Improving the quality of mental health care in primary care settings: a view from the United Kingdom

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Background and objectives: In the forty years since 'general practice' became a focus for research in psychiatry the UK there have been considerable developments in policy, practice and research. The aim of this paper is to review recent research and policy developments concerned with improving quality of mental health in primary care settings. Methods: Narrative review of the literature. Results: Disappointing results from large scales trials in the last decade have led to a move towards more exploratory studies and attempts to understand more about contextual factors. Policy initiatives such as the NICE (National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence) guidelines have set clear standards for the delivery of care, but considerable variation in quality of care persists in primary care settings. The Medical Research Council of the UK has suggested a sequential model for future randomised trials of complex interventions. Conclusion: Major outstanding challenges are the difficulties in recruiting GPs (General Practitioners) into research studies who are not particularly interested in mental health and linking research and policy such that the findings of such studies are effectively implemented in everyday practice.

Related collections

Most cited references 64

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Collaborative care for depression: a cumulative meta-analysis and review of longer-term outcomes.

Simon Gilbody, Peter Bower, Janine Fletcher … (2006)

Depression is common in primary care but is suboptimally managed. Collaborative care, that is, structured care involving a greater role of nonmedical specialists to augment primary care, has emerged as a potentially effective candidate intervention to improve quality of primary care and patient outcomes. To quantify the short-term and longer-term effectiveness of collaborative care compared with standard care and to understand mechanisms of action by exploring between-study heterogeneity, we conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials that compared collaborative care with usual primary care in patients with depression. We searched MEDLINE (from the beginning of 1966), EMBASE (from the beginning of 1980), CINAHL (from the beginning of 1980), PsycINFO (from the beginning of 1980), the Cochrane Library (from the beginning of 1966), and DARE (Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness) (from the beginning of 1985) databases from study inception to February 6, 2006. We found 37 randomized studies including 12 355 patients with depression receiving primary care. Random effects meta-analysis showed that depression outcomes were improved at 6 months (standardized mean difference, 0.25; 95% confidence interval, 0.18-0.32), and evidence of longer-term benefit was found for up to 5 years (standardized mean difference, 0.15; 95% confidence interval, 0.001-0.31). When exploring determinants of effectiveness, effect size was directly related to medication compliance and to the professional background and method of supervision of case managers. The addition of brief psychotherapy did not substantially improve outcome, nor did increased numbers of sessions. Cumulative meta-analysis showed that sufficient evidence had emerged by 2000 to demonstrate the statistically significant benefit of collaborative care. Collaborative care is more effective than standard care in improving depression outcomes in the short and longer terms. Future research needs to address the implementation of collaborative care, particularly in settings other than the United States.

0 comments Cited 268 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Educational and organizational interventions to improve the management of depression in primary care: a systematic review.

Simon Gilbody, Paula Whitty, Jeremy Grimshaw … (2003)

Depression is commonly encountered in primary care settings yet is often missed or suboptimally managed. A number of organizational and educational strategies to improve management of depression have been proposed. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of these strategies have not yet been subjected to systematic review. To systematically evaluate the effectiveness of organizational and educational interventions to improve the management of depression in primary care settings. We searched electronic medical and psychological databases from inception to March 2003 (MEDLINE, PsycLIT, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, United Kingdom National Health Service Economic Evaluations Database, Cochrane Depression Anxiety and Neurosis Group register, and Cochrane Effective Professional and Organisational Change Group specialist register); conducted correspondence with authors; and used reference lists. Search terms were related to depression, primary care, and all guidelines and organizational and educational interventions. We selected 36 studies, including 29 randomized controlled trials and nonrandomized controlled clinical trials, 5 controlled before-and-after studies, and 2 interrupted time-series studies. Outcomes relating to management and outcome of depression were sought. Methodological details and outcomes were extracted and checked by 2 reviewers. Summary relative risks were, where possible, calculated from original data and attempts were made to correct for unit of analysis error. A narrative synthesis was conducted. Twenty-one studies with positive results were found. Strategies effective in improving patient outcome generally were those with complex interventions that incorporated clinician education, an enhanced role of the nurse (nurse case management), and a greater degree of integration between primary and secondary care (consultation-liaison). Telephone medication counseling delivered by practice nurses or trained counselors was also effective. Simple guideline implementation and educational strategies were generally ineffective. There is substantial potential to improve the management of depression in primary care. Commonly used guidelines and educational strategies are likely to be ineffective. The implementation of the findings from this research will require substantial investment in primary care services and a major shift in the organization and provision of care.

0 comments Cited 153 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Impact of case management (Evercare) on frail elderly patients: controlled before and after analysis of quantitative outcome data.

Hugh Gravelle, Mark Dusheiko, Rod Sheaff … (2007)

To determine the impact on outcomes in patients of the Evercare approach to case management of elderly people. Practice level before and after analysis of hospital admissions data with control group. Nine primary care trusts in England that, in 2003-5, piloted case management of elderly people selected as being at high risk of emergency admission. Rates of emergency admission, emergency bed days, and mortality from April 2001 to March 2005 in 62 Evercare practices and 6960-7695 control practices in England (depending on the analysis being carried out). The intervention had no significant effect on rates of emergency admission (increase 16.5%, (95% confidence interval -5.7% to 38.7%), emergency bed days (increase 19.0%, -5.3% to 43.2%), and mortality (increase 34.4%, -1.7% to 70.3%) for a high risk population aged >65 with a history of two or more emergency admissions in the preceding 13 months. For the general population aged > or =65 effects on the rates of emergency admission (increase 2.5%, -2.1% to 7.0%), emergency bed days (decrease -4.9%, -10.8% to 1.0%), and mortality (increase 5.5%, -3.5% to 14.5%) were also non-significant. Case management of frail elderly people introduced an additional range of services into primary care without an associated reduction in hospital admissions. This may have been because of identification of additional cases. Employment of community matrons is now a key feature of case management policy in the NHS in England. Without more radical system redesign this policy is unlikely to reduce hospital admissions.