Search

Objectives: INTERMED is an instrument to assess bio-psycho-social case complexity in general health care by focusing on past, present and future health needs/risks of patients. It consists of a structured interview defining 20 variables and related anchor points. The total score ranges from 0 to 60, reflecting the level of complexity and the related care needs/risks. The aim of this work was to assess preliminary the effectiveness of a training program on the clinical use of INTERMED. Methods: After a group training on the use of INTERMED carried out between April and September 2009, the method was applied to 30 female patients aged between 20 and 65, subsequently referring to three clinical settings: a GP clinic; a psychiatry day-care clinic; a CLP out-patient clinic. Demographic and clinical data were collected, together with administration of HADS and WHOQoL-bref. Results: The mean INTERMED score was 20.8, borderline as to definition of complex cases. Patients from the GP clinic and in the CLP setting scored lower (respectively 16.5 and 18.2) than patients from the psychiatric day-clinic (27.8), suggesting that the presence of severe psychiatric disturbances might contribute to increasing the level of case-complexity. Concordance with results at HADS and WHOQoL was high. Conclusions: A clinical practice in the use of INTERMED after the theoretical phase of the training process is necessary to reinforce effectiveness of the training. These preliminary positive results will hopefully open the way to a wider diffusion of this tool in clinical practice in the area of Modena. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Objectives: INTERMED is an instrument to assess bio-psycho-social case complexity in general health care by focusing on past, present and future health needs and risks of patients. It consists in a structured interview defining 20 variables and related anchor points. The total score ranges from 0 to 60, reflecting the level of complexity and the related care needs/risks. The aim of this work was to describe the training process on the use of INTERMED and to assess its effectiveness. Methods: A training group of 9 subjects had two-hour meetings twice a month between April and September 2009. After introductory sessions on theoretical aspects and inter-trainee simulations on interviewing and scoring techniques, students were assigned the task of producing video-recorded clinical material, which was used to comment on interviewing skills and practice on scoring. Individual and consensus scores were collected at the beginning and at the end of the training and compared statistically by means of Cohen''s kappa. Results: Motivation and involvement of students in the training was high (participation was on a voluntary basis during extra-work hours), as satisfaction. Agreement between individual and consensus scores was high already at the beginning of the training (Cohen''s kappa mean value of 0.80) and slightly improved during the course. Conclusions: The training process gave positive results both on the quantitative and the qualitative sides of evaluation. A six-month 25-hour training period is a reasonable time for learning how to master the instrument, although it needs to be followed by the clinical practice. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]