Shared care

Abstract: In the fast-growing geriatric population, we are confronted with both osteoporosis, which makes fixation of fractures more and more challenging, and several comorbidities, which are most likely to cause postoperative complications. Several models of shared care for these patients are described, and the goal of our systematic literature research was to point out the differences of the individual models. A systematic electronic database search was performed, identifying articles that evaluate in a multidisciplinary approach the elderly hip fracture patients, including at least a geriatrician and an orthopedic surgeon focused on in-hospital treatment. The different investigations were categorized into four groups defined by the type of intervention. The main outcome parameters were pooled across the studies and weighted by sample size. Out of 656 potentially relevant citations, 21 could be extracted and categorized into four groups. Regarding the main outcome parameters, the group with integrated care could show the lowest in-hospital mortality rate (1.14%), the lowest length of stay (7.39 days), and the lowest mean time to surgery (1.43 days). No clear statement could be found for the medical complication rates and the activities of daily living due to their inhomogeneity when comparing the models. The review of these investigations cannot tell us the best model, but there is a trend toward more recent models using an integrated approach. Integrated care summarizes all the positive features reported in the various investigations like integration of a Geriatrician in the trauma unit, having a multidisciplinary team, prioritizing the geriatric fracture patients, and developing guidelines for the patients’ treatment. Each hospital implementing a special model for geriatric hip fracture patients should collect detailed data about the patients, process of care, and outcomes to be able to participate in audit processes and avoid peerlessness.

Abstract: Background: The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists is co-ordinating the development of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) in psychiatry, funded under the National Mental Health Strategy (Australia) and the New Zealand Health Funding Authority. This paper presents CPGs for schizophrenia and related disorders. Over the past decade schizophrenia has become more treatable than ever before. A new generation of drug therapies, a renaissance of psychological and psychosocial interventions and a first generation of reform within the specialist mental health system have combined to create an evidence-based climate of realistic optimism. Progressive neuroscientific advances hold out the strong possibility of more definitive biological treatments in the near future. However, this improved potential for better outcomes and quality of life for people with schizophrenia has not been translated into reality in Australia. The efficacy-effectiveness gap is wider for schizophrenia than any other serious medical disorder. Therapeutic nihilism, under-resourcing of services and a stalling of the service reform process, poor morale within specialist mental health services, a lack of broad-based recovery and life support programs, and a climate of tenacious stigma and consequent lack of concern for people with schizophrenia are the contributory causes for this failure to effectively treat. These guidelines therefore tackle only one element in the endeavour to reduce the impact of schizophrenia. They distil the current evidence-base and make recommendations based on the best available knowledge. Method: A comprehensive literature review (1990-2003) was conducted, including all Cochrane schizophrenia reviews and all relevant meta-analyses, and a number of recent international clinical practice guidelines were consulted. A series of drafts were refined by the expert committee and enhanced through a bi-national consultation process. Treatment recommendations: This guideline provides evidence-based recommendations for the management of schizophrenia by treatment type and by phase of illness. The essential features of the guidelines are: (i) Early detection and comprehensive treatment of first episode cases is a priority since the psychosocial and possibly the biological impact of illness can be minimized and outcome improved. An optimistic attitude on the part of health professionals is an essential ingredient from the outset and across all phases of illness. (ii) Comprehensive and sustained intervention should be assured during the initial 3-5 years following diagnosis since course of illness is strongly influenced by what occurs in this 'critical period'. Patients should not have to 'prove chronicity' before they gain consistent access and tenure to specialist mental health services. (iii) Antipsychotic medication is the cornerstone of treatment. These medicines have improved in quality and tolerability, yet should be used cautiously and in a more targeted manner than in the past. The treatment of choice for most patients is now the novel antipsychotic medications because of their superior tolerability and, in particular, the reduced risk of tardive dyskinesia. This is particularly so for the first episode patient where, due to superior tolerability, novel agents are the first, second and third line choice. These novel agents are nevertheless associated with potentially serious medium to long-term side-effects of their own for which patients must be carefully monitored. Conventional antipsychotic medications in low dosage may still have a role in a small proportion of patients, where there has been full remission and good tolerability; however, the indications are shrinking progressively. These principles are now accepted in most developed countries. (vi) Clozapine should be used early in the course, as soon as treatment resistance to at least two antipsychotics has been demonstrated. This usually means incomplete remission of positive symptomatology, but clozapine may also be considered where there are pervasive negative symptoms or significant or persistent suicidal risk is present. (v) Comprehensive psychosocial interventions should be routinely available to all patients and their families, and provided by appropriately trained mental health professionals with time to devote to the task. This includes family interventions, cognitive-behaviour therapy, vocational rehabilitation and other forms of therapy, especially for comorbid conditions, such as substance abuse, depression and anxiety. (vi) The social and cultural environment of people with schizophrenia is an essential arena for intervention. Adequate shelter, financial security, access to meaningful social roles and availability of social support are essential components of recovery and quality of life. (vii) Interventions should be carefully tailored to phase and stage of illness, and to gender and cultural background. (viii) Genuine involvement of consumers and relatives in service development and provision should be standard. (ix) Maintenance of good physical health and prevention and early treatment of serious medical illness has been seriously neglected in the management of schizophrenia, and results in premature death and widespread morbidity. Quality of medical care for people with schizophrenia should be equivalent to the general community standard. (x) General practitioners (GPs)s should always be closely involved in the care of people with schizophrenia. However, this should be truly shared care, and sole care by a GP with minimal or no special Optimal treatment of schizophrenia requires a multidisciplinary team approach with a consultant psychiatrist centrally involved.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: The authors evaluated the incremental cost-effectiveness of stepped collaborative care for patients with persistent depressive symptoms after usual primary care management. METHOD: Primary care patients initiating antidepressant treatment completed a standardized telephone assessment 6–8 weeks after the initial prescription. Those with persistent major depression or significant subthreshold depressive symptoms were randomly assigned to continued usual care or collaborative care. The collaborative care included systematic patient education, an initial visit with a consulting psychiatrist, 2–4 months of shared care by the psychiatrist and primary care physician, and monitoring of follow-up visits and adherence to medication regimen. Clinical outcomes were assessed through blinded telephone assessments at 1, 3, and 6 months. Health services utilization and costs were assessed through health plan claims and accounting data. RESULTS: Patients receiving collaborative care experienced a mean of 16.7 a...

