Maudsley Psychotherapy Service, OPD Maudsley Hospital, Denmark Hill, London SE5 8AZ, email: Anne.Ward{at}slam.nhs.uk
Maudsley Psychotherapy Service, OPD Maudsley Hospital
South West London & St Georges NHS Trust, Psychotherapy Department, Springfield Hospital
|
|
|---|
Recent National Health Service (NHS) policy and guidelines support the increased provision of psychological therapies. As secondary care providers of psychological therapies, we carried out a questionnaire study of how our services were perceived by local general practitioners (GPs). All GPs in the borough of Southwark were included.
RESULTS
General practitioners value secondary care psychotherapeutic input across a spectrum of complex diagnostic groups and are interested in further training/education. They also consistently complain about long waiting times and confusion about accessing the various services.
CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS
With increasing interest in and willingness to fund the delivery of psychological therapies, there is the potential for working more effectively across the primary–secondary care divide. However, improved communication between primary and secondary care is essential if the increased commitment at government level is to be translated into a locally effective service.
|
|
|---|
From a psychotherapies perspective, there is evidence that members of the general public prefer talking therapies to medication (Angermeyer & Matschinger, 1996; Angermeyer & Dietrich 2006). Department of Healths and other publications recommend access to psychotherapy (Department of Health, 1999, 2001; Appleby, 2004), and the need to train psychiatrists in the psychotherapies is recognised by the Royal College of Psychiatrists (2001). The Department of Health further proposed a stepped care model of delivery which requires good communication and integration of services across primary and secondary care (Department of Health, 2004). The principles are spelled out, but the details need to be worked out on a local basis. On a practical level, access to psychotherapy services is limited by a number of factors that include, together with lack of adequate service provision (Centre for Economic Performances Mental Health Policy Group, 2006), the referral path and the length of waiting lists. There are also reports of increased levels of stress among GPs (Royal College of General Practitioners, 2005), who have to deal in more complex ways with more difficult patients and limited funding. These factors may vary from locality to locality but they need to be taken into account in any proposed reorganisation. More recently, following the Department of Healths commitment to improving access to psychological therapies (2007), the Health Secretary has announced a £170 million boost to the provision of psychological therapies, delivered from centres that are neither primary nor secondary-care based, but which will need to be integrated with both for optimal pathways to care. Such integration presupposes good communication across primary and secondary services, something that cannot necessarily be taken for granted.
As part of our response to these initiatives, we surveyed all Southwark GPs to ascertain their views on the provision of psychological therapies by our trust (the South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust) and on ways in which this might be improved. The borough of Southwark has a population of approximately 250 000, of whom 63% are White, 26% Black or Black-British, and 4% Asian or Asian-British; just under 65% are employed, and the Index of Deprivation is 17 nationally and 6 within London (1 indicates the most deprived; www.southwarkalliance.org.uk/).
|
|
|---|
Questionnaire
The questionnaire was adapted from the Camden and Islington Primary Care
Mental Health Needs Assessment tool (unpublished), developed and tested in
that area as a research tool, and with the permission of the authors (details
in Acknowledgements). The initial questionnaire was about general psychiatry
provision, whereas ours was focused on psychological therapies (see online
supplement).
Study
We advertised the study via flyers distributed through Southwark Primary
Care Trust. We also obtained a list of all Southwark GPs from the Trust, as
well as their practice managers. The questionnaire, with a covering letter,
was sent to GPs via email and we also sent an email request to practice
managers to encourage their GPs to respond. After a couple of weeks, a
reminder was sent out to both doctors and practice managers. Approval for the
study was given by the medical director of Southwark Primary Care Trust.
The quantitative data were analysed using SPSS version 13.0 for Windows. Qualitative responses were collated, themes extracted by repeated iteration, and the results discussed by the authors until agreement on the themes was reached.
|
|
|---|
Almost two-thirds of respondents (57%) were female; 58% were under the age of 45; the median number of years since completing GP training was 10.5 (range 1–35). The median practice size was 8000 (range 1100–24 800), and roughly half (52%) of the respondents belonged to training practices.
Thirty-one GPs (34%) had some post-graduate training in psychiatry: 18 trained for 6 months in psychiatry as a senior house officer, 8 for more than 6 months at this grade, with the rest having further or different psychiatric experience. About a third had some training in working with individuals with mental health problems, including Balint groups, long and short courses and counselling training; a few had personal therapy. The actual number of GPs with experience in psychiatry may be higher, as many respondents left this section blank, presumably, but not necessarily, because they did not have experience.
Quantitative data
The quantitative data are presented in two sections: the GPs
experience of the service as it is, and their wish-list for a
service that is more specific to their needs.
Experience of the current service
|
View this table: [in a new window] | Table 1. General practitioners experience with secondary care psychological therapies services1 |
|
View this table: [in a new window] | Table 2. General practitioners experience with the Trusts therapeutic modalities1 |
|
View this table: [in a new window] | Table 3. Access to psychological therapies services for different ethnic groups1 |
Awish-list for service improvements
|
View this table: [in a new window] | Table 4. Prioritisation of funding1 |
|
View this table: [in a new window] | Table 5. Doctors views on psychological therapies and consultation with a medical psychotherapist |
Similarly, when asked about situations/groups of individuals they would like help with, various diagnostic categories were cited, with 17 respondents mentioning personality disorders and others using possibly related terms such as entitled demanders, self-harmers, etc. The spectrum of anxiety disorders was included; 7 respondents mentioned depression, but again most of ICD–10 diagnoses appeared. Doctors thought that a regular face-to-face consultations or telephone surgeries would be the most helpful ways to make use of a medical psychotherapists time (Table 5).
