Psychiatric morbidity, disability and service use amongst primary care attenders in France

2004 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 164-167 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Norton ◽  
G. de Roquefeuil ◽  
A. Benjamins ◽  
J.-P. Boulenger ◽  
A. Mann

AbstractAttenders (n = 124, response rate 84%) of five GPs in Montpellier completed questionnaires on health (reason for visit, cause of problem, GHQ-12), disability (WHODAS II) and service use (CSRI). For each patient, the GP filled in a brief form including a rating of severity of physical and psychological illness. Overall 30.6% of patients were classified as GHQ cases indicating probable non-psychotic psychiatric morbidity and 58.9% were rated as having a physical illness by the GP. Patients with psychiatric morbidity showed as high levels of disability as those with a physical illness, with however a greater number of domains of life affected. They also had a greatly increased number of disability days and used services to a greater extent than those without psychiatric morbidity, these links being stronger than with physical illness. Use of the WHODAS II and the CSRI has not been previously reported in France. This study shows that they could be useful instruments for depicting disability and service use in general practice. The findings from this initial study indicate the need for greater research in primary care focusing on accurate detection and treatment of patients so that disability and excess service use associated with psychiatric morbidity might be reduced.

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1988 ◽  
Vol 82 (3) ◽  
pp. 435-441
Author(s):  
Elizabeth J. Costello ◽  
Barbara J. Burns ◽  
Anthony J. Costello ◽  
Craig Edelbrock ◽  
Mina Dulcan ◽  
...  

Levels of morbidity in 789 children 7 to 11 years of age attending two primary care pediatric clinics in a health maintenance organization were examined in relation to psychiatric disturbance. Physical morbidity was measured as mean number of illness episodes per year enrolled, based on the child's medical record. Two measures of psychiatric disturbance were compared: the pediatricians' judgment and a detailed assessment using standard psychiatric interviews with parent and child. Children identified by pediatricians as disturbed had more than twice as many physical illness episodes as nonidentified children. Children identified by the standard psychiatric assessment had the same number of physical illness episodes as nondisturbed children. Pediatricians showed high specificity but low sensitivity to mental illness. Their sensitivity in the high user group was double that in the low user group. These results suggest that (1) the association between mental illness and high use may be, in part, the result of the confounding factor of physicians' judgment; (2) in settings where primary care practitioners serve as "gatekeepers" to mental health services, the offset effect of lower medical service use following psychiatric treatment may be partially explained by this; (3) the source of referral must be taken into account when assessing the offset effect in other settings.


1984 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 673-681 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patricia R. Casey ◽  
S. Dillon ◽  
P. J. Tyrer

SynopsisA 7% one-year prevalence rate of conspicuous psychiatric morbidity was found in patients attending a single general practice. The nature of the morbidity was examined by a detailed assessment of mental state and personality, using interview schedules administered by a psychiatrist. Depressive disorders were presented by nearly half of the patients. The overall sex incidence of the disorders was equal, but alcohol abuse was more common in males. A personality disorder was present in 33·9% of all patients seen, although it was rarely diagnosed as the primary problem and was linked to the diagnosis of anxiety states, rather than depressive neurosis. These findings are discussed in relation to other epidemiological studies in primary care.


2018 ◽  
Vol 30 (9) ◽  
pp. 1413-1414 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hakan Yaman

I read with great interest the study of Petrazzuoli et al. (2017) on exploring dementia management attitudes in primary care. The authors made a laudable effort to evaluate this important issue, which certainly needs timely attention. The high response rate from 25 member countries of the European General Practice Research Network is astonishing.


