Meta-review of high-quality systematic reviews of interventions in key areas of liaison psychiatry

Pediatric Consultation-Liaison: Patient Characteristics and Considerations for Training in Evidence-Based Practices

Consultation-liaison services are an integral part of many pediatric hospital settings, yet characteristics of this patient population have not been extensively documented. The current study is a retrospective one-year chart review of the consultation-liaison service at a large pediatric hospital in the Southwestern United States. The purpose of this study is twofold: (1) to characterize this hospital's CL population and (2) to use these characteristics to identify preliminary evidence-based practices that should be considered for CL provider training. Identifying evidence-based practice elements that align with the characteristics of consultation-liaison patient populations may inform trainings for consultation-liaison staff. This would help to ensure that youth seen in hospital consultation-liaison services are getting the best available services, which is critical given the shortened time frame available to work with this patient population.

Liaison psychiatry-measurement and evaluation of service types, referral patterns and outcomes (LP-MAESTRO): a protocol

INTRODUCTION

We describe the protocol for a project that will use linkage of routinely collected NHS data to answer a question about the nature and effectiveness of liaison psychiatry services in acute hospitals in England.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The project will use three data sources: (1) Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), a database controlled by NHS Digital that contains patient data relating to emergency department (ED), inpatient and outpatient episodes at hospitals in England; (2) ResearchOne, a research database controlled by The Phoenix Partnership (TPP) that contains patient data relating to primary care provided by organisations using the SystmOne clinical information system and (3) clinical databases controlled by mental health trusts that contain patient data relating to care provided by liaison psychiatry services. We will link patient data from these sources to construct care pathways for patients who have been admitted to a particular hospital and determine those patients who have been seen by a liaison psychiatry service during their admission.Patient care pathways will form the basis of a matched cohort design to test the effectiveness of liaison intervention. We will combine healthcare utilisation within care pathways using cost figures from national databases. We will compare the cost of each care pathway and the impact of a broad set of health-related outcomes to obtain preliminary estimates of cost-effectiveness for liaison psychiatry services. We will carry out an exploratory incremental cost-effectiveness analysis from a whole system perspective.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Individual patient consent will not be feasible for this study. Favourable ethical opinion has been obtained from the NHS Research Ethics Committee (North of Scotland) (REF: 16/NS/0025) for Work Stream 2 (phase 1) of the Liaison psychiatry-measurement and evaluation of service types, referral patterns and outcomes study. The Confidentiality Advisory Group at the Health Research Authority determined that Section 251 approval under Regulation 5 of the Health Service (Control of Patient Information) Regulations 2002 was not required for the study 'on the basis that there is no disclosure of patient identifiable data without consent' (REF: 16/CAG/0037).Results of the study will be published in academic journals in health services research and mental health. Details of the study methodology will also be published in an academic journal. Discussion papers will be authored for health service commissioners.

The impact of different liaison psychiatry models on the emergency department: A systematic review of the international evidence

OBJECTIVE

This review aimed to evaluate the current evidence for what impact different Liaison Psychiatry (LP) services are having on Emergency Departments (ED). Mental Health (MH) problems contribute to 12 million annual US ED attendances and 5% in the UK.

METHODS

Databases were searched for articles describing LP services for adult MH patients attending EDs which reported ED care-related outcomes, published since 2000. Articles were screened and relevant articles quality assessed and narratively synthesized.

RESULTS

3653 articles were identified and 17 included in the review. Study designs were overall of poor-moderate quality, using retrospective before-and-after study designs. LP services were categorized into four models. Models with MH personnel integrated into the ED team or triage reduced patient waiting time to be seen, may reduce patients leaving without being seen and have high staff satisfaction. Co-located MH space or personnel reduced patient waiting times. Care agreements with existing psychiatry teams don't affect waiting times or ED length of stay. Transferring patients to external services reduces patients' time in the ED. There is insufficient evidence about patient satisfaction, costs, and onward care.

CONCLUSIONS

Waiting times are shortened by MH personnel integrated into the ED and are more satisfactory to staff than other LP models. The involvement of a psychiatrist in the LP team improves the care quality. All models may improve safety for patients but most evaluations are of poor quality and therefore there is still insufficient evidence to recommend one service model over another and further robust research is required.

Benchmarking a liaison psychiatry service: a prospective 6-month study of quality indicators

Aims and Method

There are no national standards to evaluate the quality of delivery of in-patient liaison psychiatry services in general hospitals in the UK. In order to benchmark our service against best international practice, we adapted quality indicators from two peer-reviewed studies from Australia and Switzerland and monitored our performance standards over a period of 6 months.

