The First Year of a Brief Psychiatric Screening Clinic in Primary Care
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Hamilton et al Psychiatric screening clinic Community Health Sheffield for their participation in the REGIONAL CHAIRMEN OF THE MENTAL WOOLF, P. G. 1991) The role of the HEALTH REVIEW TRIBUNAL FOR doctor in the mental health review project. ENGLAND AND WALES 2000) tribunal. Psychiatric Bulletin, 15, original Guidance for the Preparation of 407-409. Medical Reports for the MHRT. papers WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION References London: Mental Health ReviewTribunal 19 92) The ICD-10 classification of Secretariat. BLUMENTHAL, S. & WESSELY, S. 1994) ISMAIL, K., SMITH, S. & MADEN,T. Mental and Behavioural Disorders. The cost of Mental Health Review 1998) Mental health review tribunal Geneva:WHO. Tribunals. Psychiatric Bulletin, 18, medical reports. Psychiatric Bulletin, 274-276. 22,615-618. DAVISON, P. & PEREZ DE ALBENIZ, A. LANGLEY, G. E. 1993) Mental health 1997) Reports prepared for mental review tribunals in practice. Psychiatric Paul Egleston Senior House Officer in Psychiatry, Community Health Sheffield health review tribunals and managers' Bulletin, 17,331-336. NHS Trust, *Michael D. Hunter Clinical Lecturer, Academic Department of reviews. Psychiatric Bulletin, 21, Psychiatry,The Longley Centre, Norwood Grange Drive, Sheffield S5 7JT; Honorary 364-366. Specialist Registrar, Community Health Sheffield NHS Trust Psychiatric Bulletin 2002), 26,218^221 ROSS HAMILTON, PETER GORDON AND SIMON NAJI Service innovation: the first year of a brief psychiatric screening clinic in primary care AIMS AND METHOD RESULTS CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS To introduce a monthlyscreening Sixtypatients were selected for Patients referred from general prac- clinic for new patients referred to screeninginthefirstyear.Their tice with minor psychiatric morbidity the communitymental health team non-attendance rate of 48% was mayhave particularlyhigh rates of with less severe mental health more than double the rate for all new non-attendance.The brief screening problems. patients.We did not diagnose severe clinic model offered us considerable mental illness in anypatients on first savings in consulting time.The assessment or during the 6 months outcome for our service is shorter of follow-up. waiting times for patients with more severe mental health problems. General adult psychiatrists report increasing case-loads From this backdrop, and in the face of annual Mynors-Wallis, 2001) and plummeting morale Deahl & increments in new referrals to our own CHMT, we sought Turner, 1997). The case-loads of consultants in community to introduce a brief screening clinic for selected referrals mental health teams CMHTs) have been described from GPs to our service. The concept of triage in recently as too large for responsible medical officers emergency psychiatry has recently been described to exercise their statutory duties Tyrer et al,2001).In Morrison et al,2000),suggestingthatitisaneffective addition, the number of new referrals to psychiatric out- method of introducing flexibility of response and patient clinics reportedly increased by 13% in England and encouraging continuity of patient care. We have Wales between 1987^1988 and 1997^1998 Harvey et al, previously described our own views on pathways to care 2000), with 38% more recorded non-attendance in that for out-of-hours psychiatric referrals Gordon & Hamilton, time period. 1997). However, the following study concentrates on There is evidence that referral decisions dictating `triage' within routine referrals to a CMHT. pathways to care for people with mental health problems are not based upon the diagnosed mental health problem Morgan, 1989). Furthermore, there is recognition of The study the growing tension at the interface between mental Our CMHT accepts referrals from all GPs in the towns of health services and primary care as to roles and referral Peterhead and Fraserburgh in Aberdeenshire population criteria Gask et al, 1997). A recent survey of more than 37 653). Those towns are recognised as the most 200 mental health professionals psychiatrists, general deprived areas of Grampian McLoone, 2000). practitioners GPs) and psychologists) Ogden & Pinder, From 1 June 1999 until 31 May 2000, all new patient 1997) implies that referral guidelines may in fact be referrals from GPs to the team were considered for detrimental. No consensus among professionals could be allocation to the screening clinics. At the referral alloca- reached in this study as to who was the appropriate tion meeting, and using the GP's referral letter and any practitioner to deal with the vast majority of mental previous psychiatric case records, an attempt was made health problems. to identify patients from the general pool of referrals 218 Hamilton et al Psychiatric screening clinic who had no markers of severe enduring mental illness. Method Thus, patients were selected for the screening clinic A thorough case note review to include a 6-month when there was no documented past psychiatric history original follow-up period after first appointment) was undertaken and usually when the GP had diagnosed mild depression, papers for all 60 patients referred to the screening clinic in the adjustment disorder or neuroses. 