167 resultados para Psychiatrists
Resumo:
The ‘Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Psychosocial Care of Adults with Cancer’ was launched by the Federal Minister of Health on 14th August 2003.1 Developed by the National Breast Cancer Centre and the National Cancer Control Initiative and approved by the National Health and Medical Research Council in April 2003, these guidelines are the first of their kind for health professionals who treat, or are involved with cancer patients at all stages of care from diagnosis, through to treatment and palliation. The guidelines are aimed particularly at general practitioners, and cancer specialists such as radiation and medical oncologists, surgeons, nurses, social workers, psychologists, psychiatrists, physiotherapists and occupational therapists. The guidelines are based on comprehensive and systematic reviews of the international research literature and an extensive consultative process to ensure their clinical relevance. They were informed by a multidisciplinary steering group with expertise across a wide range of cancers and health professions and included consumer representation.
Resumo:
Objective: To examine new strategies which may be implemented to address the significant mental health and substance abuse problems of young people within the juvenile justice system. Method: Wide-ranging literature review of mental health problems within the juvenile justice population is given, illustrating the high prevalence of mental health problems within this cohort of young people. Reference is made to the differing demographics and agendas of the American justice system compared to that found in Australia. Results: It is suggested that new initiatives stemming from quality Australian studies are required in order to facilitate reform within adolescent forensic mental health. Psychiatrists need to be at the forefront of innovative policy delivery within the juvenile justice system. Conclusions: A transdisciplinary approach is required to meet the changing needs of young people within the juvenile justice system. Such a system of care recognizes that these young people and their families have multiple needs that cross traditional boundaries and a collaborative approach across agencies is essential at both the policy and practical level. Psychiatrists have an important role to play in the development of these services. A systemic process to address such needs is offered.
Resumo:
Background Relatively little international work has examined whether mental health resource allocation matches need. This study aimed to determine whether adult mental health resources in Australia are being distributed equitably. Method Individual measures of need were extrapolated to Australian Areas, and Area-based proxies of need were considered. Particular attention was paid to the prevalence of mental health problems, since this is arguably the most objective measure of need. The extent to which these measures predicted public sector, private sector and total adult mental health expenditure at an Area level was examined. Results In the public sector, 41.6% of expenditure variation was explained by the prevalence of affective disorders, personality disorders, cognitive impairment and psychosis, as well as the Area's level of economic resources and State/Territory effects. In the private sector, 72.4% of expenditure variation was explained by service use and State/Territory effects (with an alternative model incorporating service use and State/Territory supply of private psychiatrists explaining 69.4% of expenditure variation). A relatively high proportion (58.7%) of total expenditure variation could be explained by service utilisation and State/Territory effects. Conclusions For services to be delivered equitably, the majority of variation in expenditure would have to be accounted for by appropriate measures of need. The best model for public sector expenditure included an appropriate measure of need but had relatively poor explanatory power. The models for private sector and total expenditure had greater explanatory power, but relied on less appropriate measures of need. It is concluded that mental health services in Australia are not yet being delivered equitably.
Resumo:
Background The aims of this study were threefold. First, to ascertain whether personality disorder (PD) was a significant predictor of disability (as measured in a variety of ways) over and above that contributed by Axis I mental disorders and physical conditions. Second, whether the number of PD diagnoses given to an individual resulted in increasing severity of disability, and third, whether PD was a significant predictor of health and mental health consultations with GPs, psychiatrists, and psychologists, respectively, over the last 12 months. Method Data were obtained from the National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing, conducted between May and August 1997. A stratified random sample of households was generated, from which all those aged 18 and over were considered potential interviewees. There were 10 641 respondents to the survey, and this represented a response rate of 78%. Each interviewee was asked questions indexing specific ICD-10 PD criteria. Results Five measures of disability were examined. It was found that PD was a significant predictor of disability once Axis I and physical conditions were taken into account for four of the five disability measures. For three of the dichotomously-scored disability measures, odds ratios ranged from 1.88 to 6.32 for PD, whilst for the dimensionally-scored Mental Summary Subscale of the SF-12, a beta weight of -0.17 was recorded for PD. As regards number of PDs having a quasi-linear relationship to disability, there was some indication of this on the SF-12 Mental Summary Subscale and the two role functioning measures, and less so on the other two measures. As regards mental consultations, PD was a predictor of visits to GPs, psychiatrists and psychologists, over and above Axis I disorders and physical conditions. Conclusion The study reports findings from a nationwide survey conducted within Australia and as such the data are less influenced by the selection and setting bias inherent in other germane studies. However, it does support previous findings that PD is a significant predictor of disability and mental health consultations independent of Axis I disorders and physical conditions.
