Quality indicators for primary care mental health services

Objectives: To identify a generic set of face valid quality indicators for primary care mental health services which reflect a multi-stakeholder perspective and can be used for facilitating quality improvement.

Design: Modified two-round postal Delphi questionnaire.

Setting: Geographical spread across Great Britain.

Participants: One hundred and fifteen panellists representing 11 different stakeholder groups within primary care mental health services (clinical psychologist, health and social care commissioner, community psychiatric nurse, counsellor, general practitioner, practice nurse/district nurse/health visitor, psychiatrist, social worker, carer, patient and voluntary organisations).

Main outcome measures: Face validity (median rating of 8 or 9 on a nine point scale with agreement by all panels) for assessing quality of care.

Results: A maximum of 334 indicators were rated by panels in the second round; 26% were rated valid by all panels. These indicators were categorised into 21 aspects of care, 11 relating to general practices and 10 relating to health authorities or primary care groups/trusts. There was variation in the total number of indicators rated valid across the different panels. Overall, GPs rated the lowest number of indicators as valid (41%, n=138) and carers rated the highest number valid (91%, n=304).

Conclusions: The quality indicators represent consensus among key stakeholder groups in defining quality of care within primary care mental health services. These indicators could provide a guide for primary care organisations embarking on quality improvement initiatives in mental health care when addressing national targets and standards relating to primary care set out in the National Service Framework for Mental Health for England. Although many of the indicators relate to parochial issues in UK service delivery, the methodology used in the development of the indicators could be applied in other settings to produce locally relevant indicators.

     

How do stakeholder groups vary in a Delphi technique about primary mental health care and what factors influence their ratings?

Background: While mental health is a core part of primary care, there are few validated quality measures and little relevant internationally published research. Consensus panel methods are a useful means of developing quality measures where evidence is sparse and/or opinions are diverse. However, little is known about the dynamics of consensus techniques and the factors that influence the judgements and ratings of panels and individual panellists.     

Slaying the dragon myth: an ethnographic study of receptionists in UK general practice

Background

General practice receptionists fulfil an essential role in UK primary care, shaping patient access to health professionals. They are often portrayed as powerful ‘gatekeepers’. Existing literature and management initiatives advocate more training to improve their performance and, consequently, the patient experience.

Aim

To explore the complexity of the role of general practice receptionists by considering the wider practice context in which they work.

Design and setting

Ethnographic observation in seven urban general practices in the north-west of England.

Method

Seven researchers conducted 200 hours of ethnographic observation, predominantly in the reception areas of each practice. Forty-five receptionists were involved in the study and were asked about their work as they carried out their activities. Observational notes were taken. Analysis involved ascribing codes to incidents considered relevant to the role and organising these into related clusters.

Results

Receptionists were faced with the difficult task of prioritising patients, despite having little time, information, and training. They felt responsible for protecting those patients who were most vulnerable, however this was sometimes made difficult by protocols set by the GPs and by patients trying to ‘play’ the system.

Conclusion

Framing the receptionist–patient encounter as one between the ‘powerful’ and the ‘vulnerable’ gets in the way of fully understanding the complex tasks receptionists perform and the contradictions that are inherent in their role. Calls for more training, without reflective attention to practice dynamics, risk failing to address systemic problems, portraying them instead as individual failings.     

Effectiveness of collaborative care for depression in Italy. A randomized controlled trial

Trial design

This was a multicenter cluster-randomized controlled trial.

Participants

A total of 227 patients ≥ 18 years old with a new onset of depressive symptoms who screened positive on the first two items of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) were recruited by primary care physicians (PCPs) of eight health districts of three Italian regions from September 2009 to June 2011.

Intervention

PCPs of the intervention group received a specific collaborative care program including 2 days of intensive training, implementation of a stepped care protocol, depression management toolkit and scheduled meetings with a dedicated consultant psychiatrist.

Objective

The objective was to determine whether a collaborative care program for depression management in primary care leads to higher remission rate than usual PCP care.

Outcomes

Outcome was clinical remission as expressed on PHQ-9 < 5 at 3 months.

Randomization

An independent researcher used computer-generated randomization to assign involved primary care groups to the two alternative arms.

Blinding

PCPs and research personnel were not blinded.

Results

The 223 PCPs enrolled recruited 227 patients (128 in collaborative care arm, 99 in the usual care arm). At 3 months (n= 210), the proportion of patients who achieved remission was higher, though the difference was not statistically significant, in the collaborative care group. The effect size was of 0.11. When considering only patients with minor/major depression, collaborative care appeared to be more effective than usual care (P= .015).

