|
|
|||||||||||
LInC (Liaison at the Interface of Care Project
Paterson Centre for Mental Health, Central and North West London Mental Health Trust, 20 South Wharf Road, London W2 1EE
|
|
Abstract |
|---|
|
|
|---|
To improve the quality of written communication between general practitioners (GPs) and community mental health team (CMHT) members concerning patients newly referred to two inner-city CMHTs. Following a benchmark audit of a random sample of referral and assessment letters, locally agreed good practice protocols were shared widely, accompanied by a dissemination and implementation strategy.
RESULTS
Significant improvements occurred in both GP and CMHT letters; these were most dramatic after 1 year, but tailed off considerably in the second year despite continued efforts to implement the protocols standards.
CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS
Planned dissemination and implementation strategies can help to improve routine clinical communication between CMHTs and GPs through the use of good practice protocols, thus improving shared working between primary and secondary care providers.
|
|
Introduction |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Developing more effective shared care between primary and secondary services is a key feature of the National Service Framework for Mental Health (Department of Health, 1999). Although the acceptability of a protocol-based approach in primary care remains controversial (Kendrick, 2000), guidelines can be effective in influencing professional practice, but only when accompanied by dissemination and implementation strategies (Grimshaw & Russel, 1993). There has been recent interest in collaborative initiatives to improve the communication between primary and secondary care services (Jankowski, 2001). Strategies for dissemination aim to raise participants awareness, and evidence-based approaches include the use of printed educational materials (Freemantle et al, 2000): in our study these materials concisely described the project's rationale, aims and organisational endorsements. Implementation strategies aim to influence participants decisions and actions: we adopted a decision support system (Hunt, 1998) in the form of laminated A4 desktop reminders for GPs and CMHT members and performance feedback (Jamtvedt et al, 2003) in the form of 6-monthly audit reports sent to participating practices and CMHTs.
The aim of this project was to explore the effectiveness of using this combination of evidence-based dissemination and implementation strategies to support a locally-developed written communication protocol for GPs and CMHTs, using the relevance and reliability of their routine written communication about newly referred patients over a 2-year period as an outcome measure.
|
|
Method |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Sample
Through the provision of link workers, the CMHTs had established
connections with the 26 practices (link practices) referring the most new
patient cases each year. A random sample of new patient names was selected
from all new link practice referrals from the Central and North West London
Mental Health Trust's clinical information system, for each period of the
study. For each case, the GP's referral letter was traced from the patient's
file in the CMHT records library. The same method was used to select an
independent, random sample of CMHT letters for patients participating in a
first assessment at any time over the preceding 12 months.
Developing the protocols
The project team comprised a project worker (T.W.) and psychiatrist (S.M.)
working with an advisory group made up of a local GP, a community psychiatric
nurse and a CMHT administrator. The important components of written
communication between primary and secondary care services were agreed by
consensus and provided a provisional framework of information items for both
GPs referral letters (Box 1) and CMHTs new assessment letters
(Box 2). Following discussion between the project team and a wider group of
local GPs at their postgraduate educational meeting and with members of the
participating CMHTs at their weekly team meetings, the final protocols were
agreed.
Strategies for dissemination and implementation
At the start of the project, copies of the protocols and accompanying
information were sent by post to all participating link practice GPs and CMHT
members, together with a desktop decision support tool that would act as a
reminder of the relevant items to be included in clinical letters. Updates
were sent out at 6-monthly intervals throughout the project. Performance
feedback (Jamtvedt et al,
2003) was provided by posting baseline and successive audit
results to participating practices, at the start of the project and at
6-monthly intervals thereafter. In addition, CMHT link workers were asked to
discuss the protocols in detail at the practice meetings they attended, and if
possible with individual members of the primary health care team.
| Box 1. Quality criteria for general practitioners referral
letters to the community mental health team
|
| Box 2. Quality criteria for community mental health teams new
patient assessment letters to the referring general practitioner
|
Developing the audit tool
Protocol criteria provided the basis of an audit tool designed to detect
whether audited letters contained the recommended information items. To
improve the tool's reliability, it was piloted on a small sample
(n=10) by the two members of the project team independently before it
was finalised.
