HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS British Journal of Psychiatry Advances in Psychiatric Treatment All RCPsych Journals		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Submit an eLetter Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via CrossRef Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Marriott, S. Articles by Lelliott, P. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Marriott, S. Articles by Lelliott, P.

The clinical management of a patient with depressive disorder: a case vignette study to examine general practitioners' views

Paterson Centre for Mental Health, 20 South Wharf Road, London W2 1EE

Christine Wright, CSAG Research Assistant and Paul Lelliott, Director

Royal College of Psychiatrists' Research Unit

Declaration of interest

None.

	Abstract

Top Abstract Introduction The study Results Discussion References

 
AIMS AND METHOD

The study aimed to examine general practitioner (GP) views about the appropriate management of a patient with a depressive disorder. A questionnaire based around a patient case history was sent to 188 GPs from 11 primary care groups nationally.

RESULTS

The response rate was 62%. At first presentation, a third of GPs offered ‘watchful waiting’ and a third prescribed medication. If the patient's condition deteriorated, nearly all GPs initiated therapeutic doses of antidepressant medication immediately. If the patient failed to respond, 60% of GPs commenced second-line antidepressant treatment. Following recovery, a quarter of GPs would continue antidepressant treatment for 4 months or more.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

GPs' interventions in the management of depression concur with expert national guidelines. There is scope for strengthening the effectiveness of pharmacological intervention in the later stages of treatment.

	Introduction

Top Abstract Introduction The study Results Discussion References

 
Depression is very common among patients presenting in primary care. The condition is associated with considerable chronicity (Kessler et al, 1997) and morbidity (Murray et al, 1997), and in the UK 80% of patients identified as having depression are treated entirely in primary care (Goldberg & Huxley, 1992). On average, an NHS general practitioner (GP) consultation lasts for less than 10 minutes, and there will be one patient with depression seen during each surgery. A small proportion of these are referred to specialist mental health services. Both antidepressant drugs and specific psychological therapies (cognitive—behavioural therapy (CBT) and interpersonal therapy (IPT)) have been shown to be beneficial in the management of depression (Department of Health, 2001).

The study aimed to examine GPs' views about the appropriate management of a patient diagnosed with depressive illness, their use medication and their shared management of such a patient with other specialists working either within general practice or in local community or secondary mental health services. This study was one component of the UK-wide Clinical Standards Advisory Group (CSAG) depression study (Clinical Standards Advisory Group, 1999).

	The study

Top Abstract Introduction The study Results Discussion References

 
The questionnaire
A self-administered, structured questionnaire was developed and piloted, based on the case history describing a male patient presenting initially with a 5-week history of a depressive disorder (part one) associated with a single, recent life event (suspension from work). The case history was separated into two further components, which described the patient's deterioration (part two) and recovery from acute symptoms of depression (part three) (see Box 1 for case vignette). For the purpose of data analysis, the patient's condition fulfilled the diagnostic criteria for major depression, in part one with mild psychosocial impairment and in part two with severe psychosocial impairment. Each part was accompanied by a series of closed questions, each with several stems. Space for free text was included where appropriate.

The sample
The sampling process for the main CSAG study identified 11 geographical areas that were visited by a CSAG review team. An up-to-date list of GPs in each area was requested from each health authority or health board, together with details of proposed primary care groups in the area. The sample included one area from each of the eight NHS regions in England and one each from Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Each area was either a single primary care group (PCG) or, for those places where no PCGs existed, a sample of sites of equivalent size, which were as representative as possible of the range of socio-demographic groups as defined by the Office for National Statistics (ONS, 1996).

Data collection
Between 12 and 15 general practices (covering the full range of partnership sizes) were selected. Each practice was invited to participate in interviews with the CSAG depression visiting teams. The case history and questionnaire was sent with a covering letter to all GPs (n=188) from the practices that had agreed to participate in the site visits, in advance of the visit. Members of the visiting team collected completed questionnaires at the time of the visit.

	Results

Top Abstract Introduction The study Results Discussion References

 
Part one
One hundred and seventeen (62%) completed questionnaires were returned. At the initial patient consultation 48 GPs (41%) stated they would offer ‘watchful waiting’ and 40 (34%) would prescribe medication immediately, although if the patient stated a clear preference for medication at this stage, this increased to 72 (61%). When a prescription was indicated, an antidepressant was nearly always the treatment of choice (n=69; 95%). Thirteen (11%) GPs wanted to refer straight away to a specialist and thirteen provided patient information sheets routinely.

Part two
Ninety-five per cent of GPs stated they wanted to review the patient within 2 weeks, and the median interval to the next follow-up appointment was 2 weeks (range: 1 week to 1 month). If the patient's condition had deteriorated, or failed to respond, when seen 4 weeks after first presentation (part two) all GPs would now prescribe an antidepressant. Half of the sample (n=58; 50%) chose a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) as first-line treatment and 41% (n=48) chose a tricyclic antidepressant (TCA). Once established on antidepressant treatment, most GPs (n=95; 81%) said they would review the patient within 2 weeks. The mean duration of the trial of highest dose treatment was 5.7 weeks before concluding the treatment was not working. The most commonly selected SSRIs were fluoxetine (n=31), at a median starting dose of 20 mg and median highest dose of 40 mg, and paroxetine (n=16) at a median starting dose of 20 mg and median highest dose of 40 mg. The most commonly selected TCAs were dothiepin (n=30), at a median starting dose of 75 mg and median highest dose of 150 mg, and amitriptyline (n=9) at a median starting dose of 125 mg and median highest dose of 150 mg.