1997 ◽  
Vol 170 (6) ◽  
pp. 536-540 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. R. Kisely ◽  
D. P. Goldberg

BackgroundThe aim of this study was to determine the effect of physical morbidity on the outcome of patients with psychiatric disorder, and to compare the effects of non-medically and medically explained symptoms.MethodOne hundred and fifty psychiatric cases were recruited using a two-stage design from 1620 consecutive patients attending their GP. Subjects were assessed at the time of screening, and one year subsequently, using the Composite International Diagnostic Instrument adapted for use in primary care (CIDI - PHC) and the Groningen Social Disability Schedule (GSDS). Assessments of psychiatric morbidity were also obtained from GPs.ResultsMedically explained somatic symptoms were strongly related to psychological outcome one year later. Whereas just over a half of patients with no medically explained symptoms had recovered from a psychiatric disorder, the percentage recovery fell to 41% in those with 1 −4 medically explained symptoms, and only 21% in patients with five or more medically explained symptoms.ConclusionsPhysical ill-health has been shown to make an independent contribution to psychological outcome. The specific needs of these patients should receive greater attention.


1996 ◽  
Vol 168 (1) ◽  
pp. 121-126 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. Euba ◽  
T. Chalder ◽  
A. Deale ◽  
S. Wessely

BackgroundTo evaluate the characteristics of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS) in primary and tertiary care.MethodA comparison of subjects fulfilling criteria for CFS seen in primary care and in a hospital unit specialising in CFS. Subjects were 33 adults fulfilling criteria for CFS, identified as part of a prospective cohort study in primary care, compared to 79 adults fulfilling the same criteria referred for treatment to a specialist CFS clinic.ResultsHospital cases were more likely to belong to upper socio-economic groups, and to have physical illness attributions. They had higher levels of fatigue and more somatic symptoms, and were more impaired functionally, but had less overt psychological morbidity. Women were over-represented in both primary care and hospital groups. Nearly half of those referred to a specialist clinic did not fulfil operational criteria for CFS.ConclusionThe high rates of psychiatric morbidity and female excess that characterise CFS in specialist settings are not due to selection bias. On the other hand higher social class and physical illness attributions may be the result of selection bias and not intrinsic to CFS.


1990 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 219-224 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. Strathdee ◽  
M. B. King ◽  
R. Araya ◽  
S. Lewis

SYNOPSISGeneral practice based psychiatric clinics have increased in number in recent years. Case-note and case-register data examining the nature of the psychiatric disorder of the patients seen in this setting have shown contradictory findings. In this study comparison of 113 patients referred to primary care and hospital out-patient clinics is made using standardized clinical and social measures. Our results show that both groups had similar degrees of physical and social dysfunction and comparable levels of psychiatric morbidity. However, in the primary care population there were more women, and schizophreniform psychoses predominated. In the hospital sample affective illnesses and personality disorders were more common. The majority of patients preferred to consult in the primary care setting.


1994 ◽  
Vol 165 (4) ◽  
pp. 530-533 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ricardo Araya ◽  
Robert Wynn ◽  
Richard Leonard ◽  
Glyn Lewis

BackgroundThe aims were to determine the prevalence of psychiatric morbidity among primary care attenders in a poor suburb of Santiago and to study the relationship with health service use.MethodA cross-sectional survey was made of 163 consecutive attenders to a primary care clinic.ResultsEleven per cent of the sample gave a psychological reason for consultation and the prevalence of psychiatric morbidity was 53%, defined using the revised Clinical Interview Schedule. Women and those of lower socio-economic status were at higher risk. Physicians recognised 14% of the psychiatric morbidity. Attenders with psychiatric morbidity consulted more frequently.ConclusionsThere is a need to improve the recognition and management of psychiatric morbidity in primary care in Chile and other less developed countries. This could lead to the more efficient use of scarce health care resources in primary care.


2021 ◽  
Vol 29 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. i24-i25
Author(s):  
A H Ibrahim ◽  
H Barry ◽  
C M Hughes

