Comparison of assessments made by a consultant in public health and housing staff on applications for rehousing on medical grounds
| Autor: | John P. Middleton, Daphne Austin, Jammi N Rao |
|---|---|
| Rok vydání: | 1993 |
| Předmět: |
Adult
Male medicine.medical_specialty Medical education Health Care Rationing Adolescent Consultants Public Housing business.industry Cost-Benefit Analysis Public health Decision Trees Public Health Environmental and Occupational Health General Medicine Middle Aged Sampling Studies Disability Evaluation Nursing medicine Humans Female business Public Health Administration Algorithms Disadvantage |
| Zdroj: | Journal of Public Health. 15:346-351 |
| ISSN: | 1741-3850 1741-3842 |
| DOI: | 10.1093/oxfordjournals.pubmed.a042888 |
| Popis: | This paper describes a review of a new system introduced in October 1989 for rehousing on medical grounds, in which housing staff were primarily responsible for making both the assessment and the decision. Part of this review included a study to compare points awarded by housing staff with those awarded by a consultant in public health. Major discrepancies were found in 11.6 per cent of decisions, of which only half were considered potentially to disadvantage applicants. On the basis of this review, it was felt that there was justification in using non-medical personnel to make decisions on medical priority, with medical officers acting in an advisory capacity only. The mechanism for processing applications, however, needs careful consideration, as does the overall role of medical priority in the allocation of housing. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|