Depression in rural women: Implications for nurse practitioners in primary care settings

Author(s):  
Carla J. Groh
2021 ◽  
Vol 29 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. i26-i27
Author(s):  
C Mshelia ◽  
M C Kennedy ◽  
G McHugh

Abstract Introduction Neuropathic pain (NP) is estimated to affect about 8% of the population in the UK. NP is defined as ‘pain caused by a lesion or disease of the somatosensory nervous system’ (1). NP often results in alterations in the pain pathway caused by tissue and nerve damage leading to hypersensitivity, characterised by spontaneous pain (no stimuli exist but the organism feels pain), allodynia (painless tactile stimulus or warmth are perceived as pain) and hyperalgesia (painful stimuli make the organism feel pain of greater intensity) (2). Most people present with neuropathic pain for the first time in primary care settings. It is important therefore, to understand the experiences of the prescribers who prescribe to this group of patients in order to highlight areas of good practice and to identify areas where support is required, and improvements need to be made. Aim To explore prescribers’ experiences of managing patients with neuropathic pain and the influence of these experiences on prescribing and treatment choices. Methods This study adopted a qualitative approach and obtained ethical approval. Purposive and snowball sampling methods were used to recruit General Practitioners (GPs), Advanced Nurse Practitioners (ANPs) and Pharmacist Independent Prescribers working in general practices in West Yorkshire. Semi-structured interviews were conducted face-to-face or by the telephone. The interviews took place between December 2019 and September 2020. The interviews were transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis was used to identify key themes from the data. NVivo (version 12.6) was used to aid the analysis. Results 21 healthcare professionals responsible for prescribing medication to people with neuropathic pain were interviewed (GPs = 10, ANPs = 6 Pharmacists = 5). Prescribers identified several factors which influence their prescribing and treatment choices. These factors were grouped into micro, meso and macro factors. Micro factors were prescriber related factors such as experience or training in pain management, support from colleagues and prescriber-patient relationship. Meso factors were related to the patient and included factors such as side effects, comorbid conditions and addictive tendency. Macro level factors were those related to the health system such as timely access to specialists, length of consultations and cost-effective prescribing. Table 1 provides some illustrative quotes from the prescribers. All prescribers reported to derive satisfaction from being able to successfully help their patients manage the NP symptoms but acknowledged that this was sometimes not possible. Conclusion This study found that the experiences of prescribers with regards to managing NP is more negative than positive. Prescribers highlighted the challenges of managing neuropathic pain in primary care settings. This is largely due to the complexities of the condition and of prescribing decisions as well poor treatment outcomes for patients. A study limitation is the generalisability of the sample with participants not representing more geographical areas. Prescribers require appropriate support and training in managing NP to build their confidence in making prescribing decisions. It is also important to ensure patients get timely access to pain specialists and pain management clinics for specialist treatment. References 1. International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP). Taxonomy 2017 [Available from: https://www.iasp-pain.org/Taxonomy#Peripheralneuropathicpain. 2. Yan Y-y, Li C-y, Zhou L, Ao L-y, Fang W-r, Li Y-m. Research progress of mechanisms and drug therapy for neuropathic pain. Life Sciences. 2017;190(Supplement C):68–77.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Danika Koopmans

Metabolic syndrome consists of a combination of abdominal obesity, dyslipidemia, hypertension, and elevated glucose levels. Metabolic syndrome is prevalent in North America with upwards of 20% of adults meeting criteria for the condition. It is associated with increased risk of morbidity and mortality, particularly cardiovascular disease, stroke, and renal failure. Its prevalence and widespread consequences have major implications for overall burden of disease and cost on the health care system. First-line treatments for management of metabolic syndrome and its associated individual components require a multifaceted approach including nonpharmacological therapy. This integrative review seeks to answer the question: “What are effective non-pharmacological interventions nurse practitioners can implement for the management of metabolic syndrome in primary care settings for adult patients?” The Whittemore and Knafl (2005) method was followed to ensure a thorough process to which the findings and conclusion are described. There are few guidelines offering effective means of implementing non-pharmacological management of this disease. This review assesses the literature and identifies 13 articles which address effective non-pharmacological interventions in the management of MetS. These interventions were grouped into four categories including, dietary interventions, exercise interventions, psychological support, and a combined intervention approach. The lengths of intervention varied from 3 months to 5 years. Providers responsible for delivery of the interventions varied and were not limited to nurse practitioners. The outcomes of significance included improved anthropometric and serological measures, as well as improved participant motivation and behaviour change. For optimal outcomes of patients, the management of metabolic syndrome in a primary care setting requires a multifaceted and patient-centred approach.


2003 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 489-524
Author(s):  
Brent Pollitt

Mental illness is a serious problem in the United States. Based on “current epidemiological estimates, at least one in five people has a diagnosable mental disorder during the course of a year.” Fortunately, many of these disorders respond positively to psychotropic medications. While psychiatrists write some of the prescriptions for psychotropic medications, primary care physicians write more of them. State legislatures, seeking to expand patient access to pharmacological treatment, granted physician assistants and nurse practitioners prescriptive authority for psychotropic medications. Over the past decade other groups have gained some form of prescriptive authority. Currently, psychologists comprise the primary group seeking prescriptive authority for psychotropic medications.The American Society for the Advancement of Pharmacotherapy (“ASAP”), a division of the American Psychological Association (“APA”), spearheads the drive for psychologists to gain prescriptive authority. The American Psychological Association offers five main reasons why legislatures should grant psychologists this privilege: 1) psychologists’ education and clinical training better qualify them to diagnose and treat mental illness in comparison with primary care physicians; 2) the Department of Defense Psychopharmacology Demonstration Project (“PDP”) demonstrated non-physician psychologists can prescribe psychotropic medications safely; 3) the recommended post-doctoral training requirements adequately prepare psychologists to prescribe safely psychotropic medications; 4) this privilege will increase availability of mental healthcare services, especially in rural areas; and 5) this privilege will result in an overall reduction in medical expenses, because patients will visit only one healthcare provider instead of two–one for psychotherapy and one for medication.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document