Characterizing Family Physicians Who Refer to Telepsychiatry in Ontario

Introduction:Telepsychiatry can improve access to psychiatric services for those who otherwise cannot easily access care. Family physicians are gatekeepers to specialized care in Ontario, so it is essential to understand predictors relating to referrals to telepsychiatry to better plan services and increase telepsychiatry adoption.Methods:This study used an annual retrospective cross-sectional study design to compare physicians who referred their patients to telepsychiatry each year from fiscal year (FY) 2008 to FY 2016. A 1-year (FY 2016) comparison of family physicians who referred to telepsychiatry (FPTs) compared to family physicians who did not refer to telepsychiatry (FPNTs) matched (1:2) by region was also conducted. Finally, we used statistical modeling to understand the predictors of referring to telepsychiatry among physicians.Results:Between FY 2008 and FY 2016, the number of patients receiving telepsychiatry increased from 925 visits to 13,825 visits. Thirty-two percent of Ontario primary care physicians referred to telepsychiatry in 2016. Several characteristics were notably different between FPTs and FPNTs: FPTs were more likely to be from a residence with less than 10,000 people, to have more nurse practitioners in the practice, and to be from a family health team than FPNTs. Rostered patients of FPTs were more likely to reside in rural areas, have more clinical complexity, and to utilize more mental health services compared to FPNTs.Conclusions:There has been an increase in the use of telepsychiatry by patients and family physicians over the study period, although there remains opportunity for significant growth. Family physicians who live in rural areas, are part of an FHT, have more NPs, with more rural and complex patients were more likely to refer to telepsychiatry. As recent pro-telemedicine policies support the growth of telepsychiatry, this study will serve as an important baseline.     

Teaching Family Physicians About Mood Disorders: A Procedure Suite for Behavioral Medicine

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: One of the skills required of family physicians is the ability to recognize and treat individuals suffering from mood disorders. This study represents an interdisciplinary residency training approach that (1) is unique in family practice residencies; (2) trains faculty, residents, and students in mood disorder recognition and treatment; (3) has been evaluated by the Residency Review Committee and found compatible with psychiatry training guidelines; and (4) is adaptable to varied settings. METHOD: Existing psychiatric education at an urban family practice residency program was evaluated. A new curriculum was developed to emphasize clinical interactions that would allow residents to model the behavior of family physicians who demonstrate interest and expertise in psychiatry. The centerpiece of this curriculum is a family-physician-led, multidisciplinary, in-house consultation service known as a mood disorders clinic (MDC). Educational effectiveness was evaluated by comparing resident identification rates of mood disorders before and after training. Educational utility was evaluated by implementation in a variety of settings. RESULTS: Fifty-one residents rotated through 1 or more of 3 practice sites during a 60-month period. Psychiatric diagnoses for the 187 patients who remained in treatment for complete clinical assessment included all major mood and anxiety disorders outlined in the DSM-IV. A wide variety of associated psychosocial problems were also identified. A significant difference (p <.05) was seen between the number of continuity patients diagnosed with psychiatric conditions by resident physicians before and after the training experience. CONCLUSION: Implementation of this intensive training experience resulted in subjective as well as objective enhancement of resident education by providing an intensive, focused educational experience in primary care psychiatry. This concept is adaptable to a variety of practice sites and educational levels. The MDC could become the hub of an integrated delivery system for mental health services in an ambulatory primary care setting.     

