Differences in clinical characteristics between patients assessed for NHS specialist psychotherapy and primary care counselling

Objectives . Although several studies have described patient populations in primary care counselling settings and NHS (National Health Service) specialist psychotherapy settings, there is a paucity of studies specifically comparing differences in clinical characteristics between the two groups of patients. The aim of this study is to ascertain if specialist psychotherapy referrals represent a more challenging client group than primary care counselling patients. Design . We compare the socio‐demographic features and severity of presentation in the symptomatic, interpersonal problems and global adjustment dimensions of a sample of patients (N=384) assessed by a primary care counselling service located in North London and a sample of patients (N=853) assessed in eight NHS psychotherapy centres located within urban settings in England. Methods . Both the groups completed the Brief Symptom Inventory, the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems and Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation Outcome Measure. Results . Patients referred for specialist psychotherapy services were more dysfunctional than those referred for primary care counselling. The linear function constructed to discriminate the groups showed that a combination of more psychotic symptoms, social inhibitions and higher risk of self‐harm effectively identified those referred to psychotherapy services, while patients exhibiting greater levels of somatic and anxiety symptoms and non‐assertiveness were more likely to be seen in primary care settings. However, similarities between the two samples were also marked, as shown by the overlap in the distribution of clinical outcomes in routine evaluation clinical scores in the two samples. Conclusions . The findings are discussed in terms of their implications for policy and service delivery of these two types of psychological therapy services.     

Evidence-based group psychotherapy: using AGPA's practice guidelines to enhance clinical effectiveness

Practice guidelines represent a useful approach to facilitate the delivery of evidence-based mental health care. In this article, we detail group psychotherapy practice guidelines developed by the American Group Psychotherapy Association (AGPA). Combining the research literature with expert consensus, the AGPA has created a resource that should prove useful for psychotherapists, administrators, and patients. We illustrate the guidelines through a series of clinical dilemmas and challenges.     

Developing primary care review criteria from evidence-based guidelines: coronary heart disease as a model.

BACKGROUND: National Health Service (NHS) initiatives such as Clinical Governance, National Service Frameworks and the National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) clinical guidelines programme create demand for tools to enable performance review by healthcare professionals. Ideally such tools should enable clinical teams to assess quality of care and highlight areas of good practice or where improvement is needed. They should also be able to be used to demonstrate progress towards goals and promote quality, while not unnecessarily increasing demand on limited resources or weakening professional control. AIM: To formulate and evaluate a method for developing, from clinical guidelines, evidence-based review criteria that are proritised, useful and relevant to general practices assessing quality of care for the primary care management of coronary heart disease (CHD). DESIGN OF STUDY: A two-stage study comprising, first, a review of available evidence-based guidelines for CHD and, second, the definition and prioritization of associated review criteria from the most highly rated guidelines. SETTING: Primary healthcare teams in England. METHODS: Using structured methods, evidence-based clinical guidelines for CHD were identified and appraised to ensure their suitability as the basis for developing review criteria. Recommendations common to a number of guidelines were priortszid by a panel of general practitioners to develop review criteria suitable for use in primary care. RESULTS: A standardised method has been developed for constructing evidence-based review criteria from clinical guidelines. A limited, prioritized set of review criteria was developed for the primary care management of CHD. This was distributed around the NHS through the Royal College of General Practitioners for use by primary care teams across the United Kingdom. CONCLUSION: Developing useful, evidence-based review criteria is not a straightforward process, partly because of a lack of consistency and clarity in guidelines currently available. A method was developed which accommodated these limitations and which can be applied to the development and evaluation of review criteria from guidelines for other conditions.     

Should We Allow Psychotherapy Research to Determine Clinical Practice?

We address some of the objections, raised by Carfield and others, to the strong application of outcome research to psychotherapy practice. We argue that while Carfield has offered strong arguments for each of these objections, they do not amount to a sufficient case against the radical application of outcome research. We describe an alternative model for the integration of psychotherapy research with clinical procedures, in which the effective clinical service rests on research findings, professional consensus based on training and continuing education, evidence-based systematic practice, and monitoring of service delivery and outcomes. This close collaboration between outcome researchers and clinicians would, we believe, enrich the work of both, and the field of psychotherapy as a whole.     

