Pam Clarke

Management of depression in UK general practice in relation to scores on depression severity questionnaires: analysis of medical record data.

Objective To determine if general practitioner rates of antidepressant drug prescribing and referrals to specialist services for depression vary in line with patients’ scores on depression severity questionnaires. Design Analysis of anonymised medical record data. Setting 38 general practices in three sites—Southampton, Liverpool, and Norfolk. Data reviewed Records for 2294 patients assessed with severity questionnaires for depression between April 2006 and March 2007 inclusive. Main outcome measures Rates of prescribing of antidepressants and referrals to specialist mental health or social services. Results 1658 patients were assessed with the 9 item patient health questionnaire (PHQ-9), 584 with the depression subscale of the hospital anxiety and depression scale (HADS), and 52 with the Beck depression inventory, 2nd edition (BDI-II). Overall, 79.1% of patients assessed with either PHQ-9 or HADS received a prescription for an antidepressant, and 22.8% were referred to specialist services. Prescriptions and referrals were significantly associated with higher severity scores. However, overall rates of treatment and referral were similar for patients assessed with either measure despite the fact that, with PHQ-9, 83.5% of patients were classified as moderately to severely depressed and in need of treatment, whereas only 55.6% of patients were so classified with HADS. Rates of treatment were lower for older patients and for patients with comorbid physical illness (including coronary heart disease and diabetes) despite the fact that screening for depression among such patients is encouraged in the quality and outcomes framework. Conclusions General practitioners do not decide on drug treatment or referral for depression on the basis of questionnaire scores alone, but also take account of other factors such as age and physical illness. The two most widely used severity questionnaires perform inconsistently in practice, suggesting that changing the recommended threshold scores for intervention might make the measures more valid, more consistent with practitioners’ clinical judgment, and more acceptable to practitioners as a way of classifying patients.

Patients’ and doctors’ views on depression severity questionnaires incentivised in UK quality and outcomes framework: qualitative study

Objective To gain understanding of general practitioners’ and patients’ opinions of the routine introduction of standardised measures of severity of depression through the UK general practice quality and outcomes framework. Design Semistructured qualitative interview study, with purposive sampling and constant comparative analysis. Participants 34 general practitioners and 24 patients. Setting 38 general practices in three sites in England: Southampton, Liverpool, and Norfolk. Results Patients generally favoured the measures of severity for depression, whereas general practitioners were generally cautious about the validity and utility of such measures and sceptical about the motives behind their introduction. Both general practitioners and patients considered that assessments of severity should be seen as one aspect of holistic care. General practitioners considered their practical wisdom and clinical judgment (“phronesis”) to be more important than objective assessments and were concerned that the assessments reduced the human element of the consultation. Patients were more positive about the questionnaires, seeing them as an efficient and structured supplement to medical judgment and as evidence that general practitioners were taking their problems seriously through a full assessment. General practitioners and patients were aware of the potential for manipulation of indicators: for economic reasons for doctors and for patients to avoid stigma or achieve desired outcomes. Conclusions Despite general practitioners’ caution about measures of severity for depression, these may benefit primary care consultations by increasing patients’ confidence that general practitioners are correct in their diagnosis and are making systematic efforts to assess and manage their mental health problems. Further education of primary care staff may optimise the use and interpretation of depression questionnaires.

Researching the mental health needs of hard-to-reach groups: managing multiple sources of evidence.

BackgroundCommon mental health problems impose substantial challenges to patients, carers, and health care systems. A range of interventions have demonstrable efficacy in improving the lives of people experiencing such problems. However many people are disadvantaged, either because they are unable to access primary care, or because access does not lead to adequate help. New methods are needed to understand the problems of access and generate solutions. In this paper we describe our methodological approach to managing multiple and diverse sources of evidence, within a research programme to increase equity of access to high quality mental health services in primary care.MethodsWe began with a scoping review to identify the range and extent of relevant published material, and establish key concepts related to access. We then devised a strategy to collect - in parallel - evidence from six separate sources: a systematic review of published quantitative data on access-related studies; a meta-synthesis of published qualitative data on patient perspectives; dialogues with local stakeholders; a review of grey literature from statutory and voluntary service providers; secondary analysis of patient transcripts from previous qualitative studies; and primary data from interviews with service users and carers.We synthesised the findings from these diverse sources, made judgements on key emerging issues in relation to needs and services, and proposed a range of potential interventions. These proposals were debated and refined using iterative electronic and focus group consultation procedures involving international experts, local stakeholders and service users.ConclusionsOur methods break new ground by generating and synthesising multiple sources of evidence, connecting scientific understanding with the perspectives of users, in order to develop innovative ways to meet the mental health needs of under-served groups.

Community Engagement in a complex intervention to improve access to primary mental health care for hard‐to‐reach groups

Despite the availability of effective evidence‐based treatments for depression and anxiety, many ‘harder‐to‐reach’ social and patient groups experience difficulties accessing treatment. We developed a complex intervention, the AMP (Improving Access to Mental Health in Primary Care) programme, which combined community engagement (CE), tailored (individual and group) psychosocial interventions and primary care involvement.

Development and evaluation of culturally sensitive psychosocial interventions for under-served people in primary care

BackgroundPsychological therapy is effective for symptoms of mental distress, but many groups with high levels of mental distress face significant barriers in terms of access to care, as current interventions may not be sensitive to their needs or their understanding of mental health. There is a need to develop forms of psychological therapy that are acceptable to these groups, feasible to deliver in routine settings, and clinically and cost effective.MethodsWe developed a culturally sensitive wellbeing intervention with individual, group and sign-posting elements, and tested its feasibility and acceptability for patients from ethnic minorities and older people in an exploratory randomised trial.ResultsWe recruited 57 patients (57% of our target) from 4 disadvantaged localities in the NW of England. The results of the exploratory trial suggest that the group receiving the wellbeing interventions improved compared to the group receiving usual care. For elders, the largest effects were on CORE-OM and PHQ-9. For ethnic minority patients, the largest effect was on PHQ-9. Qualitative data suggested that patients found the intervention acceptable, both in terms of content and delivery.ConclusionsThis exploratory trial provides some evidence of the efficacy and acceptability of a wellbeing intervention for older and ethnic minority groups experiencing anxiety and depression, although challenges in recruitment and engagement remain. Evidence from our exploratory study of wellbeing interventions should inform new substantive trial designs.Trial registrationCurrent controlled trials ISRCTN68572159

Care home manager attitudes to balancing risk and autonomy for residents with dementia

ABSTRACT Objective: To determine how care home managers negotiate the conflict between maintaining a safe environment while enabling the autonomy of residents with dementia. This is important because there is limited research with care home managers; yet, they are key agents in the implementation of national policies. Method: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 18 managers from care homes offering dementia care in the Northwest of England. Data were analysed using a thematic analysis approach. Results: There were three areas in which care home staff reported balancing safety and risk against the individual needs of residents. First, the physical environment created a tension between safety and accessibility to the outside world, which meant that care homes provided highly structured or limited access to outdoor space. Second, care home managers reflected a balancing act between an individuals autonomy and the need to protect their residents’ dignity. Finally, care home managers highlighted the ways in which an individuals needs were framed by the needs of other residents to the extent that on some occasions an individuals needs were subjugated to the needs of the general population of a home. Conclusion: There was a strong, even dominant, ethos of risk management and keeping people safe. Managing individual needs while maintaining a safe care home environment clearly is a constant dynamic interpersonal process of negotiating and balancing competing interests for care home managers.