Qualitative data
Respondents were asked to describe three things that worked for them about
secondary care psychological therapies, and three things that did not work.
Over a third of GPs did not respond to these two questions, but those who did
(62 and 65% respectively) provided a large number of helpful and relevant
comments.
In terms of what works, the general experience seems to be that therapy is helpful and effective – if and when you can access it. The majority of complaints were about waiting times and accessibility. These emerged repeatedly, as did a sense of confusion about how to access services. Respondents were also frustrated about not being able directly to access services such as cognitive–behavioural therapy, and having to refer through a community mental health team.
|
|
|---|
As a consequence of our survey we are in a better position to understand the state of provision of psychological therapies in primary care. The results point to a high level of in-house counselling provision among respondents, as well as to a substantial experience and training in psychological issues among local GPs. The respondents also expressed an interest in further training to enable more local delivery of psychotherapy. They also acknowledged the need for secondary care provision for personality problems, anxiety and depression, traditionally the remit of NHS psychotherapy departments. It should be noted that there is a significant disparity between GP diagnosis of personality disorder and that of a research rating, and that the GPs ratings may be strongly associated with adverse perceptions of the individuals consultation behaviours (Moran et al, 2001). Thus these individuals may not make it to our secondary care facilities, but GPs may benefit particularly from consultation about the patients or from discussing them in a Balint group.
The formal incidence of personality disorder in a sample of London GP practices (Moran & Mann, 2002) was estimated at 21%, with a 4% prevalence of cluster B personality disorder; the latter was described by the authors as low, but that 4% of patients may nevertheless occupy a good deal of GP time as there was associated high psychiatric morbidity as well as multiple social problems. There is growing evidence for the efficacy of psychotherapy in this group (Bateman & Fonagy, 1999; Giesen-Bloo et al, 2006; Clerkin et al, 2007; Gabbard, 2007; Oldham, 2007).
In our study, we were particularly interested in the endorsement of secondary care psychotherapy provision for older adults, mothers and babies, and those with psychosomatic disorders. These are both common and chronic conditions not specifically catered for in a generic psychotherapy service. In the case of somatoform disorders, for example, evidence points to their long-term nature, their ubiquity and severity, and that they often lead to high numbers of investigations and hospital admissions, and dependence on state benefits (Bass et al, 2001).
Some of the difficulties raised by GPs about our services can be responded to in the shorter or medium term. Thus, inadequate understanding of the different therapies, requests for consultation, and better feedback could be addressed by relatively simple changes to our current practice. We have since developed a website where information about different therapeutic modalities can be found, as well as how to access these services. We are also mindful of the need to speak directly to GPs about referrals whenever appropriate. Admittedly, it takes time, an increasingly scarce resource. However, as this study was carried out with no additional resources, it may be so that with commitment the proposed changes are possible to implement. Response to other feedback would have involved a more laborious reorganisation and longer-term strategic change, something the Southwark directorate in our Trust was in any case committed to, and our survey was greeted with a good deal of interest by both clinicians and managers. Since carrying out the study, however, financial considerations intervened in the form of a £4 million disinvestment by the Southwark Primary Care Trust in secondary mental healthcare services, owing to budgetary pressures and in particular by demands from the acute care services. Thus, the Southwark Directorate within our Trust was forced to undertake a more rapid reorganisation of its psychological therapies services than planned. Many of these changes are in the direction requested by GPs, so that there is now a more coherent provision across the borough, with more clearly defined routes to treatment and a continued pressure to keep waiting lists manageable. However, these changes mostly apply to the provision of cognitive–behavioural therapy, with psychodynamic and other non-cognitive–behavioural therapy psychotherapies now effectively a specialist provision, rather than an integral part of service provision. This is almost certainly part of a national trend, whereby the pendulum has swung fairly dramatically from the more psychoanalytically-based therapies towards cognitive–behavioural therapy. Still, this is unlikely to be the final position, as the more complex and chronic patient population re-emerge and different/combined therapeutic approaches are needed. The expected (due to be published in December 2008) NICE guidelines on personality disorders will be helpful in this respect as they are likely to endorse this.
Despite these drawbacks, the experience of carrying out such a study was rewarding for us in terms of better understanding of and improved relationships with GP colleagues, a necessary ingredient to any improving access initiative, wherever the increased monies are eventually located. We recommend the exercise in other locations if resources permit. Our experience also suggests that, although the NICE guidelines on depressions and anxiety are useful, it is important from the GPs perspective to consider a broader population of complex psychiatric patients for whom a psychotherapeutically-informed approach may be needed such as individuals with somatoform disorders, young mothers, or offenders. Our respondents clearly appreciated being consulted, and expressed a wish for further training and support not just for the patients directly but for themselves in dealing with the vast bulk of psychological distress that stays within primary care.
|
|
|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||