Taking consultation-liaison psychiatry into primary care

Up to 50% of patients seen in primary care have mental health problems, the severity and duration of their problems often being similar to those of individuals seen in the specialized sector. This article describes the reasons, advantages, and challenges of collaborative or shared care between primary and mental health teams, which are similar to those of consultation-liaison psychiatry. In both settings, clinicians deal with the complex interrelationships between medical and psychiatric disorders. Although initial models emphasized collaboration between family physicians, psychiatrists, and nurses, collaborative care has expanded to involve patients, psychologists, social workers, occupational therapists, pharmacists, and other providers. Several factors are associated with favorable patient outcomes. These include delivery of interventions in primary care settings by providers who have met face-to-face and/or have pre-existing clinical relationships. In the case of depression, good outcomes are particularly associated with approaches that combined collaborative care with treatment guidelines and systematic follow-up, especially for those with more severe illness. Family physicians with access to collaborative care also report greater knowledge, skills, and comfort in managing psychiatric disorders, even after controlling for possible confounders such as demographics and interest in psychiatry. Perceived medico-legal barriers to collaborative care can be addressed by adequate personal professional liability protection on the part of each practitioner, and ensuring that other health care professionals with whom they work collaboratively are similarly covered.     

Primary care physicians' experience with mental health consultation

A total of 684 primary care physicians in Wisconsin participated in a survey designed to explore their experiences of consulting with and referring patients to mental health care professionals. The respondents indicated that they had only moderate access to mental health care professionals, and even less access when a patient was covered by Medicare or Medicaid or had no insurance. Physicians in group practices that included at least one mental health professional reported having better access to care than those in practices that did not include mental health services. Perceived access to mental health care services was not related to community size or to a managed care setting.     

Referral Patterns of Family Physicians May Allow Population-Based Incidence Studies of Childhood Epilepsy

Summary: Purpose: To evaluate the burden of illness of childhood epilepsy on patient, care giver, and society, representative incidence cohorts must be followed longitudinally. Case ascertainment through pediatricians and neurologists would be a valid method if family physicians refered all new cases of childhood epilepsy. The study objective was to determine whether family physicians' physicians patterns in Southwestern Ontario make it possible to conduct a population-based incidence study of childhood epilepsy by sampling only from specialists' specialists.
Methods: Of the 1,718 family physicians practicing in South-western Ontario, a systematic sample participated in a mailed survey. Case simulations describing seven types of childhood seizures were presented to physicians with instructions to respond as to whether they would investigate/manage without referral; refer to a specialist only if problems occurred; or refer to a specialist always.
Results: Of 214 family physicians, 185 (86.4%) returned completed surveys; 86% would not refer a child with a febrile seizure. Referral to a specialist would be made always by 93% of family physicians for patients with status epilepticus, 95% for worsening partial epilepsy, 82% for a first, brief, generalized clonic seizure, 80% for absence epilepsy, and 99% for neonatal seizures. Only 50% of family physicians would always refer a neurodevelopmentally abnormal child with generalized clonic epilepsy, but a further 37% would refer if problems occurred.
Conclusions: It is feasible to recruit a representative population-based cohort of recently diagnosed patients for epide-miologic studies of childhood epilepsy by surveying pediatricians and neurologists. These survey results could be used to adjust estimates of incidence obtained through specialists' specialists for the bias in case ascertainment that may result from this practical method.     

Inside the hidden mental health network. Examining mental health care delivery of primary care physicians

Mental disorder diagnoses among 51 patients, made by a group of 20 family physicians, were compared with diagnoses generated by the Diagnostic Interview Schedule (DIS). Processes of diagnosis, decision making, and treatment planning were then examined through structured physician interviews and chart audits. In this study, 75 of 94 DIS diagnoses (79%) were undetected. During interview and chart audit, the physicians were found to have consistently underestimated, misinterpreted, or neglected psychiatric aspects of care among a majority of patients in the study. These physicians had all satisfactorily completed a psychiatry curriculum designed for family physicians. Analysis of these results suggests that a mental health role is often not integrated into primary care practice, regardless of physician performance during psychiatric training experiences. Assumption of this role appears to be state dependent on involvement with a psychiatric treatment setting. Primary care practice patterns do not seem to result in application of appropriate skills and therapeutic attitudes to detect, diagnose, and correctly manage the majority of mental disorders that occur. The need is reaffirmed for active collaboration between mental health professional and primary care providers in training and in incorporation of psychiatric skills into primary care practice.     