12-month study period. For patients who attended, an The screening clinics were held on one afternoon per International Classification of Diseases ICD^10, World month in the same venues as the `shifted out-patient Health Organization, 1992) opening diagnosis was avail- clinics' Tyrer, 1984). These clinics are run on a weekly able in all cases from the episode opening documentation basis in the two general practices and cottage hospitals returned to the medical records department at the within the towns. Between four and six of the selected time of the first assessment. Scrutiny of those attenders' patients were invited to attend the monthly screening records for the following 6 months allowed us to clinics. A 20-minute appointment was offered with examine whether such patients continued treatment with either a consultant psychiatrist or specialist registrar, the CMHT. If the patient was discharged at first assess- accompanied by one other member of the CMHT, usually ment then notes were reviewed to establish whether a community psychiatric nurse, psychiatric social worker they were referred backto the CMHT.We also checked or occupational therapist. At the time of this initial for evidence of referral to the liaison psychiatric services assessment any patient judged to have a severe mental following episodes of deliberate self-harm and whether illness see Table 1) was to be offered a full psychiatric there had been a psychiatric hospital admission or re- referral to any of the psychiatry sub-specialities. We also evaluation at the next available clinic usually within 7 reviewed the return data to our trust from the Registrar days). Alternatively, of course, patients could be admitted of Deaths, which includes all suicides and suspicious to hospital from the clinic for further assessment. deaths. Similarly for non-attenders we reviewed all psychiatric case notes for re-referral, or contact with any of the other services noted above, in the 6-month Aims of the project period following the missed appointment. We had previously observed that many patients referred with minor psychiatric morbidity did not attend for Findings the initial appointment. We postulated that such non- attendance may be owing to resolution of some personal During the 12 months of the study, 60 patients were selected from a total of 334 referrals to the allocation or social crisis within the period between referral and the meetings. This represents around 18% of new referrals offer of the first assessment appointment on average and all 60 were invited to the screening clinics. The ratio about 4^6 weeks later). In addition, we had also noted of males to females was 26:34 and only five patients that many patients with less severe psychiatric problems were over 50 years of age. Twenty-nine 48%) did not were discharged after first assessment. The 6-month attend their first appointment, more than double the follow-up data were collected to allow us to examine 21% non-attendance rate for the same time period for all outcome for clinic non-attenders and patients discharged 334 new referrals to the team. at their first visit. Scrutiny of the diagnoses on first The diagnosis on episode opening from the 31 assessment at the screening clinic enabled us to gauge patients who attended for first assessment is recorded in our accuracy in selecting patients for screening who Table 1.The most frequent episode opening diagnoses are appeared to have less severe problems from their referral adjustment disorder n=9; 29%) and nil psychiatric n=5; letters. 16%). The diagnoses under the heading `other' were post- By screening up to six new referrals at 20-minute traumatic stress disorder, dysmorphophobia, generalised intervals in the brief clinic there was the potential to free anxiety disorder, two adverse events from childhood and up 4 hours of assessment time given that our traditional one other personality disorder. Substance misuse, model was to offer a 1-hour slot for each new referral. depressive episodes, either mild or in remission, and There appeared then the opportunity to shorten waiting other consequences of childhood events make up the remainder of opening diagnoses. None of the patients times for first assessments for patients with more severe who attended for initial assessment were diagnosed to mental health problems. The screening clinic also held have a psychotic illness or moderate or severe depres- potential to avoid clinicians being `stranded' in peripheral sion. No patients were admitted from the screening clinic settings with unfilled new patient slots and no identifiable or recalled for urgent review. clinical workto occupy that time. We also hoped that The 6-month follow-up data are presented for clinic joint assessment procedures within the team would attenders and non-attenders Table 2). From Table 2 just be mutually beneficial in terms of team building and over a quarter n=8; 26%) of the 31 attenders were education. taken on for further treatment with the CMHT.