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.

'Listen to my madness':understanding the experiences of people with serious mental illness

This article explores the salience of disability theory for understanding the experiences of people with serious mental illness. Drawing on data from a focus group study, we suggest that users experience both impairment (as embodied irrationality) which can, in itself, be oppressive, and also have to manage their lives within a largely disabling society. We outline some of the strategies adopted by users to manage their situation and ensure they access and receive health services, and illustrate how these are a result of the complex relationship between disability and impairment. We suggest that using a framework of the social model of disability provides a useful way of understanding and making sense of the experience of users with serious mental illness. © Blackwell Publishing Ltd/Foundation for the Sociology of Health & Illness 2005.

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.

Mental health pharmacists views on shared decision-making for antipsychotics in serious mental illness

Background People diagnosed with serious mental illnesses (SMIs) such as schizophrenia and bipolar affective disorder are frequently treated with antipsychotics. National guidance advises the use of shared decision-making (SDM) in antipsychotic prescribing. There is currently little data on the opinions of health professionals on the role of SDM. Objective To explore the views and experiences of UK mental health pharmacists regarding the use of SDM in antipsychotic prescribing in people diagnosed with SMI. Setting The study was conducted by interviewing secondary care mental health pharmacists in the UK to obtain qualitative data. Methods Semi-structured interviews were recorded. An inductive thematic analysis was conducted using the method of constant comparison. Main outcome measure Themes evolving from mental health pharmacists on SDM in relation to antipsychotic prescribing in people with SMI. Results Thirteen mental health pharmacists were interviewed. SDM was perceived to be linked to positive clinical outcomes including adherence, service user satisfaction and improved therapeutic relations. Despite more prescribers and service users supporting SDM, it was not seen as being practised as widely as it could be; this was attributed to a number of barriers, most predominantly issues surrounding service user’s lacking capacity to engage in SDM and time pressures on clinical staff. The need for greater effort to work around the issues, engage service users and adopt a more inter-professional approach was conveyed. Conclusion The mental health pharmacists support SDM for antipsychotic prescribing, believing that it improves outcomes. However, barriers are seen to limit implementation. More research is needed into overcoming the barriers and measuring the benefits of SDM, along with exploring a more inter-professional approach to SDM.

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.

The ‘first three years’ movement and the infant brain:a review of critiques

This article reviews a particular aspect of the critique of the increasing focus on the brain and neuroscience; what has been termed by some, 'neuromania'. It engages with the growing literature produced in response to the 'first three years' movement: an alliance of child welfare advocates and politicians that draws on the authority of neuroscience to argue that social problems such as inequality, poverty, educational underachievement, violence and mental illness are best addressed through 'early intervention' programmes to protect or enhance emotional and cognitive aspects of children's brain development. The movement began in the United States in the early 1990s and has become increasingly vocal and influential since then, achieving international legitimacy in the United States, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, the UK and elsewhere. The movement, and the brain-based culture of expert-led parent training that has grown with it, has been criticised for claiming scientific authority whilst taking a cavalier approach to scientific method and evidence; for being overly deterministic about the early years of life; for focusing attention on individual parental failings rather than societal or structural problems, for adding to the expanding anxieties of parents and strengthening the intensification of parenting and, ultimately, for redefining the parent-child relationship in biologised, instrumental and dehumanised terms. © 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Online information seeking by patients with bipolar disorder:results from an international multisite survey

Background: Information seeking is an important coping mechanism for dealing with chronic illness. Despite a growing number of mental health websites, there is little understanding of how patients with bipolar disorder use the Internet to seek information. Methods: A 39 question, paper-based, anonymous survey, translated into 12 languages, was completed by 1222 patients in 17 countries as a convenience sample between March 2014 and January 2016. All patients had a diagnosis of bipolar disorder from a psychiatrist. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and generalized estimating equations to account for correlated data. Results: 976 (81 % of 1212 valid responses) of the patients used the Internet, and of these 750 (77 %) looked for information on bipolar disorder. When looking online for information, 89 % used a computer rather than a smartphone, and 79 % started with a general search engine. The primary reasons for searching were drug side effects (51 %), to learn anonymously (43 %), and for help coping (39 %). About 1/3 rated their search skills as expert, and 2/3 as basic or intermediate. 59 % preferred a website on mental illness and 33 % preferred Wikipedia. Only 20 % read or participated in online support groups. Most patients (62 %) searched a couple times a year. Online information seeking helped about 2/3 to cope (41 % of the entire sample). About 2/3 did not discuss Internet findings with their doctor. Conclusion: Online information seeking helps many patients to cope although alternative information sources remain important. Most patients do not discuss Internet findings with their doctor, and concern remains about the quality of online information especially related to prescription drugs. Patients may not rate search skills accurately, and may not understand limitations of online privacy. More patient education about online information searching is needed and physicians should recommend a few high quality websites.

A study of outcomes measures in forensic mental health

Outcomes measures, which is the measurement of effectiveness of interventions and services has been propelled onto the health service agenda since the introduction of the internal market in the 1990s. It arose as a result of the escalating cost of inpatient care, the need to identify what interventions work and in what situations, and the desire for effective information by service users enabled by the consumerist agenda introduced by Working for Patients white paper. The research reported in this thesis is an assessment of the readiness of the forensic mental health service to measure outcomes of interventions. The research examines the type, prevalence and scope of use of outcomes measures, and further seeks a consensus of views of key stakeholders on the priority areas for future development. It discusses the theoretical basis for defining health and advocates the argument that the present focus on measuring effectiveness of care is misdirected without the input of users, particularly patients in their care, drawing together the views of the many stakeholders who have an interest in the provision of care in the service. The research further draws on the theory of structuration to demonstrate the degree to which a duality of action, which is necessary for the development, and use of outcomes measures is in place within the service. Consequently, it highlights some of the hurdles that need to be surmounted before effective measurement of health gain can be developed in the field of study. It concludes by advancing the view that outcomes research can enable practitioners to better understand the relationship between the illness of the patient and the efficacy of treatment. This understanding it is argued would contribute to improving dialogue between the health care practitioner and the patient, and further providing the information necessary for moving away from untested assumptions, which are numerous in the field about the superiority of one treatment approach over another.