Abstract: Background It has been suggested that reduced antenatal care packages or prenatal care managed by providers other than obstetricians for low risk women can be as effective as standard models of antenatal care. Objectives The objective of this review was to assess the effects of antenatal care programmes for low-risk women. Search strategy We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group trials register, reference lists of articles and we also contacted researchers in the field. Date of last search: May 2001 Selection criteria Randomised trials comparing programmes of antenatal care with varied frequency and timing of the visits and different types of care providers. Data collection and analysis Trial quality was assessed and data were extracted by two reviewers independently. Study authors were contacted for additional information and they were provided with the final version of the review. Main results Ten trials involving over 60,000 women were included. Seven trials evaluated the number of antenatal clinic visits, and three trials evaluated the type of care provider. Most trials were of acceptable quality. A reduction in the number of antenatal visits was not associated with an increase in any of the negative maternal and perinatal outcomes reviewed. However, trials from developed countries suggest that women can be less satisfied with the reduced number of visits and feel that their expectations with care are not fulfilled. Antenatal care provided by a midwife/general practitioner was associated with improved perception of care by women. Clinical effectiveness of midwife/general practitioner managed care was similar to that of obstetrician/gynaecologist led shared care. Authors' conclusions A reduction in the number of antenatal care visits with or without an increased emphasis on the content of the visits could be implemented without any increase in adverse biological maternal and perinatal outcomes. Women can be less satisfied with reduced visits. Lower costs for the mothers and providers could be achieved. While clinical effectiveness seemed similar, women appeared to be slightly more satisfied with midwife/general practitioner managed care compared with obstetrician/gynaecologist led shared care.