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.

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.

Assessing the motivation of MDs to use computer-based support at the point-of-care in the emergency department

A significant body of research investigates the acceptance of computer-based support (including devices and applications ranging from e-mail to specialized clinical systems, like PACS) among clinicians. Much of this research has focused on measuring the usability of systems using characteristics related to the clarity of interactions and ease of use. We propose that an important attribute of any clinical computer-based support tool is the intrinsic motivation of the end-user (i.e. a clinician) to use the system in practice. In this paper we present the results of a study that investigated factors motivating medical doctors (MDs) to use computer-based support. Our results demonstrate that MDs value computer-based support, find it useful and easy to use, however, uptake is hindered by perceived incompetence, and pressure and tension associated with using technology.

Centralization of cleft care in the UK. Part 6:a tale of two studies

OBJECTIVES: We summarize and critique the methodology and outcomes from a substantial study which has investigated the impact of reconfigured cleft care in the United Kingdom (UK) 15 years after the UK government started to implement the centralization of cleft care in response to an earlier survey in 1998, the Clinical Standards Advisory Group (CSAG). SETTING AND SAMPLE POPULATION: A UK multicentre cross-sectional study of 5-year-olds born with non-syndromic unilateral cleft lip and palate. Data were collected from children born in the UK with a unilateral cleft lip and palate between 1 April 2005 and 31 March 2007. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We discuss and contextualize the outcomes from speech recordings, hearing, photographs, models, oral health and psychosocial factors in the current study. We refer to the earlier survey and other relevant studies. RESULTS: We present arguments for centralization of cleft care in healthcare systems, and we evidence this with improvements seen over a period of 15 years in the UK. We also make recommendations on how future audit and research may configure. CONCLUSIONS: Outcomes for children with a unilateral cleft lip and palate have improved after the introduction of a centralized multidisciplinary service, and other countries may benefit from this model. Predictors of early outcomes are still needed, and repeated cross-sectional studies, larger longitudinal studies and adequately powered trials are required to create a research-led evidence-based (centralized) service.