Data collection
Data were gathered from the letters held in patient files in the patient
services library at the CMHTs for three separate periods: time 1
was the 12-month period prior to the project starting (these data served as a
baseline measure); time 2, and time 3 were
consecutive 12-month periods during which the project ran.
Data analysis
Data were entered onto an Access database spreadsheet, summated and
expressed as means, and analysed using the Statistical Package for the Social
Sciences, version 10. Non-parametric data were analysed using the
KruskalWallis and
-squared tests.
|
|
Results |
|---|
|
|
|---|
|
Quality of referral letters
At the end of time 2, there was a trend towards improved performance for
all six GP referral letter criteria compared with the baseline standard. At
time 3, performance had deteriorated in comparison with time 2. During the
course of the project, improved performance was statistically significant for
four of the six criteria (Fig.
1).
|
Quality of CMHT letters
At time 2, CMHT letters showed improvement on all seven criteria compared
with the baseline measures. At time 3, further improvement was evident on five
of seven criteria and there was marginal deterioration on two criteria.
Overall, performance had improved significantly on five of seven criteria
since the quality initiative began (Fig.
2).
|
Reliability of correspondence
The completeness of CMHT clinical records was used as a proxy measure for
the reliability of correspondence exchanged between practitioners. The
percentage of assessments accompanied by routine correspondence from the CMHT
to the GP increased progressively during the project, but by time 3 no CMHT
correspondence to the GP could be traced in 15% of cases. Although all GP
referrals were made in writing, by the final year no GP letter could be traced
in 13% of cases. Taken together, these findings suggest that either the
administrative procedures supporting the clinical communication task, or the
reliability with which the clinical task was performed, or a combination of
the two, remained unreliable (Table
2).
|
|
|
Discussion |
|---|
|
|
|---|
By the end of the second year, as the halo effect of the audit began to dim, a considerable proportion of letters still fell below the desired standards of quality and reliability; some gains made early on in the project had been lost, and administrative procedures remained unsatisfactory. We concluded that achieving more seamless shared working between primary and secondary care will require much more than a protocol-based approach across the interface of the existing organisation of services towards more integrated working styles, models of care and treatment settings for GPs and CMHT practitioners.
|
|
Acknowledgments |
|---|
|
|
References |
|---|
|
|
|---|
FREEMANTLE, N., HARVEY, E. L., WOLF, F., et al (2000) Printed educational material: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Library, Issue2. Oxford: Update Software.
GRIMSHAW, J. M. & RUSSEL, I. T. (1993) Effect of clinical guidelines on medical practice: a systematic review of rigorous evaluations. Lancet, 342, 1317 -1322.[CrossRef][Medline]
HUNT, D. L. (1998) Effects of computer-based clinical
decision support systems on physician performance and patient outcomes: a
systematic review. JAMA,
280, 1339
-1346.
JAMTVEDT, G., YOUNG, J. M., KRISTOFFERSON, D.T., et al (2003) Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes (Cochrane Review). In The Cochrane Library, Issue 4. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.
JANKOWSKI, R. F. (2001) Implementing national
guidelines at a local level. BMJ,
322, 1258
-1259.
KENDRICK, T. (2000) Why can't GPs follow guidelines on
depression? BMJ, 320, 200
-201.
KERWICK, S., TYLEE, A. & GOLDBERG, D. (1997) Mental health services in primary care in London. In: London's Mental Health: A Report for the King's Fund London Commission (eds S. Johnson, R. Ramsay & G. Thornicroft), pp. 131 -142. London: King's Fund.
OXMAN, A. (1994) No magic bullets: a systematic review of 102 trials of interventions to help health care professionals deliver services more effectively or efficiently. London: North East Thames Regional Health Authority.
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
D. R. Shyam and H. Williams Correspondence from substance misuse services - what do general practitioners really want? Psychiatr. Bull., August 1, 2006; 30(8): 292 - 294. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| British Journal of Psychiatry | Advances in Psychiatric Treatment | All RCPsych Journals |