Results

There were 145 patients assessed over the study period. We set a priori target of 90% achievement on indicators in the areas of timeliness of response to all referrals, timeliness of response to referrals following self-harm and quality of supervision of junior medical staff attaining 93.8, 87.5 and 89.6% respectively.

Clinical Implications

We demonstrated that we provided a reasonably responsive consultation–liaison service with high levels of supervision of junior staff. National bodies should develop benchmarks in this area so that services can demonstrate the quality of their service and learn from others' good practice.

Is liaison psychiatry effective in primary care?

‘Collaborative care’ (involving a case manager) and ‘primary care liaison’ or ‘consultation liaison’ (with no case manager) are models of liaison psychiatry in primary care. Here, I briefly consider the evidence for collaborative care, discuss Gillies et al 's Cochrane review on consultation liaison, and suggest avenues for future study and development of liaison psychiatry in primary care.

Consultation liaison in primary care for people with mental disorders

BACKGROUND

Approximately 25% of people will be affected by a mental disorder at some stage in their life. Despite the prevalence and negative impacts of mental disorders, many people are not diagnosed or do not receive adequate treatment. Therefore primary health care has been identified as essential to improving the delivery of mental health care. Consultation liaison is a model of mental health care where the primary care provider maintains the central role in the delivery of mental health care with a mental health specialist providing consultative support. Consultation liaison has the potential to enhance the delivery of mental health care in the primary care setting and in turn improve outcomes for people with a mental disorder.

OBJECTIVES

To identify whether consultation liaison can have beneficial effects for people with a mental disorder by improving the ability of primary care providers to provide mental health care.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the EPOC Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and bibliographic databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO, in March 2014. We also searched reference lists of relevant studies and reviews to identify any potentially relevant studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which compared consultation liaison to standard care or other service models of mental health care in the primary setting. Included participants were people attending primary care practices who required mental health care or had a mental disorder, and primary care providers who had direct contact with people in need of mental health care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened the titles and abstracts of identified studies against the inclusion criteria and extracted details including the study design, participants and setting, intervention, outcomes and any risk of bias. We resolved any disagreements by discussion or referral to a third author. We contacted trial authors to obtain any missing information.We collected and analysed data for all follow-up periods: up to and including three months following the start of treatment; between three and 12 months; and more than 12 months following the start of therapy.We used a random-effects model to calculate the risk difference (RD) for binary data and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB), if differences between groups were significant. The mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) was calculated for continuous data.

MAIN RESULTS

There were 8203 citations identified from database searches and reference lists. We included 12 trials with 2605 consumer participants and more than 905 primary care practitioner participants. Eleven trials compared consultation liaison to standard care and one compared consultation liaison to collaborative care, with a case manager co-ordinating mental health care. People with depression were included in eight trials; and one trial each included people with a variety of disorders: depression, anxiety and somatoform disorders; medically unexplained symptoms; and drinking problems. None of the included trials reported separate data for children or older people.There was some evidence that consultation liaison improved mental health up to three months following the start of treatment (two trials, n = 445, NNTB 8, 95% CI 5 to 25) but there was no evidence of its effectiveness between three and 12 months. Consultation liaison also appeared to improve consumer satisfaction (up to three months: one trial, n = 228, NNTB 3, 95% CI 3 to 5; 3 to 12 months: two trials, n = 445, NNTB 8, 95% CI 5 to 17) and adherence (3 to 12 months: seven trials, n = 1251, NNTB 6, 95% CI 4 to 13) up to 12 months. There was also an improvement in the primary care provider outcomes of providing adequate treatment between three to 12 months (three trials, n = 797, NNTB 7, 95% CI 4 to 17) and prescribing pharmacological treatment up to 12 months (four trials, n = 796, NNTB 13, 95% CI 7 to 50). There was also some evidence that consultation liaison may not be as effective as collaborative care in regards to symptoms of mental disorder, disability, general health status, and provision of treatment.The quality of these findings were low for all outcomes however, apart from consumer adherence from three to 12 months, which was of moderate quality. Eight trials were rated a high risk of performance bias because consumer participants were likely to have known whether or not they were allocated to the intervention group and most outcomes were self reported. Bias due to attrition was rated high in eight trials and reporting bias was rated high in six.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is evidence that consultation liaison improves mental health for up to three months; and satisfaction and adherence for up to 12 months in people with mental disorders, particularly those who are depressed. Primary care providers were also more likely to provide adequate treatment and prescribe pharmacological therapy for up to 12 months. There was also some evidence that consultation liaison may not be as effective as collaborative care in terms of mental disorder symptoms, disability, general health status, and provision of treatment. However, the overall quality of trials was low particularly in regards to performance and attrition bias and may have resulted in an overestimation of effectiveness. More evidence is needed to determine the effectiveness of consultation liaison for people with mental disorders particularly for those with mental disorders other than depression.

