醫師密度…………………………………………74 附綠七：照護連續性指標分類…………………………………75 附錄八：慢性分層分析-1 ………………………………………76 附錄九：慢性分層分析-2 ………………………………………76 附錄十：慢性分層分析-3 ………………………………………77 附錄十一：研究變項與住院次數之雙變項分析………………78 附錄十二：研究變項與可避免住院次數之雙變項分析………79 附錄十三：2004~2005年所有門診次數分布…………………80 表目錄 表2-1 門診照護敏感病況一覽表……………………………4 表2-2 照護連續性指標種類及其文獻應用情形……………13 表3-1.1健保資料庫2004-2005門診就醫資料………………23 表3-1.2 健保資料庫2006年住院資料………………………23 表3-1.3 健保資料庫2004~2006門診及住院資料……………23 表4-1 變項分布狀況…………………………………………30 表4-2.1 照護連續性指標與各變項相關分析………………34 表4-2.2 照護連續性指標中位數、平均值分布情形………35 表4-3.1住院醫療利用與各變項相關分析…………………39 表4-3.2可避免住院與各變項相關分析……………………40 表4-4.1研究變項與住院醫療利用之邏輯斯迴歸分析……44 表4-4.2研究變項與可避免住院之邏輯斯迴歸分析………45 表4-4.3研究變項與住院次數之負二項迴歸分析…………49 表4-4.4研究變項與ACSC住院次數之負二項迴歸分析 ……50 表5-1 本研究結果與文獻之比較……………………………53 圖目錄 圖1 照護連續性模型………………………………………………11 圖2 研究架構………………………………………………………21 | |
| dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
| dc.subject | 照護連續性指標 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 門診照護敏感病況 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 可避免住院 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | Avoidable hospitalization(Hospitalization for ambulatory care sensitivity conditions) | en |
| dc.subject | Continuity of care (COC) | en |
| dc.subject | Ambulatory care sensitivity conditions (ACSC) | en |
| dc.title | 照護連續性與可避免住院之相關性研究 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | Continuity of Care and Hospitalization of Ambulatory Care Sensitivity Conditions | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 97-1 | |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 李玉春,蔡憶文 | |
| dc.subject.keyword | 門診照護敏感病況,可避免住院,照護連續性指標, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | Ambulatory care sensitivity conditions (ACSC),Avoidable hospitalization(Hospitalization for ambulatory care sensitivity conditions),Continuity of care (COC), | en |
| dc.relation.page | 80 | |
| dc.rights.note | 未授權 | |
| dc.date.accepted | 2009-02-13 | |
| dc.contributor.author-college | 公共衛生學院 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author-dept | 衛生政策與管理研究所 | zh_TW |
| 顯示於系所單位： | 健康政策與管理研究所 | |
文件中的檔案：
| 檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ntu-98-1.pdf 未授權公開取用 | 450.35 kB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件，除了特別指名其著作權條款之外，均受到著作權保護，並且保留所有的權利。