Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-hgkh8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-29T08:57:33.729Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Can making physical healthcare policies more readable improve healthcare standards?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Waqqas A. Khokhar
Affiliation:
Radbourn Unit, Royal Derby Hospital, Derby, email: waqqaskhokhar@doctors.org.uk
Graeme Tosh
Affiliation:
Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust
Andrew Clifton
Affiliation:
Institute of Mental Health, University of Nottingham
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Type
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, 2010

Gonzalez et al Reference Gonzalez, Ahammed and Fisher1 have pointed out an interesting omission in the form of poor physical healthcare monitoring in routine psychiatric practice and there is evidence from various local and national audits Reference Abbasi2,Reference Barnes, Paton, Cavanagh, Hancock and Taylor3 that it is not restricted to just the out-patient settings. The authors have also rightly picked up on key barriers to the implementation of physical healthcare monitoring in psychiatric settings, namely unclear responsibilities, competing demands on limited resources and liability issues. We believe that, for a start, this can be addressed by having readable, succinct and unambiguous physical healthcare policies.

Tosh et al Reference Tosh, Clifton and Adams4 examined the physical healthcare policy documents of the three mental healthcare trusts in the north sector of the East Midlands Strategic Healthcare Authority in detail. We found significant disparities between the policies in terms of size, readability, external references and reading cost. All the policies incorporated vague language in their directives and none could be read swiftly. It is only fair to make a reasonable observation here that if a policy cannot be accessed or is unfocused or vague, then it will be ignored.

Multiple layers of guidance and variation between deaneries, trusts and teams also complicate the situation. This leads to confusion and lack of confidence between team members as to which policy to follow. The result is a huge wastage of money from duplication and undermining of the ability of the policy to deliver its objectives.

A collaborative effort at the national level could produce a simple, clear and succinct policy for physical healthcare of people with serious mental illness. We believe that the Royal College of Psychiatrists is in a unique position to take a lead on this very important aspect of patient health and well-being. There are already themes emerging from research that it is an area which is very important to the patients, carers and their families alike. Reference McCrae5 A clear national policy statement from the College should dispel current confusion, policy fatigue and waste.

References

1 Gonzalez, C, Ahammed, N, Fisher, R. Improving physical health monitoring for out-patients on antipsychotic medication. Psychiatrist 2010; 34: 91–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2 Abbasi, Y. Improving physical health monitoring in psychiatry – change we need? Psychiatrist 2010; 34: 210–1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3 Barnes, TR, Paton, C, Cavanagh, MR, Hancock, E, Taylor, DM. A UK audit of screening for the metabolic side effects of antipsychotics in community patients. Schizophr Bull 2007; 33: 1397–403.Google ScholarPubMed
4 Tosh, G, Clifton, A, Adams, CE. Physical health care policies in mental health trusts in the North East Midlands (UK). Mental Health Rev J 2010; 15: 1520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5 McCrae, J. Physical health concerns of the patient, the family and the carers. Eur Psychiatry 2010; 25 (suppl 2): 34–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.