Abstract Introduction Five-year pilot schemes were announced in both England and Northern Ireland (NI) to integrate practice-based pharmacists (PBPs) into general practices. The NI scheme anticipates that there will be 300 whole time equivalent PBPs in post by the end of the pilot (2020/2021).[1] There is little existing UK literature on PBPs’ role evolution and few studies have explored general practitioners’ (GPs) experiences of pharmacist integration into primary care practice. Aim To investigate GPs’ experiences with PBPs, their views about the PBP role and its impact upon patients and GPs, and their attitudes towards collaboration with PBPs. Methods A paper-based self-administered questionnaire was mailed to all general practices (n=329) across Northern Ireland (NI) on two occasions during September and October 2019, and was completed by one GP in every practice who had most contact with the PBP. The questionnaire was developed following a comprehensive literature review and comprised four sections (Table 1). Descriptive analyses were conducted using SPSS v26 and responses to open-ended questions were analysed thematically. Results The response rate was 61.7% (203/329). Respondents had a median age of 52.0 years and there was at least one PBP per general practice. All GPs had face-to-face meetings with PBPs, with three-quarters (78.7%, n=159) meeting with the PBP more than once a week. GPs reported that two-thirds of PBPs (62.4%, n=126) were qualified as independent prescribers, with 76.2% of prescribers (n=96) currently prescribing for patients. The most common PBP activities were medication reconciliation and medication reviews. The majority of GPs reported that PBPs always/very often had the required clinical skills (83.6%, n=162) and knowledge (87.0%, n=167) to provide safe and effective care for patients. However, only 31.1% (n=61) stated that PBPs sometimes had the confidence to make clinical decisions. The majority of GPs (>85%) displayed largely positive attitudes towards collaboration with PBPs. Most respondents agreed/strongly agreed that PBPs will have a positive impact on patient outcomes (95.0%, n=192) and can provide a better link between general practices and community pharmacists (96.1%, n=194). However, 24.8% of GPs (n=50) were unclear if the PBP role moved community pharmacists to the periphery of the primary care team. Thematic analysis of the open comments indicated that GPs were in favour of more PBP sessions and full-time posts. Conclusion This study has revealed that the majority of GPs had positive views and attitudes about the PBP role, its impact in primary care and collaboration with PBPs. The findings may have implications for future developments in order to extend integration of PBPs within general practice, including the enhancement of training in clinical skills and decision-making. Our target sample included all general practices within NI and the response rate enhanced generalisability at the practice level. However, the study sample was limited to NI, and some findings may not be relevant to other parts of the UK. Further work is required to explore PBPs’, community pharmacists’ and patients’ views of this role in general practice to corroborate study findings. References 1. Strategic Leadership Group for Pharmacy. Practice-based pharmacists' statement. 2016. (Online) Available at: https://www.health-ni.gov.uk/sites/default/files/publications/health/practice-based-pharmacists.pdf (accessed 06 Oct 2020). 2. Van C, Costa D, Mitchell B, Abbott P, Krass I. Development and validation of a measure and a model of general practitioner attitudes toward collaboration with pharmacists. Res Soc Adm Pharm. 2013; 9(6): 688–699.


2020 ◽  
Vol 70 (suppl 1) ◽  
pp. bjgp20X711125
Author(s):  
Sebastian Kalwij

BackgroundThe NHS Workforce Race Equality Standard (WRES) was introduced in 2015 and is mandatory for NHS trusts. Nine indicators have been created to evaluate the experiences of black and minority ethnic (BME) staff compared with the rest of the workforce. The trust data published showed a poor experience of BME staff compared with non BME staff.AimTo introduce the concept of WRES into general practice and create a baseline from which improvement can be made. A diverse workforce will better serve its population and this will improve health outcomes.MethodWe conducted a survey among all general practice staff members, clinicians, and non-clinicians and asked open-ended questions built around four WRES indicators most applicable to general practice, over a 6-week period in August and September 2019.ResultsWe collected 151 responses out of a total workforce of around 550. The response rate between clinicians and non-clinicians was equal 50.6% versus 49.4%. The distribution of non BME staff 51% versus BME staff 49% mirrors the diverse population of Lewisham. 54% of BME staff experienced bullying from patients, their relatives, and members of the public. 25% experienced bullying from a colleague or staff member in the workplace and 22% of BME staff changed jobs as a result of this.ConclusionBME staff in general practice report high levels of racism, especially from service users. In 22% this led to a career change. A zero-tolerance policy needs to be enforced and a multi-pronged approach is required to address this.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document