Vail Laura, Adams Ann, Gilbert Eleanor, Nettleingham Alice, Buckingham Christopher D
Research Associate.
Ment Health Fam Med. 2012 Jan;9(1):57-67.
Aim To explore current risk assessment processes in general practice and Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) services, and to consider whether the Galatean Risk and Safety Tool (GRiST) can help support improved patient care.Background Much has been written about risk assessment practice in secondary mental health care, but little is known about how it is undertaken at the beginning of patients' care pathways, within general practice and IAPT services.Methods Interviews with eight general practice and eight IAPT clinicians from two primary care trusts in the West Midlands, UK, and eight service users from the same region. Interviews explored current practice and participants' views and experiences of mental health risk assessment. Two focus groups were also carried out, one with general practice and one with IAPT clinicians, to review interview findings and to elicit views about GRiST from a demonstration of its functionality. Data were analysed using thematic analysis.Findings Variable approaches to mental health risk assessment were observed. Clinicians were anxious that important risk information was being missed, and risk communication was undermined. Patients felt uninvolved in the process, and both clinicians and patients expressed anxiety about risk assessment skills. Clinicians were positive about the potential for GRiST to provide solutions to these problems.Conclusions A more structured and systematic approach to risk assessment in general practice and IAPT services is needed, to ensure important risk information is captured and communicated across the care pathway. GRiST has the functionality to support this aspect of practice.
目的 探讨全科医疗及改善心理治疗可及性(IAPT)服务中的当前风险评估流程,并考虑加拉太风险与安全工具(GRiST)是否有助于支持改善患者护理。背景 关于二级精神卫生保健中的风险评估实践已有诸多著述,但对于在患者护理路径起始阶段,即在全科医疗和IAPT服务中如何进行风险评估却知之甚少。方法 对来自英国西米德兰兹郡两个初级保健信托基金的8名全科医生、8名IAPT临床医生以及来自同一地区的8名服务使用者进行访谈。访谈探讨了当前的实践以及参与者对心理健康风险评估的看法和经历。还开展了两个焦点小组,一个由全科医生组成,另一个由IAPT临床医生组成,以审查访谈结果,并通过展示GRiST的功能来征求他们对该工具的看法。使用主题分析法对数据进行分析。结果 观察到心理健康风险评估方法各异。临床医生担心遗漏重要的风险信息,且风险沟通受到影响。患者感觉自己未参与该过程,临床医生和患者都对风险评估技能表示担忧。临床医生对GRiST有潜力解决这些问题持积极态度。结论 在全科医疗和IAPT服务中,需要一种更具结构化和系统性的风险评估方法,以确保在整个护理路径中捕捉并传达重要的风险信息。GRiST具备支持这一实践环节的功能。