Medication error in mental health:implications for primary care

Medication errors are associated with significant morbidity and people with mental health problems may be particularly susceptible to medication errors due to various factors. Primary care has a key role in improving medication safety in this vulnerable population. The complexity of services, involving primary and secondary care and social services, and potential training issues may increase error rates, with physical medicines representing a particular risk. Service users may be cognitively impaired and fail to identify an error placing additional responsibilities on clinicians. The potential role of carers in error prevention and medication safety requires further elaboration. A potential lack of trust between service users and clinicians may impair honest communication about medication issues leading to errors. There is a need for detailed research within this field.

Investigating mental health risk assessment in primary care and the potential role of a structured decision support tool, GRiST

Aim: To explore current risk assessment processes in general practice and Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) services, and to consider whether the Galatean Risk and Safety Tool (GRiST) can help support improved patient care. Background: Much has been written about risk assessment practice in secondary mental health care, but little is known about how it is undertaken at the beginning of patients' care pathways, within general practice and IAPT services. Methods: Interviews with eight general practice and eight IAPT clinicians from two primary care trusts in the West Midlands, UK, and eight service users from the same region. Interviews explored current practice and participants' views and experiences of mental health risk assessment. Two focus groups were also carried out, one with general practice and one with IAPT clinicians, to review interview findings and to elicit views about GRiST from a demonstration of its functionality. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. Findings Variable approaches to mental health risk assessment were observed. Clinicians were anxious that important risk information was being missed, and risk communication was undermined. Patients felt uninvolved in the process, and both clinicians and patients expressed anxiety about risk assessment skills. Clinicians were positive about the potential for GRiST to provide solutions to these problems. Conclusions: A more structured and systematic approach to risk assessment in general practice and IAPT services is needed, to ensure important risk information is captured and communicated across the care pathway. GRiST has the functionality to support this aspect of practice.

Be SMART:examining the experience of implementing the NHS Health Check in UK primary care

Background: The NHS Health Check was designed by UK Department of Health to address increased prevalence of cardiovascular disease by identifying risk levels and facilitating behaviour change. It constituted biomedical testing, personalised advice and lifestyle support. The objective of the study was to explore Health Care Professionals' (HCPs) and patients' experiences of delivering and receiving the NHS Health Check in an inner-city region of England. Methods: Patients and HCPs in primary care were interviewed using semi-structured schedules. Data were analysed using Thematic Analysis. Results: Four themes were identified. Firstly, Health Check as a test of 'roadworthiness' for people. The roadworthiness metaphor resonated with some patients but it signified a passive stance toward illness. Some patients described the check as useful in the theme, Health check as revelatory. HCPs found visual aids demonstrating levels of salt/fat/sugar in everyday foods and a 'traffic light' tape measure helpful in communicating such 'revelations' with patients. Being SMART and following the protocolrevealed that few HCPs used SMART goals and few patients spoke of them. HCPs require training to understand their rationale compared with traditional advice-giving. The need for further follow-up revealed disparity in follow-ups and patients were not systematically monitored over time. Conclusions: HCPs' training needs to include the use and evidence of the effectiveness of SMART goals in changing health behaviours. The significance of fidelity to protocol needs to be communicated to HCPs and commissioners to ensure consistency. Monitoring and measurement of follow-up, e.g., tracking of referrals, need to be resourced to provide evidence of the success of the NHS Health Check in terms of healthier lifestyles and reduced CVD risk.

Enhancing delivery of health behaviour change interventions in primary care: a meta-synthesis of views and experiences of primary care nurses

Objective To systematically find and synthesise qualitative studies that elicited views and experiences of nurses involved in the delivery of health behaviour change (HBC) interventions in primary care, with a focus on how this can inform enhanced delivery and adherence to a structured approach for HBC interventions. Methods Systematic search of five electronic databases and additional strategies to maximise identification of studies, appraisal of studies and use of meta-synthesis to develop an inductive and interpretative form of knowledge synthesis. Results Nine studies met the inclusion criteria. Synthesis resulted in the development of four inter-linking themes; (a) actively engaging nurses in the process of delivering HBC interventions, (b) clarifying roles and responsibilities of those involved, (c) engaging practice colleagues, (d) communication of aims and potential outcomes of the intervention. Conclusion The synthesis of qualitative evidence resulted in the development of a conceptual framework that remained true to the findings of primary studies. This framework describes factors that should be actively promoted to enhance delivery of and adherence to HBC interventions by nurses working in primary care. Practice implications The findings can be used to inform strategies for researchers, policymakers and healthcare providers to enhance fidelity and support delivery of HBC interventions.

