Emmanuel J S, McGee A, Ukoumunne O C, Tyrer P
Department of Public Mental Health, Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, Paterson Centre, 20 South Wharf Road, London W2 1PD, UK.
Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2002 Jun;37(6):261-6. doi: 10.1007/s00127-002-0550-y.
Despite much interest in the development of liaison psychiatry in general practice there is no clear evidence that any form of intervention is effective. We carried out a pilot randomised controlled trial, the first we believe into this type of care, of one such model; enhanced liaison with individual patients by key workers, in general practices in Paddington and North Kensington in London.
All patients referred from primary to secondary psychiatric care from four general practices over a 10-month period, and still in contact with services, were eligible to be included in the study. The practices were allocated in a constrained randomised procedure to either normal care or enhanced key-worker liaison. The latter involved encouraging individual key workers to adopt improved communication between primary and secondary care. Baseline assessments of symptomatology and social functioning were made before randomisation and after 6 months by an independent researcher.
Of the 84 eligible patients, 43 were seen at baseline and 34 re-assessed after 6 months. There was no difference between the clinical outcomes in the two groups but self-rated social function was significantly improved in the enhanced liaison service compared with standard care (adjusted P = 0.05). Costs were similar but somewhat more expensive for enhanced liaison. Less than half (42 %) of all key workers in the enhanced liaison arm felt they had involved the primary health care team more in the care of their patient, with 21 % of these altering their practice markedly during the study.
It is concluded that without additional resources enhanced key-worker liaison for psychiatry in primary and secondary care has limited benefits although this does not necessarily apply to other forms of liaison practice.
尽管人们对全科医疗中联络精神病学的发展兴趣浓厚,但尚无明确证据表明任何形式的干预是有效的。我们进行了一项试点随机对照试验,我们认为这是针对此类护理的首个试验,试验对象为一种模式;由关键工作人员在伦敦帕丁顿和北肯辛顿的全科医疗中加强与个体患者的联络。
在10个月期间,从四家全科医疗转诊至二级精神科护理且仍在接受服务的所有患者均有资格纳入研究。这些全科医疗通过受限随机程序被分配到常规护理组或强化关键工作人员联络组。后者包括鼓励个体关键工作人员改善初级和二级护理之间的沟通。在随机分组前和6个月后,由一名独立研究人员对症状学和社会功能进行基线评估。
在84名符合条件的患者中,43名在基线时接受了检查,34名在6个月后重新接受了评估。两组的临床结果没有差异,但与标准护理相比,强化联络服务中的自评社会功能有显著改善(校正P = 0.05)。成本相似,但强化联络的成本略高。强化联络组中不到一半(42%)的关键工作人员认为他们让初级卫生保健团队更多地参与了患者护理,其中21%的人在研究期间显著改变了他们的做法。
得出的结论是,在没有额外资源的情况下,初级和二级护理中针对精神病学的强化关键工作人员联络益处有限,尽管这不一定适用于其他形式的联络实践。