Managed Health Care, Ethics, and Psychotherapy

Clinical psychologists express major concerns about the interplay of managed care, psychotherapy, and professional ethics that center around issues of quality, quantity, and continuity of care; patient-provider autonomy; patient abandonment; third-party intrusiveness; guidelines, outcome research, utilization review; malpractice; confidentiality; truth in advertising; and allocation of resources. To guide psychologists working in today's ever-changing health care system the current code of ethics needs revision to encourage use of accurate, empirical standards to study health care delivery; determination of psychotherapy as an entitlement or a business; distinguishing between necessary and discretionary psychotherapy; and articulating a clear-cut social ethic that would assure fair and equal access to needed therapy for all.     

Meeting the challenges facing clinical research: solutions proposed by leaders of medical specialty and clinical research societies.

The development of a robust national clinical research enterprise is needed to improve health care, but faces formidable challenges. To define the impediments and formulate solutions, the Institute of Medicine's Clinical Research Roundtable convened leaders from medical specialty and clinical research societies in 2003. Participants considered how to influence clinical research funding priorities, promote mechanisms to train physicians and other health care professionals to conduct clinical research, and how to encourage health care providers to follow evidence-based medical practice. Consensus emerged on multiple issues, including intersociety collaboration, the need for a core clinical research curriculum for training the new cadre of clinical researchers, joint advocacy for increased funding of clinical research and for the education of policymakers and the public on the benefits of clinical research. Specific recommendations were made on mechanisms for recruitment, training, and retention of clinical research trainees and mentors. Steps were outlined (1) to overcome career disincentives and develop appropriate reward systems for mentors and trainees, (2) to encourage use of web-based and continuing-medical-education-based mechanisms to bring practitioners up to date on issues in and results of clinical research, and (3) to create incentives for individuals, clinics, and hospitals to practice evidence-based medicine (EBM). Collectively, the response and proposed strategies can serve as a roadmap to improve clinical research funding and training, evidence-based medical practice, and health care quality.     

Bureaucracy stifles medical research in Britain: a tale of three trials

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Recent developments aiming to standardise and streamline processes of gaining the necessary approvals to carry out research in the National Health Service (NHS) in the United Kingdom (UK), have resulted in lengthy and costly delays. The national UK governmental Department of Healths Research Governance Framework (RGF) for Health and Social Care requires that appropriate checks be conducted before research involving human participants, their organs, tissues or data can commence in the NHS. As a result, medical research has been subjected to increased regulation and governance, with the requirement for approvals from numerous regulatory and monitoring bodies. In addition, the processes and outcomes of the attribution of costs in NHS research have caused additional difficulties for researchers. The purpose of this paper is to illustrate, through three trial case studies, the difficulties encountered during the set-up and recruitment phases of these trials, related to gaining the necessary ethical and governance approvals and applying for NHS costs to undertake and deliver the research. METHODS: Empirical evidence about delays and difficulties related to regulation and governance of medical research was gathered during the period 2009-2010 from three UK randomised controlled trials with sites in England, Wales and Scotland (1. SAFER 2- an emergency care based trial of a protocol for paramedics to refer patients directly to community based falls services; 2. COnStRUCT- a trial of two drugs for acute ulcerative colitis; and 3. Family Links - a trial of a public health intervention, a 10 week community based parenting programme). Findings and recommendations were reported in response to a call for evidence from The Academy of Medical Sciences regarding difficulties encountered in conducting medical research arising from R&D governance and regulation, to inform national policy. RESULTS: Difficulties and delays in navigating and gaining the appropriate approvals and NHS costs required to undertake the research were encountered in all three trials, at various points in the bureaucratic processes of ethical and research and information governance approvals. Conduct of each of the three trials was delayed by at least 12 months, with costs increasing by 30 - 40%. CONCLUSIONS: Whilst the three trials encountered a variety of challenges, there were common issues. The processes for gaining approvals were overly complex and differed between sites and UK countries; guidance about processes was unclear; and information regarding how to define and claim NHS costs for undertaking the research was inconsistent. The competitive advantage of a publicly funded, open access health system for undertaking health services research and clinical trials within the UK has been outweighed in recent years by stifling bureaucratic structures and processes for governance of research. The recommendations of the Academy of Medical Sciences are welcomed, and the effects of their implementation are awaited with interest. Trial Registration numbers SAFER 2: ISRCTN 60481756 COnStRUCT: ISRCTN22663589 Family Links: ISRCTN 13929732.     