Resumo:
Objective: Recent data from Education Queensland has identified rising numbers of children receiving diagnoses of autistic spectrum disorder (ASD). Faced with funding diagnostic pressures, in clinical situations that are complex and inherently uncertain, it is possible that specialists err on the side of a positive diagnosis. This study examines the extent to which possible overinclusion of ASD diagnosis may exist in the presence of uncertainty and factors potentially related to this practice in Queensland. Methods: Using anonymous self-report, all Queensland child psychiatrists and paediatricians who see paediatric patients with development/behavioural problems were surveyed and asked whether they had ever specified an ASD diagnosis in the presence of diagnostic uncertainty. Using logistic regression, elicited responses to the diagnostic uncertainty questions were related to other clinical- and practice-related characteristics. Results: Overall, 58% of surveyed psychiatrists and paediatricians indicated that, in the face of diagnostic uncertainty, they had erred on the side of providing an ASD diagnosis for educational ascertainment and 36% of clinicians had provided an autism diagnosis for Carer's Allowance when Centrelink diagnostic specifications had not been met. Conclusion: In the absence of definitive biological markers, ASD remains a behavioural diagnosis that is often complex and uncertain. In response to systems that demand a categorical diagnostic response, specialists are providing ASD diagnoses, even when uncertain. The motivation for this practice appears to be a clinical risk/benefit analysis of what will achieve the best outcomes for children. It is likely that these practices will continue unless systems change eligibility to funding based on functional impairment rather than medical diagnostic categories.
Resumo:
Objective: For both paediatricians and child psychiatrists, referrals to assess possible autistic spectrum disorders (ASD) are increasing. This study examines current practices of medical specialists in the assessment of these disorders. Methods: An anonymous, self-report questionnaire was sent to all Queensland paediatricians and child psychiatrists. The survey elicited frequencies of consultation for ASD, diagnostic method, advice provided and perceived adequacy of training for this work. Results: Responses were received from 79 (85%) eligible paediatricians and 26 (58%) eligible child psychiatrists. For one-third of all clinicians, new consultations for possible ASD occurred as often as 2-3 times per week. Most specialists approached the clinical diagnosis of ASD by considering history from different sources and professional assessments. Paediatricians (86%) were more likely than child psychiatrists (62%) to request genetic studies for children with severe autism (P = 0.01). Both general paediatricians and developmental paediatricians perceived level of training for possible ASD consultations was significantly worse than child psychiatrists (P < 0.001 and P = 0.02, respectively), but no difference was found between paediatric groups (P = 0.27). Perceived adequacy of specialist training was not associated with length of experience in clinical practice. Conclusion: Medical practice in Queensland around diagnosis of ASD is characterized by considerable variability. There is still a long way to go if we are to achieve consistency around medical issues of organic diagnosis and practices impacting on health as well as consideration of differential developmental diagnoses. The finding that recently trained paediatricians felt just as unprepared for this work as their older colleagues suggests that the graduate training response to this 'new morbidity' has not been adequate.
