We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Progress in the computational cognitive sciences depends critically on model evaluation. This chapter provides an accessible description of key considerations and methods important in model evaluation, with special emphasis on evaluation in the forms of validation, comparison, and selection. Major sub-topics include qualitative and quantitative validation, parameter estimation, cross-validation, goodness of fit, and model mimicry. The chapter includes definitions of an assortment of key concepts, relevant equations, and descriptions of best practices and important considerations in the use of these model evaluation methods. The chapter concludes with important high-level considerations regarding emerging directions and opportunities for continuing improvement in model evaluation.
This service aimed to improve patient access to treatment for urinary tract infections (UTI), impetigo and exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and relieve pressure on general practice and out of hours services.
Background
In 2016, a service (Pharmacy First) was introduced in Forth Valley for the management of UTI, impetigo and exacerbation of COPD using patient group directions in community pharmacies. Trained pharmacists supplied a limited range of prescription medicines. Pathways for GP referral were defined. After 5 months of implementation, the service was evaluated.
Methods
A quantitative evaluation was undertaken. Feedback was sought from patients, GPs, pharmacists and GP reception staff, using structured questionnaires. Pharmacy records were used to assess referrals and pharmacy data summarised the number and type of consultations. Basic cost data was obtained from the Health Board.
Findings
In all, 75 pharmacies (of 76), and all 55 GP practices in the area, participated in the service. Over a 5-month period, 1189 cases were managed, the majority being for UTI (75.4%) followed by impetigo (15.2%), then COPD (9.3%). Of all cases, 77.9% were prescribed medication by the pharmacist, 9.1% were given advice only and 16.7% were referred to the GP. Independent clinical assessment of a random sample of 30 GP referrals considered all to be ‘appropriate’. Feedback was received from 69 pharmacists, 34 GPs, 54 reception staff and 73 patients. Patients were very satisfied with the service, most frequently citing the ‘quick and efficient’ access to treatment, and a ‘professional service’. Two thirds of GPs (67%) and 59% of reception staff found the service useful, mainly because it reduced pressure on GP appointments. A further cost benefit evaluation would allow objective assessment of the value of this service.
This 12 month, Australian study sought to compare the Capabilities Model of Dementia Care (CMDC) with usual long-term care (LTC), in terms of (1) the effectiveness of the CMDC in assisting care staff to improve Quality Of Life (QOL) for older people with dementia; and (2) whether implementation of the CMDC improved staff attitudes towards, and experiences of working and caring for the person with dementia.
Methods:
A single blind, non-randomized controlled trial design, involving CMDC intervention group (three facilities) and a comparison usual LTC practice control group (one facility), was conducted from August 2010 to September 2011. Eighty-one staff members and 48 family members of a person with dementia were recruited from these four LTC facilities. At baseline, 6 and 12 months, staff completed a modified Staff Experiences of Working with Demented Residents questionnaire (SEWDR), and families completed the Quality of Life – Alzheimer's Disease questionnaire (QOL-AD).
Results:
LTC staff in the usual care group reported significantly lower SEWDR scores (i.e. less work satisfaction) than those in the CMDC intervention group at 12 months (p = 0.005). Similarly, family members in the comparison group reported significantly lower levels of perceived QOL for their relative with dementia (QOL-AD scores) than their counterparts in the CMDC intervention group at 12 months (p = 0.012).
Conclusions:
Although the study has a number of limitations the CMDC appears to be an effective model of dementia care – more so than usual LTC practice. The CMDC requires further evaluation with participants from a diverse range of LTC facilities and stages of cognitive impairment.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.