Collaboration between general practitioners and mental health care professionals: a qualitative study

Background

Collaboration between general practice and mental health care has been recognised as necessary to provide good quality healthcare services to people with mental health problems. Several studies indicate that collaboration often is poor, with the result that patient' needs for coordinated services are not sufficiently met, and that resources are inefficiently used. An increasing number of mental health care workers should improve mental health services, but may complicate collaboration and coordination between mental health workers and other professionals in the treatment chain. The aim of this qualitative study is to investigate strengths and weaknesses in today's collaboration, and to suggest improvements in the interaction between General Practitioners (GPs) and specialised mental health service.

Methods

This paper presents a qualitative focus group study with data drawn from six groups and eight group sessions with 28 health professionals (10 GPs, 12 nurses, and 6 physicians doing post-doctoral training in psychiatry), all working in the same region and assumed to make professional contact with each other.

Results

GPs and mental health professionals shared each others expressions of strengths, weaknesses and suggestions for improvement in today's collaboration. Strengths in today's collaboration were related to common consultations between GPs and mental health professionals, and when GPs were able to receive advice about diagnostic treatment dilemmas. Weaknesses were related to the GPs' possibility to meet mental health professionals, and lack of mutual knowledge in mental health services. The results describe experiences and importance of interpersonal knowledge, mutual accessibility and familiarity with existing systems and resources. There is an agreement between GPs and mental health professionals that services will improve with shared knowledge about patients through systematic collaborative services, direct cell-phone lines to mental health professionals and allocated times for telephone consultation.

Conclusions

GPs and mental health professionals experience collaboration as important. GPs are the gate-keepers to specialised health care, and lack of collaboration seems to create problems for GPs, mental health professionals, and for the patients. Suggestions for improvement included identification of situations that could increase mutual knowledge, and make it easier for GPs to reach the right mental health care professional when needed.     

Collaboration Between Mental Health Services and Primary Care: The Bologna Project

OVERVIEW: Management of anxiety and depressive disorders within the community necessitates collaboration between mental health services and primary care. While cooperative projects do exist in many countries, Italy's National Health System does not have a program designed to address this issue. In Bologna, a cooperative project arose as a spontaneous undertaking between mental health professionals and primary care physicians. A model of collaboration was designed specifically for the Italian National Health System, consisting of a network of primary care liaison services (PCLSs) instituted within the community mental health services. PCLSs are managed by a staff of specially trained mental health care professionals and are designed to facilitate communication between physicians, and they provide continual and multifaceted support consisting of diagnostic assessment and focused clinical intervention. PCLSs also provide formal consultation-liaison meetings and a telephone consultation service designed to promote communication and enrich diagnostic assessment and treatment. DISCUSSION: PCLSs are innovative, not only because they represent one of the first collaborative efforts in Italy to date, but also because of their innovative design, which is specific for the Italian National Health System. Overall, the project yielded a good result. Primary care physicians utilized the service extensively, and together with psychiatric personnel were satisfied with the outcome. These results, when compared with the traditional separation between the 2 services, are encouraging. Our model could be adapted for most communities in Italy, but must be preceded by shared recognition of local need.     

Mental health services received by depressed persons who visited general practitioners and family doctors

OBJECTIVES: This study estimated the rates of mental health service provision and of specialist referral in primary care in Canada and investigated factors associated with receiving mental health services and with referral to mental health specialists among persons who reported major depressive episodes. METHOD:S: Data from the 1998-1999 Canadian National Population Health Survey were used. The 608 respondents who reported having major depressive episodes in the 12 months preceding the survey and who reported contacting a general practitioner or family doctor during that time were included in the study. The rates of provision of mental health services by general practitioners and family doctors and of referral to mental health specialists were calculated. Demographic, socioeconomic, and clinical characteristics associated with receiving mental health services and with referral to specialists were investigated. RESULTS: Among the 608 respondents who had contacted general practitioners or family doctors for any reason, 153 had contacted them for emotional or mental problems. Of this subgroup of 153, 64.5 percent received mental health services either from these practitioners or by referral to specialists, and 26 percent were referred to mental health specialists. Depressed respondents who reported having talked to a general practitioner or family doctor about mental health problems, who reported impairment, and whose depressive symptoms had lasted eight or more weeks were more likely to have received mental health services. Respondents aged 12 to 24 years were more likely to be referred to mental health specialists. CONCLUSION:S: Impairment associated with depression and chronicity of depressive symptoms appear to be the primary determinants of the decisions made by general practitioners and family doctors about providing mental health services. Patients' willingness to consult with general practitioners or family doctors for mental health problems may also be a key factor, both for effective management of depression in primary care settings and for referral to mental health specialists.     

