Continuing care for mentally stable psychiatric patients in primary care: patients' preferences and views

Discharge from secondary care services to primary care for adults with serious mental illness: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Effective transitions of patients from Secondary Care Services (SCSs) to primary care are necessary for optimization of resources and care. Factors that enable or restrict smooth transitions of individuals with Serious Mental Illness (SMI) to primary care from SCSs have not been comprehensively synthesized.

METHODS

A scoping review was conducted to answer the questions (1) "What are the barriers and facilitators to discharge from SCSs to primary care for adults with SMI?" and (2) "What programs have been developed to support these transitions?".

RESULTS

Barriers and facilitators of discharge included patient-, primary care capacity-, and transition Process/Support-related factors. Patient-related barriers and facilitators were most frequently reported. 11 discharge programs were reported across the evidence sources. The most frequently reported program components were the provision of additional mental health supports for the transition and development of care plans with relapse signatures and intervention plans.

CONCLUSIONS

Established discharge programs should be comprehensively evaluated to determine their relative benefits. Furthermore, research should be expanded to evaluate barriers and facilitators to discharge and discharge programs in different national contexts and models of care.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The protocol for this scoping review is registered with the Open Science Framework ( https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/NBTMZ ).

Where are patients who have co-occurring mental and physical diseases located?

BACKGROUND

Patients with a psychiatric illness have a higher prevalence of physical diseases and thus a higher morbidity and mortality.

AIM

The main aim was to investigate where patients with co-occurring physical diseases and mental disorders (psychotic spectrum or mood) in the health and social service system are identified most frequently before admission into psychiatry. The second aim was to compare the differences in the treatment routes taken by the patients before entry into psychiatric services in all the participating countries (Denmark, Germany, Japan, Nigeria and Switzerland).

METHODOLOGY

On admission to a psychiatric service, patients diagnosed with schizophrenia, schizotypal or delusional disorders (International Classification of Diseases-10 (ICD-10) group F2) or mood (affective) disorders (ICD-10 group F3) and a co-morbid physical condition (cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus and overweight) were asked with which institutions or persons they had been in contact with in the previous 6 months.

RESULTS

Patients from Denmark, Germany and Switzerland with mental disorders had almost the same contact pattern. Their primary contact was to public or private psychiatry, with a contact percentage of 46%-91%; in addition, general practice was a common contact, with a margin of 41%-93%. Similar tendencies are seen in Japan despite the small sample size. With regard to general practice, this is also the case with Nigerian patients. However, religious guidance or healing was rarely sought by patients in Europe and Japan, while in Nigeria about 80% of patients with mental disorders had contacted this type of service.

CONCLUSION

Promoting prophylactic work between psychiatry and the general practice sector may be beneficial in diminishing physical conditions such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus and overweight in patients with mental disorders in European countries and Japan. In Nigeria (a low-to-middle-income country), religious guides or healers, along with general practitioners, are the most frequently contacted, and they therefore seem to be the most obvious partner to collaborate with.