A comparison of antibiotic prescribing indicators and medicines management scoring in secondary care

Poster: - Robust prescribing indicators analogous to those used in primary care are not available currently in NHS hospital trusts - The Department of Health has recently implemented a scheme for self-assessment scoring medicines management processes (maximum 23) in NHS hospitals - There is no clear relationship between average values for two antibiotic prescribing indicators obtained in ten NHS hospital trusts in the West Midlands - There is no clear relationship between either indicator value and the corresponding self-assessment medicines management score - This study highlights the difficulties involved in assessing the medicines management processes in NHS hospitals; better medicines management evaluation systems are needed

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.

Development and psychometric evaluation of a new team effectiveness scale for all types of community adult mental health teams:a mixed-methods approach

Defining 'effectiveness' in the context of community mental health teams (CMHTs) has become increasingly difficult under the current pattern of provision required in National Health Service mental health services in England. The aim of this study was to establish the characteristics of multi-professional team working effectiveness in adult CMHTs to develop a new measure of CMHT effectiveness. The study was conducted between May and November 2010 and comprised two stages. Stage 1 used a formative evaluative approach based on the Productivity Measurement and Enhancement System to develop the scale with multiple stakeholder groups over a series of qualitative workshops held in various locations across England. Stage 2 analysed responses from a cross-sectional survey of 1500 members in 135 CMHTs from 11 Mental Health Trusts in England to determine the scale's psychometric properties. Based on an analysis of its structural validity and reliability, the resultant 20-item scale demonstrated good psychometric properties and captured one overall latent factor of CMHT effectiveness comprising seven dimensions: improved service user well-being, creative problem-solving, continuous care, inter-team working, respect between professionals, engagement with carers and therapeutic relationships with service users. The scale will be of significant value to CMHTs and healthcare commissioners both nationally and internationally for monitoring, evaluating and improving team functioning in practice.