Schizophrenia: Impact on Family Dynamics

In many societies, family members are now the primary caregivers of mental health patients, taking on responsibilities traditionally under the purview of hospitals and medical professionals. The impact of this shift on the family is high, having both an emotional and economic toll. The aim of this paper is to review the main changes that occur in family dynamics for patients with schizophrenia. The article addresses three central themes: (i) changes in the family at the onset of the disorder, (ii) consequences for family members because of their caregiver role, and (iii) family interventions aimed at improving the complex dynamics within the family. After analyzing and discussing these themes, it is observed that despite advances in the field, the viability of taking care of a patient with schizophrenia by the family remains a challenge. Improving care will require commitments from the family, the mental health service system, and local and national governments for greater investments to improve the quality of life of society in general and individuals with schizophrenia in particular.     

Knowledge About Recommended Treatment and Management of Major Depressive Disorder, Panic Disorder, and Generalized Anxiety Disorder Among Family Physicians

BACKGROUND: Concerns have been raised about whether primary care physicians appropriately manage mental disorders. We assessed family physicians' knowledge of appropriate management of major depressive disorder (MDD), panic disorder, and generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). METHOD: Active members of the Texas Academy of Family Physicians (N = 3553) were mailed a questionnaire in 2002 asking them to indicate which treatments they felt were effective for MDD, panic disorder, and GAD and also to indicate how they had treated their last patient with each disorder. Their treatment strategies were then compared with current guidelines. RESULTS: 574 physicians (16%) responded. The percentage of respondents scoring at or above 80% for knowledge of effective treatments was 88.3% for MDD, 16.8% for panic disorder, and 12.5% for GAD (p <.001 for MDD vs. panic disorder or GAD). Only 0.3% of MDD patients, 1.4% of panic disorder patients, and 4.0% of GAD patients were not prescribed at least 1 of the effective treatments. Referral rates to mental health providers were high for all 3 conditions. CONCLUSIONS: There were significant gaps in physician knowledge of current guidelines on treating panic disorder and GAD, but not MDD. However, most patients with one of the disorders were either referred to a mental health provider or treated with an effective modality.     

Promoting Optimal Collaboration Between Mental Health Providers and Nutritionists in the Treatment of Eating Disorders

The mental health provider–nutritionist collaboration is a primary partnership in the treatment of eating disorders, and its integrity is important for good patient care. Utilizing critical incident qualitative methodology, 22 professionals who specialize in the treatment of eating disorders (12 mental health providers, 10 registered dieticians) were interviewed about instances of problems in collaborations between these two professions, and the impact and resolution of such conflicts. Findings were used to compile a list of best practices. Results are interpreted with reference to research on professional health care teams in medical settings. Implications for interprofessional education and training are discussed.     