If the patient's condition failed to respond adequately to first-line prescribed treatment, 69 GPs (59%) switched the patient to a second-line antidepressant. At this stage 83 (71%) said they would also refer to another mental health specialist, either within the primary health care team or in specialist services. Thirty-eight per cent of GPs said that counselling was the most appropriate psychological intervention at this stage, 37% CBT and 8% psychodynamic therapy.

Part three
Once the patient demonstrated a complete recovery, most GPs (74/117; 63.2%) advised continued antidepressant treatment for at least 3 months, and over a quarter (33; 28%) for 4 months or more.

	Discussion

Top Abstract Introduction The study Results Discussion References

 
Only a third of GPs said they would initiate a prescription for a patient with a mild disorder presenting for the first time. The two-thirds who would not are in accord with expert guidelines on appropriate management. Evidence-based guidelines recommend TCAs should be the treatment of first choice in the primary care of depression (Eccles et al, 1999), although in this sample SSRIs were most favoured among GPs and there is independent evidence of a rising popularity in the use of SSRIs (Martin et al, 1997). This might reflect the impact of aggressive marketing of SSRIs since the guidelines were introduced, as well as a significant body of opinion that SSRIs are preferable as a first-line treatment. When a trial of firstline antidepressant failed, about two-thirds of GPs switched to a second-line antidepressant. About two-thirds of GPs suggested discontinuing treatment within 3 months of complete recovery. Recent expert guidelines suggest the effective dose should be continued for 6 months following complete resolution of the symptoms of a first episode (Anderson et al, 2000).

Where the patient's condition warranted a specific intervention this was usually antidepressant medication. Antidepressant treatment was often the only treatment of proven efficacy that was offered to those who required more than watchful waiting or non-specific counselling. Nationally, there is evidence of long waitinglists for small numbers of mental health workers with training in specific psychological treatments, usually CBT (CSAG, 1999). There was little evidence to suggest that patients are offered a choice of treatment or interventions to promote concordance and self-management, such as psychoeducation or the use of patient information leaflets.

Studies of this kind depend on interviewees and their self-report rather than more robust methods such as direct observation of consulting behaviour. All responders were self-selected and therefore more likely to be interested in, and knowledgeable of, mental health issues. For these reasons, the results may represent higher than average standards, and reflect aspirations rather than actual practice. The findings reported here suggest GPs' knowledge of the assessment and management of depression, including effective prescribing of first- and second-line antidepressant medication, generally concurs with expert guidelines for effective intervention, although there may be scope for strengthening intervention during the continuation phase and withdrawal of pharmacological treatment. Although patients prefer psychological treatment to drug treatment, and ask for counselling, they usually exercise little choice in the intervention they receive.

	References

Top Abstract Introduction The study Results Discussion References

 
ANDERSON, I. M., NUTT, D. J. & DEAKING, J. F. W. (2000) Evidence based guidelines for treating depressive disorders with antidepressants: a review of the 1993 British Association for Pharmacology Guidelines. Journal of Psychopharmacology, 14(1), 3-20.[Abstract]

CLINICAL STANDARDS ADVISORY GROUP (1999) Services for People with Depression. London: Department of Health.

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (2001) Treatment Choice in Psychological Therapies and Counselling: Evidence Based Clinical Practice Guideline. London: HMSO.

ECCLES, M., FREEMANTLE, N. & MASON, J. (1999) North of England evidence-based guideline development project: summary version of guidelines for the choice of antidepressants for depression in primary care. Family Practice, 16, 103-111.[Free Full Text]

GOLDBERG, D. & HUXLEY, P. (1992) Common Mental Disorders. A Bio-Social Model. London: Routledge.

KESSLER, R. C., ZHAO, S., BLAZER, D. G., et al(1997) Prevalence correlates and course of minor depression and major depression in the national comorbidity survey. Journal of Affective Disorders, 45, 19-30.[CrossRef][Medline]

MARTIN, R. M., HILTON, S. R., KERRY, S. M., et al(1997) General practitioners' perceptions about the tolerability of antidepressant drugs: a comparison between selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and tricyclics. BMJ, 314, 646-651.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

MURRAY, C. J. & LOPEZ, A. D. (1997) Alternate projections of mortality and disability by cause 1999-2020: global burden of disease study. Lancet, 349, 1498-1504.[CrossRef][Medline]

OFFICE FOR NATIONAL STATISTICS (1996) The ONS Classification of Local and Health Authorities of Great Britain. London: HMSO.

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Submit an eLetter Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via CrossRef Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Marriott, S. Articles by Lelliott, P. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Marriott, S. Articles by Lelliott, P.