19
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Why are hospital doctors not referring to Consultation-Liaison Psychiatry? – a systemic review

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          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

          Consultation-Liaison Psychiatry (CLP) is a subspecialty of psychiatry that provides care to inpatients under non-psychiatric care. Despite evidence of benefits of CLP for inpatients with psychiatric comorbidities, referral rates from hospital doctors remain low. This review aims to understand barriers to CLP inpatient referral as described in the literature.

          Methods

          We searched on Medline, PsychINFO, CINAHL and SCOPUS, using MESH and the following keywords: 1) Consultation-Liaison Psychiatry, Consultation Liaison Psychiatry, Consultation Psychiatry, Liaison Psychiatry, Hospital Psychiatry, Psychosomatic Medicine, the 2) Referral, Consultation, Consultancy and 3) Inpatient, Hospitalized patient, Hospitalized patient. We considered papers published between 1 Jan 1965 and 30 Sep 2015 and all articles written in English that contribute to understanding of barriers to CLP referral were included.

          Results

          Thirty-five eligible articles were found and they were grouped thematically into three categories: (1) Systemic factors; (2) Referrer factors; (3) Patient factors. Systemic factors that improves referrals include a dedicated CLP service, active CLP consultant and collaborative screening of patients. Referrer factors that increases referrals include doctors of internal medicine specialty and comfortable with CLP. Patients more likely to be referred tend to be young, has psychiatric history, live in an urban setting or has functional psychosis.

          Conclusion

          This is the first systematic review that examines factors that influence CLP inpatient referrals. Although there is research in this area, it is of limited quality. Education could be provided to hospital doctors to better recognise mental illness. Collaborative screening of vulnerable groups could prevent inpatients from missing out on psychiatric care. CLP clinicians should use the knowledge gained in this review to provide quality engagement with referrers.

          Related collections

          Most cited references69

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Recognition of depression by non-psychiatric physicians--a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

          Depression, with up to 11.9% prevalence in the general population, is a common disorder strongly associated with increased morbidity. The accuracy of non-psychiatric physicians in recognizing depression may influence the outcome of the illness, as unrecognized patients are not offered treatment for depression. To describe and quantitatively summarize the existing data on recognition of depression by non-psychiatric physicians. We searched the following databases: MEDLINE (1966-2005), Psych INFO (1967-2005) and CINAHL (1982-2005). To summarize data presented in the papers reviewed, we calculated the Summary receiver operating characteristic (ROC) and the summary sensitivity, specificity and odds ratios (ORs) of recognition, and their 95% confidence intervals using the random effects model. The summary sensitivity, specificity, and OR of recognition using the random effects model were: 36.4% (95% CI: 27.9-44.8), 83.7% (95% CI: 77.5-90.0), and 4.0 (95% CI: 3.2-4.9), respectively. We also calculated the Summary ROC. We performed a metaregression analysis, which showed that the method of documentation of recognition, the age of the sample, and the date of study publication have significant effect on the summary sensitivity and the odds of recognition, in the univariate model. Only the method of documentation had a significant effect on summary sensitivity, when the age of the sample and the date of publication were added to the model. The accuracy of depression recognition by non-psychiatrist physicians is low. Further research should focus on developing standardized methods of documenting non-psychiatric physicians' recognition of depression.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Somatization and the recognition of depression and anxiety in primary care.

            The authors examined the effect of patients' style of clinical presentation on primary care physicians' recognition of depression and anxiety. The subjects were 685 patients attending family medicine clinics on self-initiated visits. They completed structured interviews assessing presenting complaints, self-report measures of symptoms and hypochondriacal worry, the Diagnostic Interview Schedule (DIS), and the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D). Physician recognition was determined by notation of any psychiatric condition in the medical chart over the ensuing 12 months. The authors identified three progressively more persistent forms of somatic presentations, labeled "initial," "facultative," and "true" somatization. Of 215 patients with CES-D scores of 16 or higher, 80% made somatized presentations; of 75 patients with DIS-diagnosed major depression or anxiety disorder, 76% made somatic presentations. Among patients with DIS major depression or anxiety disorder, somatization reduced physician recognition from 77%, for psychosocial presenters, to 22%, for true somatizers. The same pattern was found for patients with high CES-D scores. In logistic regression models education, seriousness of concurrent medical illness, hypochondriacal worry, and number of lifetime medically unexplained symptoms each increased the likelihood of recognition, while somatized presentations decreased the rate of recognition. While physician recognition of psychiatric distress in primary care varied widely with different criteria for recognition, the same pattern of reduction of recognition with increasing level of somatization was found for all criteria. In contrast, hypochondriacal worry and medically unexplained somatic symptoms increased the rate of recognition.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Recognition, management, and course of anxiety and depression in general practice.

              This article addresses the issues of recognition of psychiatric disorders by general physicians (GPs) and the effects of recognition on management and course. Among 1994 patients who were screened with the General Health Questionnaire and who were rated by their GP, 1450 (72.7%) had not been identified by the GP as having a psychiatric disorder in the year before the index visit. Among these "new" patients, 557 (38.4%) had positive General Health Questionnaire scores. Only 47% of the new patients who met Bedford College diagnostic criteria for anxiety, depression, or ill-defined disorder had their psychiatric disorder recognized by their GP. Among patients who met Bedford College criteria, mean episode durations were longer for anxiety disorders (20 to 22 months) than for depressive disorders (9 to 10 months). Among the new patients, those with psychiatric disorders recognized by the GP were more likely to receive mental health interventions. Recognition was associated with shorter episode duration among patients with an anxiety disorder, but not among patients with depressive or ill-defined disorders.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                kaiyang.chen@my.jcu.edu.au
                rebecca.evans@jcu.edu.au
                sarah.larkins@jcu.edu.au
                Journal
                BMC Psychiatry
                BMC Psychiatry
                BMC Psychiatry
                BioMed Central (London )
                1471-244X
                9 November 2016
                9 November 2016
                2016
                : 16
                : 390
                Affiliations
                [1 ]James Cook University, 1 James Cook Drive, Townsville, QLD 4811 Australia
                [2 ]Townsville Hospital and Health Service, 100 Angus Smith Drive, Townsville, QLD 4814 Australia
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8696-9004
                Article
                1100
                10.1186/s12888-016-1100-6
                5103418
                26739960
                ac3e2b2e-e707-46cf-8530-62387da930de
                © The Author(s). 2016

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 22 July 2016
                : 28 October 2016
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100001792, James Cook University;
                Funded by: Townsville Hospital Health Service
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2016

                Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry
                consultation-liaison psychiatry,hospital psychiatry,barriers to referral,consultation inpatient

                Comments

                Comment on this article