摘要:Fundamento: En enero de 2005 el Gobierno de Navarra aprobó el "Programa de Atención a Personas con Trastorno Mental Grave" (PA-TMG). El objetivo del presente trabajo es conocer la opinión de expertos acerca del PA-TMG. Identificar los elementos de acuerdo en la valoración de aspectos positivos y aspectos mejorables. Realizar recomendaciones a partir de su opinión. Material y métodos: Se diseñó un estudio Delphi con 34 expertos en la atención sanitaria o social de enfermos mentales. Mediante cuestionarios repetidos se identificaron las ideas que alcanzaran un consenso ?90%, y se asignó un nivel de prioridad. Se presentan los porcentajes de acuerdo, estadísticos descriptivos de la prioridad, y se elaboran las recomendaciones de análisis de las áreas de consenso. Resultados: De los 34 expertos participantes, finalizaron el estudio 25 (71,4%): 1 socióloga, 5 trabajadoras sociales, 3 psiquiatras, 5 psicólogos, 1 representante de las familias, 3 terapeutas ocupacionales, 1 técnico en integración social y 6 médicos de familia. Valoran positivamente el Plan el 64% y 72% opinan que se ha elaborado sin suficiente participación profesional. Todos piensan que podría mejorarse si se amplia la participación de expertos. Conclusiones: Las principales ideas consensuadas han sido que: la atención socio-sanitaria debe garantizarse por los poderes públicos; se deben establecer buenos sistemas de información y de evaluación; el Plan debe tener presupuesto propio; debe garantizar el seguimiento profesional del paciente por los diferentes dispositivos; se deben descentralizar muchas tomas de decisiones; se debe universalizar el acceso a un catálogo de prestaciones sociales para estos enfermos.
其他摘要:Background: In January 2005 the Government of Navarre approved the "Care Program for Persons with Severe Mental Disorder" (PA-TMG). This article is intended to ascertain the opinion of experts regarding the PA-TMG. To identify the elements of agreement in the evaluation of positive aspects and aspects that can be improved. To make recommendations on the basis of their opinions. Methods: A Delphi study was designed with 34 experts in health or social care of mentally ill persons. By means of repeated questionnaires, ideas that achieved a consensus of Z90% were identified and a level of priority was assigned. The percentages of agreement and descriptive statistics of priority were presented, and the recommendations of analysis of the areas of consensus were drawn up. Results: Out of the 34 participating experts, 25 (71.4%) completed the study: 1 sociologist, 5 social workers, 3 psychiatrists, 5 psychologists, one representative of the families, 3 occupational therapists, 1 technician in social integration and 6 family doctors. Sixty-four percent evaluated the Plan positively, and 72% were of the opinion that it was drawn up without sufficient professional participation. All thought that it could be improved by widening the participation of experts. Conclusions: The principal ideas on which there was consensus were: socio-health care must be guaranteed by the public administration; good systems of information and evaluation must be established; the Plan must have its own budget; professional follow-up of the patient by the different mechanisms must be guaranteed; a lot of the decision making must be decentralised; access to social benefits for these patients must be universalised.