Conclusions

The present intervention for managing depression in primary care, designed to be applicable to the Italian context, appears to be effective and feasible.     

Factors influencing the evaluation of telehealth interventions: preliminary results from a qualitative study of evaluation projects in the UK

We have carried out a qualitative study of factors that influence the evaluation of telehealth. The study concerned six telehealth projects that are being tracked over two years. In the first 12 months of the study we carried out semistructured interviews and made observations of the participants in the projects. Each case study involved 5-15 subjects, many of whom were interviewed several times. The results indicate that important issues affecting telehealth evaluation include developing and maintaining the technology, reorganization of clinical and administrative duties, professional dynamics, and the difficulty of integrating service provision and evaluation. The findings suggest that the evaluation of telehealth interventions is highly complex, and that this complexity is often underestimated in the design and conduct of evaluation studies.     

Soft governance and attitudes to clinical quality in English general practice

OBJECTIVES: English primary care organisations (primary care groups and trusts - PCGs, PCTs) were, and are, responsible for the quality of general practice but lack hierarchical structures and, frequently, contractual relationships through which to influence it. The theory of soft governance describes how managers can influence professional practice by other means. This study examines the hypothesis that PCG/Ts have used 'soft' clinical governance. METHODS: Survey in 2000/01 of general practitioners' (GPs') attitudes, opinions and self-reported activity in six PCGs and six PCTs using a semi-structured mailed questionnaire. To assess how representative respondents were of English GPs generally, four questions from a national sample survey of English GPs were included and the results compared. RESULTS: Responses were obtained from 437 (52%) GPs. They most often mentioned the technical aspects of clinical governance. Managerial, policy and resourcing implications were next most frequently mentioned, usually in unfavourable terms. Most GPs reported that their clinical practice had changed because of clinical governance activities, although nearly 40% also reported little difference in the quality of care provided. The National Service Framework for coronary heart disease influenced practice independently of PCG/T activities. CONCLUSION: English primary care organisations are exercising soft governance (although not by that name) over some but not all aspects of GPs' clinical practice. However, this soft governance is complex, not easy to sustain and appears hard to extend beyond essentially clinical domains.     

Framing the doctor-patient relationship in chronic illness: a comparative study of general practitioners' accounts

How family doctors conceptualise chronic illness in the consultation has important implications for both the delivery of medical care, and its experience by patients. In this paper, we present the results of a re-analysis of qualitative data collected in a series of studies of British family doctors between 1995 and 2001, to explore the ways in which the legitimacy and authority of medical knowledge and practice are organised and worked out in relation to three kinds of chronic illness (menorrhagia; depression; and chronic low back pain/medically unexplained symptoms). We present a comparative analysis of (a). the moral evaluation of the patient (and judgements about the legitimacy of symptom presentation); (b). the possibilities of disposal; and (c). doctors' empathic responses to the patient, in each of these clinical cases. Our analysis defines some of the fundamental conditions through which general practitioners frame their relationships with patients presenting complex but sometimes diffuse combinations of 'social', 'psychological' and 'medical' symptoms. These are fundamental to, yet barely touched by, the increasingly voluminous literature on how doctors should interact with patients. Moving beyond the individual studies from which our data are drawn, we have outlined some of the highly complex and demanding features of what is often seen as routine and unrewarding medical work, and some of the key requirements for the local negotiation of patients' problems and their meanings (for both patients and doctors) in everyday general practice.     

Powerlessness, control, and complexity: the experience of family physicians in a group model HMO

BACKGROUND: I wanted to explore family physicians' perceptions of working in a group model health maintenance organization participating in ongoing quality improvement initiatives. METHODS: I undertook a qualitative study using semistructured interviews with 24 family physicians in which there was specific inquiry about informants' perceptions of organizational and team functionality. RESULTS: Three main themes emerged from the data: lack of control, strategies for coping, and valuing the practice of primary care. More than one half of the physicians interviewed expressed a sense of powerlessness to change or control their working environment. Some physicians managed to retain a sense of control or at least to mitigate the impact of their powerlessness by employing a range of different strategies for coping. Maintaining a sense of specialist skill in the complex art of family practice was important to many of the physicians interviewed. This sense of specialization across the broad and varied canvas of family practice was not always attainable, however. CONCLUSIONS: Retaining the family physician's enthusiasm means both acknowledging what is difficult about family practice and considering how the experience of being a family physician can be improved. To achieve these ends probably means not only finding ways of restoring to family physicians a sense of professional autonomy and control over their immediate working environment but also assigning greater value to the skills in managing clinical and organizational complexity that are particular to family practice.