Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-7qhmt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-28T08:14:57.553Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

General practitioners and early intervention in psychosis: reply

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Mamdouh El-Adl
Affiliation:
Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Trust, Campbell House, Campbell Square, Northampton NN1 3EB, email: mamdouhkandil@doctors.org.uk
John Burke
Affiliation:
Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Trust
Karen Little
Affiliation:
Preston Primary Care Trust
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Type
The columns
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © Royal College of Psychiatrists, 2009

We wish to express our thanks to Dr Bowers for the interest in our article. Reference El-Adl, Burke and Little1 Dr Bowers feels that the majority of GPs reporting seeing only one or two patients with first-episode psychosis a year is a low figure. However, this agreed with Shiers & Lister's findings. Reference Shiers and Lester2

Dr Bowers expressed reservations about the GPs’ ability to answer questions about their prescribing trends to patients with first-episode psychosis. I may disagree with this view as the low number of patients does not exclude or make it difficult for GPs to comment on engagement or otherwise. It is our view that clinicians, including GPs, may be more able to remember cases that are not very frequently seen than common ones.

Dr Bowers’ suggestion that getting the patients’ views on barriers to mental health services would certainly have helped to triangulate the data – this puts forward the idea for another study. The scope of this study was about GPs’ experience and not patients’ or carers’ experience.

Finally, Dr Bowers expressed his concern about the length of time elapsed between conducting our study and the results being published. We appreciate the importance of avoiding such delay but would point out the following: (1) clinicians with numerous clinical duties need to plan the study, make the time for data analysis, writing and submitting papers, responding to reviewers, and wait after putting the paper in the queue of the articles accepted for publication until it is published; (2) the real question should be whether or not this delay has any impact on applicability of the study results. We feel that where the early intervention service model has already been adopted it is not too late for it to be reviewed and further developed. If, on the other hand, some areas have not yet developed their early intervention model, it is not at all late.

References

1 El-Adl, M, Burke, J, Little, K. Frist-episode psychosis: primary care experience and implications for service development. Psychiatr Bull 2009; 33: 165–8.Google Scholar
2 Shiers, D, Lester, H. Early intervention for first-episode psychosis needs greater involvement of primary care professionals for its success. BMJ 2004; 328: 1451–2.Google Scholar
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.