BackgroundGlobal Assessment of Functioning (GAF) is well known internationally and widely used for scoring the severity of illness in psychiatry. Problems with GAF show a need for its further development (for example validity and reliability problems). The aim of the present study was to identify gaps in current knowledge about properties of GAF that are of interest for further development. Properties of GAF are defined as characteristic traits or attributes that serve to define GAF (or may have a role to define a future updated GAF).MethodsA thorough literature search was conducted.ResultsA number of gaps in knowledge about the properties of GAF were identified: for example, the current GAF has a continuous scale, but is a continuous or categorical scale better? Scoring is not performed by setting a mark directly on a visual scale, but could this improve scoring? Would new anchor points, including key words and examples, improve GAF (anchor points for symptoms, functioning, positive mental health, prognosis, improvement of generic properties, exclusion criteria for scoring in 10-point intervals, and anchor points at the endpoints of the scale)? Is a change in the number of anchor points and their distribution over the total scale important? Could better instructions for scoring within 10-point intervals improve scoring? Internationally, both single and dual scales for GAF are used, but what is the advantage of having separate symptom and functioning scales? Symptom (GAF-S) and functioning (GAF-F) scales should score different dimensions and still be correlated, but what is the best combination of definitions for GAF-S and GAF-F? For GAF with more than two scales there is limited empirical testing, but what is gained or lost by using more than two scales?ConclusionsIn the history of GAF, its basic properties have undergone limited changes. Problems with GAF may, in part, be due to lack of a research programme testing the effects of different changes in basic properties. Given the widespread use, research-based development of GAF has not been especially strong. Further research could improve GAF.

BackgroundGlobal Assessment of Functioning (GAF) is a scoring system for the severity of illness in psychiatry. It is used clinically in many countries, as well as in research, but studies have shown several problems with GAF, for example concerning its validity and reliability. Guidelines for rating are important. The present study aimed to identify the current status of guidelines for rating GAF, and relevant factors and gaps in knowledge for the development of improved guidelines.MethodsA thorough literature search was conducted.ResultsFew studies of existing guidelines have been conducted; existing guidelines are short; and rating has a subjective element. Seven main categories were identified as being important in relation to further development of guidelines: (1) general points about guidelines for rating GAF; (2) introduction to guidelines, with ground rules; (3) starting scoring at the top, middle or bottom level of the scale; (4) scoring for different time periods and of different values (highest, lowest or average); (5) the finer grading of the scale; (6) different guidelines for different conditions; and (7) different languages and cultures. Little information is available about how rules for rating are understood by different raters: the final score may be affected by whether the rater starts at the top, middle or bottom of the scale; there is little data on which value/combination of GAF values to record; guidelines for scoring within 10-point intervals are limited; there is little empirical information concerning the suitability of existing guidelines for different conditions and patient characteristics; and little is known about the effects of translation into different languages or of different cultural understanding.ConclusionsFew studies have dealt specifically with guidelines for rating GAF. Current guidelines for rating GAF are not comprehensive, and relevant points for new guidelines are presented. Theoretical and empirical studies, and international expert panels would be valuable, as well as production of a manual with more information about scoring. Computerised assessment may well be the future.

Decentralization may be defined as the spread of power from higher to lower levels in a hierarchy. For hospitals, decentralization in an organizational change of especial importance. Decentralization in hospitals may be accomplished through decentralization to departments; more general changes in organizational structure (reduction in the number of hierarchical levels and divisionalization); and, delegation of tasks. A framework for an analysis of decentralization status in hospitals is proposed in four main points: its starting point; the need for change in decentralization status; decentralization solutions; and, the need for review before a decentralization proposal is put into practice. Positive effects of decentralization may be obtained; but, to date, empirical investigations on the impact of decentralization in hospitals are few. © 1997 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Combined qualitative and quantitative interviews were conducted with 30 persons involved in four telemedicine specialties. The results showed little technology-related anxiety and all viewed the technology as useful. There was a positive general attitude to telemedical work, with a perception of the possibility of job satisfaction being improved and the technology being found to be easy to use. Negative general attitudes to telemedical work were not found. The implementation of telemedicine may therefore have a positive effect within organizations. Such findings may be important for the future widespread adoption of telemedicine.

Little is known either about how telemedicine changes the job situation or about how the working environment might be improved for those involved in telemedicine. To investigate these issues, qualitative interviews were carried out with 30 people in Norway working with telepsychiatry (12 respondents), teledermatology (six respondents), a telepathology frozen-section service (10 respondents) and tele-otolaryngology (two respondents). The median annual number of remote consultations in telepsychiatry was nine, in teledermatology 81 and in the telepathology frozen-section service nine. The positive aspects of working with telemedicine included less travelling, which gave more time for other work, less need to travel in poor weather, new contacts, an increased sense of professional security (because support was readily available) and the satisfaction of seeing partners in communication. At its present volume, telemedicine generally fits into daily work patterns quite well. Problems do occur, but they can be solved by appropriate organizational measures. Long-term scheduling of telemedical sessions may be important. Many telemedicine workers want to have the equipment in their own office. Working with telemedicine can be tiring and those interviewed wanted to limit the number of hours per week. A solution may be to use large clinics, such as university clinics, where the telemedical work could be distributed between several specialists. Large telemedicine clinics with a full-time dedicated staff would need careful consideration of working practices.