Resumo:
Objective: Partnerships in mental health care, particularly between public and private psychiatric services, are being increasingly recognized as important for optimizing patient management and the efficient organization of services. However, public sector mental health services and private psychiatrists do not always work well together and there seem to be a number of barriers to effective collaboration. This study set out to investigate the extent of collaborative 'shared care' arrangements between a public mental health service and private psychiatrists practising nearby. It also examined possible barriers to collaboration and some possible solutions to the identified problems. Method: A questionnaire examining the above factors was sent to all public sector mental health clinicians and all private psychiatrists in the area. Results: One hundred and five of the 154 (68.2%) public sector clinicians and 103 of the 194 (53.1%) private psychiatrists returned surveys. The main barriers to successful collaboration identified by members of both sectors were: 'Difficulty communicating' endorsed by 71.4% of public clinicians and 72% of private psychiatrists, 'Confusion of roles and responsibilities' endorsed by 62.9% and 66%, respectively, and 'Different treatment approach' by 47.6% and 45.6%, respectively. Over 60% of private psychiatrists identified problems with access to the public system as a barrier to successful shared care arrangements. It also emerged, as hypothesized, that the public and private systems tend to manage different patient populations and that public clinicians in particular are not fully aware of the private psychiatrists' range of expertise. This would result in fewer referrals for shared care across the sectors. Conclusions: A number of barriers to public sector clinicians and private psychiatrists collaborating in shared care arrangements were identified. The two groups surveyed identified similar barriers. Some of these can potentially be addressed by changes to service systems. Others require cultural shifts in both sectors. Improved communications including more opportunities for formal and informal meetings between people working in the two sectors would be likely to improve the understanding of the complementary sector's perspective and practice. Further changes would be expected to require careful work between the sectors on training, employment and practice protocols and initiatives, to allow better use of the existing services and resources.
Resumo:
Background: Cannabis use appears to exacerbate psychotic symptoms and increase risk of psychotic relapse. However, the relative contribution of cannabis use compared with other risk factors is unclear. The influence of psychotic symptoms on cannabis use has received little attention. Aims: To examine the influence of cannabis use on psychotic symptom relapse and the influence of psychotic symptom severity on relapse in cannabis use in the 6 months following hospital admission. Method: At baseline, 84 participants with recent-onset psychosis were assessed and 81 were followed up weekly for 6 months, using telephone and face-to-face interviews. Results: A higher frequency of cannabis use was predictive of psychotic relapse, after controlling for medication adherence, other substance use and duration of untreated psychosis. An increase in psychotic symptoms was predictive of relapse to cannabis use, and medication adherence reduced cannabis relapse risk. Conclusions: The relationship between cannabis use and psychosis may be bidirectional, highlighting the need for early intervention programmes to target cannabis use and psychotic symptom severity in this population. Declaration of interest: None. Funding detailed in Acknowledgements.
Resumo:
Background Well-designed prospective studies of substance misuse in first-episode psychosis can improve our understanding of the risks associated with comorbid substance misuse and psychosis. Aims To examine the potential effects of substance misuse on in-patient admission and remission and relapse of positive symptoms in first-episode psychosis. Method The study was a prospective 15-month follow-up investigation of 103 patients with first-episode psychosis recruited from three mental health services. Results Substance misuse was independently associated with increased risk of in-patient admission, relapse of positive symptoms and shorter time to relapse of positive symptoms after controlling for potential confounding factors, Substance misuse was not associated with remission or time to remission of positive symptoms. Heavy substance misuse was associated with increased risk of in-patient admission, relapse and shorter time to relapse. Conclusions Substance misuse is an independent risk factor for a problematic recovery from first-episode psychosis.
Resumo:
Objectives: This study aimed to identify rates and correlates of psychotropic drug utilization in children and adolescents in inpatient and outpatient settings. Methods: A retrospective chart review examined 122 inpatient and 126 outpatient charts from a metropolitan child and youth mental health service in Brisbane, Australia. Results: Inpatients received more psychotropic medication than outpatients (71% vs. 25%; p < 0.01). Patients receiving medication were older, had longer hospital admissions, and more complex presentations, including history of abuse or suicide attempts and more diagnoses (all p < 0.01). Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) were the most frequently used drug class (44% inpatients; 14% outpatients), primarily indicated for mood disorders (31%). SSRIs and newer antidepressants (ADs) were used more frequently in patients with a high suicide risk (p < 0.01). Atypical antipsychotics (APs) were also used (inpatients 23%; outpatients 3%), primarily for behavioral disturbances. Half of those receiving medication (51%) received polypharmacy (> 1 concurrent drug), with up to four drugs used at one time. Rates of polypharmacy were highest among patients receiving antipsychotics. Conclusions: Use of psychotropic medication is frequent in this population. Future research should initially focus on inpatients and intensive treatment settings and examine both safety and efficacy of interventions for depression in young people, atypical antipsychotics for behavioral disturbances, and polypharmacy.