Patient involvement in primary care mental health:a focus group study

Background: Patient involvement in health care is a strong political driver in the NHS. However in spite of policy prominence, there has been only limited previous work exploring patient involvement for people with serious mental illness. Aim: To describe the views on, potential for, and types of patient involvement in primary care from the perspectives of primary care health professionals and patients with serious mental illness. Design of study: Qualitative study consisting of six patient, six health professional and six combined focus groups between May 2002 and January 2003. Setting: Six primary care trusts in the West Midlands, England. Method: Forty-five patients with serious mental illness, 39 GPs, and eight practice nurses participated in a series of 18 focus groups. All focus groups were audiotaped and fully transcribed. Nvivo was used to manage data more effectively. Results: Most patients felt that only other people with lived experience of mental illness could understand what they were going through. This experience could be used to help others navigate the health- and social-care systems, give advice about medication, and offer support at times of crisis. Many patients also saw paid employment within primary care as a way of addressing issues of poverty and social exclusion. Health professionals were, however, more reluctant to see patients as partners, be it in the consultation or in service delivery. Conclusions: Meaningful change in patient involvement requires commitment and belief from primary care practitioners that the views and experiences of people with serious mental illness are valid and valuable.

Patients' and health professionals' views on primary care for people with serious mental illness:focus group study

Objective: To explore the experience of providing and receiving primary care from the perspectives of primary care health professionals and patients with serious mental illness respectively. Design: Qualitative study consisting of six patient groups, six health professional groups, and six combined focus groups. Setting: Six primary care trusts in the West Midlands. Participants: Forty five patients with serious mental illness, 39 general practitioners (GPs), and eight practice nurses. Results: Most health professionals felt that the care of people with serious mental illness was too specialised for primary care. However, most patients viewed primary care as the cornerstone of their health care and preferred to consult their own GP, who listened and was willing to learn, rather than be referred to a different GP with specific mental health knowledge. Swift access was important to patients, with barriers created by the effects of the illness and the noisy or crowded waiting area. Some patients described how they exaggerated symptoms ("acted up") to negotiate an urgent appointment, a strategy that was also employed by some GPs to facilitate admission to secondary care. Most participants felt that structured reviews of care had value. However, whereas health professionals perceived serious mental illness as a lifelong condition, patients emphasised the importance of optimism in treatment and hope for recovery. Conclusions: Primary care is of central importance to people with serious mental illness. The challenge for health professionals and patients is to create a system in which patients can see a health professional when they want to without needing to exaggerate their symptoms. The importance that patients attach to optimism in treatment, continuity of care, and listening skills compared with specific mental health knowledge should encourage health professionals in primary care to play a greater role in the care of patients with serious mental illness.

GPs' perspectives on managing the NHS Health Check in primary care:a qualitative evaluation of implementation in one area of England

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the implementation of the National Health Service (NHS) Health Check programme in one area of England from the perspective of general practitioners (GPs). DESIGN: A qualitative exploratory study was conducted with GPs and other healthcare professionals involved in delivering the NHS Health Check and with patients. This paper reports the experience of GPs and focuses on the management of the Heath Check programme in primary care. SETTING: Primary care surgeries in the Heart of Birmingham region (now under the auspices of the Birmingham Cross City Clinical Commissioning Group) were invited to take part in the larger scale evaluation. This study focuses on a subset of those surgeries whose GPs were willing to participate. PARTICIPANTS: 9 GPs from different practices volunteered. GPs served an ethnically diverse region with areas of socioeconomic deprivation. Ethnicities of participant GPs included South Asian, South Asian British, white, black British and Chinese. METHODS: Individual semistructured interviews were conducted with GPs face to face or via telephone. Thematic analysis was used to analyse verbatim transcripts. RESULTS: Themes were generated which represent GPs' experiences of managing the NHS Health Check: primary care as a commercial enterprise; 'buy in' to concordance in preventive healthcare; following protocol and support provision. These themes represent the key issues raised by GPs. They reveal variability in the implementation of NHS Health Checks. GPs also need support in allocating resources to the Health Check including training on how to conduct checks in a concordant (or collaborative) way. CONCLUSIONS: The variability observed in this small-scale evaluation corroborates existing findings suggesting a need for more standardisation. Further large-scale research is needed to determine how that could be achieved. Work needs to be done to further develop a concordant approach to lifestyle advice which involves tailored individual goal setting rather than a paternalistic advice-giving model.

Optimising primary care for people with dementia

This review considers key areas in primary care regarding the diagnosis of dementia. Issues surrounding assessment, policy and incentives are considered. In addition, the relevance of non-medication approaches for dementia in primary care, which aim to enhance or maintain quality of life by maximising psychological and social function in the context of existing disabilities, is deliberated. Finally, key issues about primary care medication management are considered, and relevant therapeutic strategies with recommendation for a collaborative approach that improve outcomes by linking primary and secondary healthcare services - including general practice and pharmacy - with social care needs are weighed up. A key aspect of such a collaborative approach is to support informal carers in optimising medication.