Mental health training of primary care physicians: an outcome study

It is well documented that primary care physicians encounter many patients in their practices who suffer psychiatric morbidity, especially affective, anxiety and substance abuse disorders. These physicians have been unable to effectively address the needs of these patients, over half of whom receive care exclusively in the primary care sector. Five years after implementing a curriculum to train family practice physicians to assume a comprehensive psychiatric role with patients in their practices, the authors undertook an outcome evaluation. The focus was on psychiatric disorder recognition, diagnosis, documentation, and management, including referral. It was hoped that biopsychosocial and community mental health orientations emphasized during training would be incorporated into the subsequent primary care practices of physicians in the study. In the research design, physician-generated diagnoses were compared with DIS/DSM-III diagnoses; physician interviews and chart audits enabled processes of care delivery to be evaluated. Unexpectedly, physicians were not found to assume an appropriately active or comprehensive mental health role in their practices following the training intervention. Of ninety-four DIS-generated diagnoses in the study population of fifty-one patients, 79 percent were unrecognized. Patients were assumed to function well emotionally, and psychiatric dimensions of patient complaints were not examined in the majority of cases. The physicians did diagnose and treat a number of patients with mental symptoms who were not identified by the DIS. These patients had high, but sub-diagnostic, DIS symptom counts. Most received a diagnosis of adjustment disorder in response to medical illness. Though this finding underscores shortcomings of present psychiatric nosology when applied in the general medical setting, the foremost consideration was the large number of DIS-identified patients with serious psychopathology, needing active assessment and intervention, who were unrecognized, undiagnosed or untreated. Implications of these findings for the psychiatric training of primary care physicians are examined.     

Mental health service utilization by Ethiopian immigrants and refugees in Toronto

The purpose of this study was to examine the mental health service utilization patterns of Ethiopians in Toronto. A cross-sectional epidemiological survey of 342 randomly selected adults was conducted, based on a conceptual model of healthcare utilization suggested by Anderson and Newman. The results suggested that 5% of the respondents sought mental health services from healthcare professionals and 8% consulted nonhealthcare professionals. Although Ethiopians' utilization rate of mental health services did not greatly differ from the rates of the general population of Ontario (6%), only a small proportion (12.5%) of Ethiopians with mental disorders used services from healthcare professionals, mostly family physicians. The data also suggested that Ethiopians were more likely to consult traditional healers than healthcare professionals for mental health problems (18.8% vs. 12.5%). In multivariate logistic regression analyses, while the number of somatic symptoms experienced was positively associated with increased mental healthcare utilization (OR = 1.515, p < 0.05), having a mental disorder was associated with decreased mental healthcare utilization (OR = 0.784, p < 0.01). Our findings have important implications for mental health services. On the one hand, the findings suggest that somatic symptoms could lead to increased use of mental health services, particularly family physicians' services. On the other hand, the data suggested that although the mental healthcare needs of Ethiopians are high, they use fewer mental health services from healthcare professionals. It would seem that family physicians could play important role in identifying and treating Ethiopian clients with somatic symptoms, as these symptoms may reflect mental disorder.     

Primary care and psychiatry

Summary Primary care has become the hope of this decade for more effective and less expensive personal health care. The primary care physician may be a general internist, general pediatrician or family practitioner but the concept often focuses on the new specialty of family practice. There has been an impressive increase in the number of young physicians entering this field. A large proportion (20–40%) of patients of the primary care physician have diagnosable psychiatric illness. Recent surveys found that 58% of all visits for mental disorder were made to primary care physicians instead of psychiatrists. Family practitioners do not refer most of these patients to psychiatrists because of dissatisfaction with the lack of collaboration, slow responsiveness in terms of seeing the patients, failure to receive reports and lack of demonstrated effectiveness of psychiatric treatment. Often the family practitioner will treat psychiatric problems himself or will refer to a non-psychiatric mental health practitioner (psychologist or social worker). This paper reviews the interaction of psychiatrists with primary care physicians. It suggests a curriculum for post-graduate and continued medical education about psychiatric illness and discusses styles of more effective collaboration between primary care doctors the psychiatrists. It describes the present and potential difficulties caused by the diversion of hopes for behavioral medicine to become a discipline wherein physicians treat those behavioral disorders which influence physical health. Instead the behavioral scientist may see this new field as a pathway into the hospital from which to seek active medical staff membership and independent admission and treatment privileges. Hopefully, these turf and economic issues will get worked out as psychiatrists reaffirm their medical identities, participate with other physicians in hospital staff activities and alter their practice styles so as to contribute to the overall health care of our total society. To do otherwise would deprive patients of needed psychiatric skills.Executive Vice President of the American Board of Medical Specialties.     