Using disablement models and clinical outcomes assessment to enable evidence-based athletic training practice, part I: disablement models

OBJECTIVE: To present and discuss disablement models and the benefits of using these models as a framework to assess clinical outcomes in athletic training. BACKGROUND: Conceptual schemes that form the basic architecture for clinical practice, scholarly activities, and health care policy, disablement models have been in use by health care professions since the 1960s. Disablement models are also the foundation for clinical outcomes assessment. Clinical outcomes assessment serves as the measurement tool for patient-oriented evidence and is a necessary component for evidence-based practice. DESCRIPTION: Disablement models provide benefits to health professions through organization of clinical practice and research activities; creation of a common language among health care professionals; facilitation of the delivery of patient-centered, whole-person health care; and justification of interventions based on a comprehensive assessment of the effect of illness or injury on a person's overall health-related quality of life. Currently, the predominant conceptual frameworks of disability in health care are those of the National Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research and the World Health Organization. Disablement models need to be understood, used, and studied by certified athletic trainers to promote patient-centered care and clinical outcomes assessment for the development of evidence-based practice in athletic training. CLINICAL AND RESEARCH ADVANTAGES: For clinicians and researchers to determine effective athletic training treatments, prevention programs, and practices, they must understand what is important to patients by collecting patient-oriented evidence. Patient-oriented evidence is the most essential form of outcomes evidence and necessitates an appreciation of all dimensions of health, as outlined by disablement models. The use of disablement models will allow the athletic training profession to communicate, measure, and prioritize the health care needs of patients, which will facilitate organized efforts aimed at assessing the quality of athletic training services and practices and ultimately promote successful evidence-based athletic training practice.     

Integrative Mental Health (IMH): paradigm, research, and clinical practice

This paper provides an overview of the rapidly evolving paradigm of "Integrative Mental Health (IMH)." The paradigm of contemporary biomedical psychiatry and its contrast to non-allopathic systems of medicine is initially reviewed, followed by an exploration of the emerging paradigm of IMH, which aims to reconcile the bio-psycho-socio-spiritual model with evidence-based methods from traditional healing practices. IMH is rapidly transforming conventional understandings of mental illness and has significant positive implications for the day-to-day practice of mental health care. IMH incorporates mainstream interventions such as pharmacologic treatments, psychotherapy, and psychosocial interventions, as well as alternative therapies such as acupuncture, herbal and nutritional medicine, dietary modification, meditation, etc. Two recent international conferences in Europe and the United States show that interest in integrative mental health care is growing rapidly. In response, the International Network of Integrative Mental Health (INIMH: www.INIMH.org) was established in 2010 with the objective of creating an international network of clinicians, researchers, and public health advocates to advance a global agenda for research, education, and clinical practice of evidence-based integrative mental health care. The paper concludes with a discussion of emerging opportunities for research in IMH, and an exploration of potential clinical applications of integrative mental health care.     

Using disablement models and clinical outcomes assessment to enable evidence-based athletic training practice, part II: clinical outcomes assessment

OBJECTIVE: To provide an overview of clinical outcomes assessment, discuss the classification of outcomes measures, present considerations for choosing outcomes scales, identify the importance of assessing clinical outcomes, and describe the critical link between the utilization of disablement models and clinical outcomes assessment. BACKGROUND: Clinical outcomes are the end result of health care services. Clinical outcomes assessment is based on the conceptual framework of disablement models and serves as the measurement method for the collection of patient-oriented evidence, a concept central to evidence-based practice. DESCRIPTION: Clinical outcomes management refers to the use of outcomes measures in the course of routine clinical care and provides athletic trainers with a mechanism to assess treatment progress and to measure the end results of the services they provide. Outcomes measures can be classified as either clinician based or patient based. Clinician-based measures, such as range of motion and strength, are taken directly by clinicians. Patient-based measures solicit a patient's perception as to health status in the form of questionnaires and survey scales. Clinician-based measures may assist with patient evaluation, but patient-based measures should always be included in clinical assessment to identify what is important to the patient. CLINICAL AND RESEARCH ADVANTAGES: Evidence-based athletic training practice depends on clinical outcomes research to provide the foundation of patient-oriented evidence. The widespread use of clinical outcomes assessment, based on the disablement model framework, will be necessary for athletic trainers to demonstrate the effectiveness of therapies and interventions, the provision of patient-centered care, and the development of evidence-based practice guidelines.     

