A medical social worker who works with patients and their families in a hospital setting to help them apply for health insurance benefits and cope with the life changes and trauma that can occur from chronic or acute injuries and illness.Military social workers may also assist their clients in applying for or accessing benefits exclusively available to them, such as government-funded educational or health care benefits. A military social worker who helps soldiers and veterans cope with potentially traumatic experiences during their job, and who may also provide counseling and support to families of soldiers and veterans.This social worker might see individuals and/or work with clients in small group therapy settings. A clinical social worker who supports clients through a combination of therapeutic modalities in an outpatient mental health care setting.Examples of micro social work include but are not limited to the following: Clinical social work is generally considered a type of micro social work, as it concerns individualized work with clients in a therapeutic capacity however, micro social work also includes non-clinical social work services, such as helping clients access important resources. Rooted in the longstanding history of the profession, micro social work is defined as working closely with individuals, families, and small groups to counsel and provide one-on-one support as clients navigate complex challenges and systems. Micro-Level Social Work is what is often considered the most “traditional” type of social work. However, while their core mission is essentially the same, micro, mezzo, and macro social work achieve this mission through different means and methodologies. To improve, decision makers at the three levels in all three cases should engage frontline practitioners, develop more effectively publicized reasons, and develop formal mechanisms for challenging and revising decisions.Answer: Micro, mezzo, and macro social work all work to promote social justice and human well-being, with particular attention to vulnerable communities. The different levels of priority setting in the three countries fulfilled varying conditions of accountability for reasonableness, none satisfied all the four conditions. Enforcement: leadership for ensuring decision-making fairness was not apparent. Canada and Norway had patients' relations officers to deal with patients' dissensions however, revisions were more difficult in Uganda. REVISIONS: formal mechanisms, following the planning hierarchy, were considered less effective, informal political mechanisms were considered more effective. Publicity: all cases lacked clear and effective mechanisms for publicity. (ii) Evaluation-relevance: medical evidence and economic criteria were thought to be relevant, but lobbying was thought to be irrelevant. Many practitioners lacked knowledge of the macro- and meso-level priority-setting processes. Micro-level practitioners considered medical and social worth criteria. Some of the reasons are available on the hospital intranet or presented at meetings. Hospital departments that handle emergencies, such as surgery, were prioritized. At the meso-level, hospital priority-setting decisions were made by the hospital managers and were based on national priorities, guidelines, and evidence. Some priority-setting reasons are publicized through circulars, printed documents and the Internet in Canada and Norway. International priorities influenced decisions in Uganda. Decisions within the ministries of health are based on objective formulae and evidence. Areas of adherence to these conditions were identified as lessons of good practices areas of non-adherence were identified as opportunities for improvement.Īt the macro-level, in all three countries, cabinet makes most of the macro-level resource allocation decisions and they are influenced by politics, public pressure, and advocacy. The descriptions were evaluated against the four conditions of "accountability for reasonableness", relevance, publicity, revisions and enforcement. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analyzed using a modified thematic approach. We carried out case studies involving key informant interviews, with 184 health practitioners and health planners from the macro-level, meso-level and micro-level from Canada-Ontario, Norway and Uganda (selected by virtue of their varying experiences in priority setting). The objectives of this study were (1) to describe the process of healthcare priority setting in Ontario-Canada, Norway and Uganda at the three levels of decision-making (2) to evaluate the description using the framework for fair priority setting, accountability for reasonableness so as to identify lessons of good practices.
0 kommentar(er)