The Bologna Primary Care Liaison Service: first year evaluation

Primary care and mental health were recently integrated by the Italian health authorities. The Bologna Primary Care Liaison Service (PCLS) is ideally suited to the Italian National Health Care System, because most primary care physicians practice individually and mental health services provide first level care. The distinctive features of the program are: 1) location within a mental health center; 2) comprehensive mental health assessment and intervention; 3) collaboration between primary care physicians and mental health services which is facilitated through committees and communication. First year results met expectations. Integrating a PCLS program within a mental health center can be a viable means of implementing national policy.     

Diagnosis of late life depression: the view from primary care.

In the typical primary care practice, in which patients with a wide range of diseases and symptoms present with numerous needs, concerns, and requests, a chronic disease that lacks quantitative, biologically based diagnostic testing, such as depression, can present a daunting diagnostic challenge to even the best and most dedicated primary care physician. Depression does not compete well for patient and physician time and energy with other medical problems and medical co-morbidity in patients who seek care from their primary care physician. Primary care patients may be more comfortable with and accepting of depression being framed as a "normal" chronic disease rather than a psychiatric "brain" disease subject to cultural and generational stigmas, nihilism, and prejudice. Insurance parity in mental health care would make depression and other mental illness more legitimate in the eyes of patients, family members, employers, and physicians. Of particular value would be new and creative approaches to collaborative care, including telephone monitoring, nurse clinician outreach, and improved availability of psychiatric consultation in primary care, because elderly depressed patients often see the care of their depression as part of the integrated care of multiple chronic medical diseases, rather than a separate psychiatric problem to be referred for specialty care.     

Innovations in Practice: Child and adolescent psychiatrists and primary care – innovative models of consultation in the United States

Background: There is a severe shortage of child and adolescent psychiatrists (CAPs) in the United States, an increasingly recognized high prevalence of mental disorders in young people, and widely supported goals to provide more mental health services in the primary care setting. Method: A number of innovative, state‐wide or more local, publically funded programs have been developed in the United States over the last several years to respond to these challenges and to provide CAP consultation to primary care physicians (PCPs) who wish to address the mental health disorders of their patients in the primary care setting. Results: A number of these programs and their approaches to consultation are described. An example of a clinical scenario that might be addressed using this model of CAP/PCP collaboration is offered. Conclusions: An innovative model of consultation to PCPs from CAPs appears able to facilitate the treatment of many young people with mental health disorders in the primary care setting.     

Was there unmet mental health need after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks?

BACKGROUND: This study examined the use of professionals for mental health problems among New York City residents who were directly affected by the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center (WTC) or had a probable diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or depression in its aftermath. Correlates of help seeking from professionals for mental health problems after the attacks and barriers to care were also assessed. METHOD: Data were from a random digit dial telephone survey of 2,752 adults representative of the Greater New York Metropolitan area conducted 6 months after the September 11 terrorist attacks. RESULTS: Fifteen percent of those directly affected and 36% of those with probable PTSD or depression sought help from a professional for a mental health problem after the attacks. There was little new utilization of professionals for mental health problems after the attacks among persons who were not already receiving care prior to September 11. Barriers that prevented people from seeking help for mental health problems 6 months after the September 11 attacks included traditional barriers to care (e.g., cost) and barriers that are unique to the post-disaster context (e.g., the belief that others need the services more than oneself). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that there was potential unmet mental health need in New York City 6 months after the September 11 attacks on the WTC, but these findings should be tempered by research showing an apparent decrease in population-rates of PTSD. In the aftermath of a disaster, interventions should target persons with mental health needs who were not previously seeking help from a professional for a mental health problem.