Managing crisis:the role of primary care for people with serious mental illness

Background and Objectives: More than 30% of patients with serious mental illness in the United Kingdom now receive all their health care solely from primary care. This study explored the process of managing acute mental health crises from the dual perspective of patients and primary care health professionals. Methods: Eighteen focus groups involving 45 patients, 39 general practitioners, and eight practice nurses were held between May and November 2002 in six Primary Care Trusts across the British West Midlands. The topic guide explored perceptions of gold standard care, current issues and critical incidents in receiving/providing care, and ideas on improving services. Results: Themes relevant to the management of acute crisis included issues of process, such as access, advocacy, communication, continuity, and coordination of care; the development of more structured care that might reduce the need for crisis responses; and issues raised by the development of a more structured approach to care. Conclusions: Access to services is a complicated yet crucial feature of managing care in a crisis, with patients identifying barriers at the level of primary care and health professionals at the interface with secondary care. The development of more structured systems as a solution may generate its own ethical and pragmatic challenges.

Satisfaction with primary care:the perspectives of people with schizophrenia

Background. Schizophrenia affects up to 1% of the population in the UK. People with schizophrenia use the National Health Service frequently and over a long period of time. However, their views on satisfaction with primary care are rarely sought. Objectives. This study aimed to explore the elements of satisfaction with primary care for people with schizophrenia. Method. A primary care-based study was carried out using semi-structured interviews with 45 patients with schizophrenia receiving shared care with the Northern Birmingham Mental Health Trust between 1999 and 2000. Results. Five major themes that affect satisfaction emerged from the data: the exceptional potential of the consultation itself; the importance of aspects of the organization of primary care; the construction of the user in the doctor-patient relationship; the influence of stereotypes on GP behaviour; and the importance of hope for recovery. Conclusion. Satisfaction with primary care is multiply mediated. It is also rarely expected or achieved by this group of patients. There is a significant gap between the rhetoric and the reality of user involvement in primary care consultations. Acknowledging the tensions between societal and GP views of schizophrenia as an incurable life sentence and the importance to patients of hope for recovery is likely to lead to greater satisfaction with primary health care for people with schizophrenia.

A randomised controlled trial of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system in primary care against standard treatment for menorrhagia:the ECLIPSE trial

BACKGROUND: Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is a common problem, yet evidence to inform decisions about initial medical treatment is limited. OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) (Mirena(®), Bayer) compared with usual medical treatment, with exploration of women's perspectives on treatment. DESIGN: A pragmatic, multicentre randomised trial with an economic evaluation and a longitudinal qualitative study. SETTING: Women who presented in primary care. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 571 women with HMB. A purposeful sample of 27 women who were randomised or ineligible owing to treatment preference participated in semistructured face-to-face interviews around 2 and 12 months after commencing treatment. INTERVENTIONS: LNG-IUS or usual medical treatment (tranexamic acid, mefenamic acid, combined oestrogen-progestogen or progesterone alone). Women could subsequently swap or cease their allocated treatment. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the patient-reported score on the Menorrhagia Multi-Attribute Scale (MMAS) assessed over a 2-year period and then again at 5 years. Secondary outcomes included general quality of life (QoL), sexual activity, surgical intervention and safety. Data were analysed using iterative constant comparison. A state transition model-based cost-utility analysis was undertaken alongside the randomised trial. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were derived from the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) and the Short Form questionnaire-6 Dimensions (SF-6D). The intention-to-treat analyses were reported as cost per QALY gained. Uncertainty was explored by conducting both deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: The MMAS total scores improved significantly in both groups at all time points, but were significantly greater for the LNG-IUS than for usual treatment [mean difference over 2 years was 13.4 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) 9.9 to 16.9 points; p < 0.001]. However, this difference between groups was reduced and no longer significant by 5 years (mean difference in scores 3.9 points, 95% CI -0.6 to 8.3 points; p = 0.09). By 5 years, only 47% of women had a LNG-IUS in place and 15% were still taking usual medical treatment. Five-year surgery rates were low, at 20%, and were similar, irrespective of initial treatments. There were no significant differences in serious adverse events between groups. Using the EQ-5D, at 2 years, the relative cost-effectiveness of the LNG-IUS compared with usual medical treatment was £1600 per QALY, which by 5 years was reduced to £114 per QALY. Using the SF-6D, usual medical treatment dominates the LNG-IUS. The qualitative findings show that women's experiences and expectations of medical treatments for HMB vary considerably and change over time. Women had high expectations of a prompt effect from medical treatments. CONCLUSIONS: The LNG-IUS, compared with usual medical therapies, resulted in greater improvement over 2 years in women's assessments of the effect of HMB on their daily routine, including work, social and family life, and psychological and physical well-being. At 5 years, the differences were no longer significant. A similar low proportion of women required surgical intervention in both groups. The LNG-IUS is cost-effective in both the short and medium term, using the method generally recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Using the alternative measures to value QoL will have a considerable impact on cost-effectiveness decisions. It will be important to explore the clinical and health-care trajectories of the ECLIPSE (clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system in primary care against standard treatment for menorrhagia) trial participants to 10 years, by which time half of the cohort will have reached menopause. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN86566246. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 19, No. 88. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.