Policy and practice in the management of postnatal depression in Scotland

To investigate current policy and practice in postnatal depression in Scotland and to consider how effectively guidelines were addressed. A questionnaire survey of all National Health Service Boards in Scotland between September 2003 and February 2004 to determine what written policies for postnatal depression were in place as at September 2003. This was followed by a questionnaire survey of a representative sample of general practices in Scotland to determine the routine procedures in use for managing postnatal depression in general practice primary care teams. NHS Boards and general practices in Scotland, UK. Forty-seven per cent of policies and 68% of General Practices had implemented the majority of the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network 60 evidence based recommendations. Practices were more likely than NHS Boards to have addressed a higher percentage of the recommendations (p < 0.05). Practices were more likely to implement antenatal screening for a history of puerperal psychosis if they were within NHS Boards that recommend this as routine practice. Practices within NHS Boards that had in-patient facilities for mother and baby admissions were more likely to identify these services as a treatment option than in the areas where the NHS Boards indicated the facilities were unavailable. Board guidance did not relate significantly to the likelihood of practices following the other evidence-based recommendations. Minimum standards represented by the SIGN 60 evidence-based recommendations were mostly followed in both policy and practice. If Board policy followed guidelines, the guidelines were more likely to be implemented at primary care level.     

Information governance--a view from the NHS

In this paper, a range of issues influencing and affecting NHS information governance policy and practice will be considered. The expansion of electronic information services within the NHS and with its other information partners has reinforced the need for effective security and confidentiality arrangements to apply at multiple levels and in a variety of different business contexts. Added to these, the need to consistently address issues of data protection, records management and data quality, has resulted in a NHS information governance initiative. This initiative is intended to provide approved tools, methods and guidance that may be applied consistently throughout the NHS and that will be underpinned through appropriate support and helpdesk services. This paper emphasises the need to consider a range of applicable topics when determining a responsible and extensible approach to the governance of information collected, used and shared by healthcare organisations.     

CLINICAL SIMULATED EXPERIMENT ON THE SYNDROMI STANDARDS OF PULMONARY SYSTEM DISEASES

ＣＬＩＮＩＣＡＬＳＩＭＵＬＡＴＥＤＥＸＰＥＲＩＭＥＮＴＯＮＴＨＥＳＹＮＤＲＯＭＩＳＴＡＮＤＡＲＤＳＯＦＰＵＬＭＯＮＡＲＹＳＹＳＴＥＭＤＩＳＥＡＳＥＳＭｕｌｉｎＸｕＱｉｏｕｑｉｎＷａｎｇ（ＨｕｂｅｉＡｃａｄｅｍｙｏｆＴｒａｄｉｔｉｏｎａｌＣｈｉｎｅｓｅ...     

Best practice in primary care pathology: review 11

This eleventh best practice review examines two series of common primary care questions in laboratory medicine: (i) thyroid testing, and (ii) hypercalcaemia and hypocalcaemia. The review is presented in the same question-answer format as in the previous reviews. These questions and answers deal with common situations in men and non-pregnant women. The recommendations represent a précis of guidance found using a standardised literature search of national and international guidance notes, consensus statements, health policy documents and evidence-based medicine reviews, supplemented by Medline Embase searches to identify relevant primary research documents. In the case of the thyroid series, the recommendations are drawn from the 2006 guidelines published by the Association for Clinical Biochemistry, the British Thyroid Association and the British Thyroid Foundation. They are not standards but form a guide to be set in the clinical context. Most are consensus rather than evidence based. They will be updated periodically to take account of new information.     

Research capacity in UK primary care.

BACKGROUND: Moves towards a 'primary care-led' National Health Service (NHS) and towards evidence-based care have focused attention upon the need for evaluative research relating to the structure, delivery, and outcome of primary health care in the United Kingdom (UK). This paper describes work carried out to inform the Department of Health Committee on Research and Development (R&D) in Primary Care (Mant Committee). AIM: To describe the extent and nature of current research capacity in primary care in the UK and to identify future needs and priorities. METHOD: Funding data were requested from NHS National Programmes, NHS Executive Regional Offices, the Department of Health (DoH), Scottish Office, Medical Research Council, and some charities. A postal survey was sent to relevant academic departments, and appropriate academic journals were reviewed from 1992 to 1996. In addition, interviews were conducted with academic and professional leaders in primary care. RESULTS: Overall, total annual primary care R&D spend by the NHS and the DoH was found to be 7% of the total spend, although annual primary care R&D spend differs according to funding source. Journals relating to primary care do not, with some notable exceptions (e.g. British Journal of General Practice, Family Practice), have high academic status, and research into primary care by academic departments is, with perhaps the exception of general practice, on a small scale. The research base of most primary care professions is minimal, and significant barriers were identified that will need addressing if research capacity is to be expanded. CONCLUSION: There are strong arguments for the development of primary care research in a 'primary care-led' NHS in the UK. However, dashes for growth or attempts to expand capacity from the present infrastructure must be avoided in favour of endeavours to foster a sustainable, long-term research infrastructure capable of responding meaningfully to identified needs.     

