Abstract
Introduction: One aspect of clinical integration involves case managers' tools and particularly the individualized service plan.
Methods: We examined individualized service plan content and use in the PRISMA experiment. We analyzed 50 charts, and conducted and recorded interviews regarding individualized service plan use with all the case managers concerned (n=13).
Results: Delays between starting case management and writing the individualized service plan were long and varied (0–596 days, mean: 117 days). During the interviews, the individualized service plan was described as the ‘last step’ once the active planning phase was over. The reasons for formulating plans were mainly administrative. From a clinical viewpoint, individualized service plans were used as memoranda and not to describe services (842 interventions not mentioned in the plans) or needs (694 active problems not mentioned). Case managers felt uncomfortable with the individualized planning task and expected a tool more adapted to their needs.
Conclusion: Although a majority of the case managers' charts contained an individualized service plan, implementation of this tool seems tenuous. Because of the discrepancy between the potential usefulness expected by case managers and their actual use, a working committee was created to develop proposals for modifying the instrument.
Methods: We examined individualized service plan content and use in the PRISMA experiment. We analyzed 50 charts, and conducted and recorded interviews regarding individualized service plan use with all the case managers concerned (n=13).
Results: Delays between starting case management and writing the individualized service plan were long and varied (0–596 days, mean: 117 days). During the interviews, the individualized service plan was described as the ‘last step’ once the active planning phase was over. The reasons for formulating plans were mainly administrative. From a clinical viewpoint, individualized service plans were used as memoranda and not to describe services (842 interventions not mentioned in the plans) or needs (694 active problems not mentioned). Case managers felt uncomfortable with the individualized planning task and expected a tool more adapted to their needs.
Conclusion: Although a majority of the case managers' charts contained an individualized service plan, implementation of this tool seems tenuous. Because of the discrepancy between the potential usefulness expected by case managers and their actual use, a working committee was created to develop proposals for modifying the instrument.