How Can We Improve Outcomes for Patients and Families Under Palliative Care? Implementing Clinical Audit for Quality Improvement in Resource Limited Settings

Palliative care in India has made enormous advances in providing better care for patients and families living with progressive disease, and many clinical services are well placed to begin quality improvement initiatives, including clinical audit. Clinical audit is recognized globally to be essential in all healthcare, as a way of monitoring and improving quality of care. However, it is not common in developing country settings, including India. Clinical audit is a cyclical activity involving: identification of areas of care in need of improvement, through data collection and analysis utilizing an appropriate questionnaire; setting measurable quality of care targets in specific areas; designing and implementing service improvement strategies; and then re-evaluating quality of care to assess progress towards meeting the targets. Outcome measurement is an important component of clinical audit that has additional advantages; for example, establishing an evidence base for the effectiveness of services. In resource limited contexts, outcome measurement in clinical audit is particularly important as it enables service development to be evidence-based and ensures resources are allocated effectively. Key success factors in conducting clinical audit are identified (shared ownership, training, managerial support, inclusion of all members of staff and a positive approach). The choice of outcome measurement tool is discussed, including the need for a culturally appropriate and validated measure which is brief and simple enough to incorporate into clinical practice and reflects the holistic nature of palliative care. Support for clinical audit is needed at a national level, and development and validation of an outcome measurement tool in the Indian context is a crucial next step.     

A proposed approach to accelerate evidence generation for genomic-based technologies in the context of a learning health system

Genomic technologies should demonstrate analytical and clinical validity and clinical utility prior to wider adoption in clinical practice. However, the question of clinical utility remains unanswered for many genomic technologies. In this paper, we propose three building blocks for rapid generation of evidence on clinical utility of promising genomic technologies that underpin clinical and policy decisions. We define promising genomic tests as those that have proven analytical and clinical validity. First, risk-sharing agreements could be implemented between payers and manufacturers to enable temporary coverage that would help incorporate promising technologies into routine clinical care. Second, existing data networks, such as the Sentinel Initiative and the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network (PCORnet) could be leveraged, augmented with genomic information to track the use of genomic technologies and monitor clinical outcomes in millions of people. Third, endorsement and engagement from key stakeholders will be needed to establish this collaborative model for rapid evidence generation; all stakeholders will benefit from better information regarding the clinical utility of these technologies. This collaborative model can create a multipurpose and reusable national resource that generates knowledge from data gathered as part of routine care to drive evidence-based clinical practice and health system changes.     

Benchmarking using simulated clinical scenarios: a feasibility project.

'Benchmarking' clinical practice and integrating such data with national guidelines offers a way of establishing standards for use in clinical governance. We report on a feasibility project for benchmarking clinical practice in one topic area (otitis media) using simulated clinical scenarios. Consistency and variations in clinical management were identified for different scenarios. Participants perceived the process likely to reflect actual practice and effect change in clinical management.     

Information system support as a critical success factor for chronic disease management: Necessary but not sufficient

Improvement of chronic disease management in primary care entails monitoring indicators of quality over time and across patients and practices. Informatics tools are needed, yet implementing them remains challenging. OBJECTIVE: To identify critical success factors enabling the translation of clinical and operational knowledge about effective and efficient chronic care management into primary care practice. DESIGN: A prospective case study of positive deviants using key informant interviews, process observation, and document review. SETTING: A chronic disease management (CDM) collaborative of primary care physicians with documented improvement in adherence to clinical practice guidelines using a web-based patient registry system with CDM guideline-based flow sheet. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty community-based physician participants using predominantly paper records, plus a project management team including the physician lead, project manager, evaluator and support team. ANALYSIS: A critical success factor (CSF) analysis of necessary and sufficient pathways to the translation of knowledge into clinical practice. RESULTS: A web-based CDM 'toolkit' was found to be a direct CSF that allowed this group of physicians to improve their practice by tracking patient care processes using evidence-based clinical practice guideline-based flow sheets. Moreover, the information and communication technology 'factor' was sufficient for success only as part of a set of seven direct CSF components including: health delivery system enhancements, organizational partnerships, funding mechanisms, project management, practice models, and formal knowledge translation practices. Indirect factors that orchestrated success through the direct factor components were also identified. A central insight of this analysis is that a comprehensive quality improvement model was the CSF that drew this set of factors into a functional framework for successful knowledge translation. CONCLUSIONS: In complex primary care settings environment where physicians have low adoption rates of electronic tools to support the care of patients with chronic conditions, successful implementation may require a set of interrelated system and technology factors.