Feasibility and impact of multidisciplinary training of an evidence-based intervention within a pediatric psychiatry consultation service

OBJECTIVE

To train clinicians on a multidisciplinary pediatric consultation-liaison (CL) psychiatry service to administer an evidence-based intervention, biofeedback-assisted relaxation training (BART), in the inpatient medical setting and obtain their opinions about BART's utility and feasibility in the CL setting.

METHODS

Attendings and trainees on a multidisciplinary pediatric CL service received 3 h of BART training and completed a 10-item questionnaire designed to assess opinions about BART at two time points: after training but prior to using the intervention with patients and again 3 months after implementing the intervention in their clinical practice.

RESULTS

Nineteen clinicians administered BART with 28 patients across the study period, and clinicians rated BART positively after training and significantly more positively after utilizing BART in the clinical setting. From post-training to post-implementation, trainees reported significant increases in their opinions that BART increased parent and patient receptiveness to psychiatric consultation (p<0.05) and attendings reported significant increases in their opinions that BART enhanced clinical intervention (p<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

BART training on a multidisciplinary CL service was well received by clinicians and patients and may enhance psychiatry trainees' repertoire of cognitive-behavioral and evidence-based interventions.

The Rapid Assessment Interface and Discharge service and its implications for patients with dementia

The rising prevalence of dementia will have an effect on acute care hospitals around the world. At present, around 40% of patients older than 70 years with acute medical admissions have dementia, but only half of these patients have been diagnosed. Patients with dementia have poorer health outcomes, longer hospital stays, and higher rates of readmissions and institutionalization. Worldwide, health care budgets are severely constrained. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) has listed ten quality standards for supporting people in living well with dementia. NICE resource implications and commissioning support to implement these guidelines and improve dementia services have been recently published. Although most of the frail elderly patients with dementia are cared for by geriatricians, obstacles to making a diagnosis and to the management of dementia have been recognized. To provide a timely diagnosis of dementia, better care in acute hospital settings, and continuity of care in the community, services integrating all these elements are warranted. Extra resources also will be required for intermediate, palliative care, and mental health liaison services for people with dementia. The Birmingham Rapid Assessment Interface and Discharge service model uses a multiskilled team that provides comprehensive assessment of a person’s physical and psychological well-being in a general hospital setting. It has been shown to be an effective model in terms of reducing both length of stay and avoiding readmission. The aim of this review is to discuss the implications of the Rapid Assessment Interface and Discharge model in people with dementia and to critically compare this model with similar published service provisions.

Effect of methodological quality measures in spinal surgery research: a metaepidemiological study

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Methodological quality measures of trials in meta-analyses have been shown to influence the pooled effect sizes in several medical fields. However, for spinal surgery, influence of quality measures has not been assessed.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to analyze the influence of quality measures in studies on effectiveness in spinal surgery.

STUDY DESIGN

A metaepidemiological study was performed on meta-analyses within spinal surgery.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed in MEDLINE, Cochrane Database, and EMBASE in August 2009. The effect sizes, defined as risk of positive clinical outcome, of trials included in the meta-analyses were assessed. The differences in effect sizes were calculated as risk differences (RDs). Relation of the RDs to potential quality measures such as sponsoring, randomization, allocation concealment, blinding, and study size was assessed with metaregression adjusted for multiple testing.

RESULTS

Seven reviews consisting of 118 studies were included. Data provided by the systematic reviews alone were insufficient to analyze the effect of quality measures. Metaregression analysis of 76 of the individual trials reporting clinical outcome, though, showed that sample size, strict randomization, and outcome blinding were significant quality measures influencing study effect. Risk difference of effect from validly randomized studies was higher compared with not validly randomized and comparative observational trials (5.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2-9.6; p=.044). Studies with adequate observer blinding showed a 7.2% lower RD (95% CI, 0.8-13.7; p=.049). For each increase of 100 patients, the RD decreased 3.6% (95% CI, 0.5-6.8; p=.098).

CONCLUSIONS

Contrary to basic methodological assertions, formal and strict randomization appeared to produce a significantly higher RD in spinal surgery research. Sufficient sample size and observer blinding, on the other hand, led to a lower RD as expected. These findings imply that effect of quality measures assessed in metaepidemiological studies should not be too easily translated to research in spinal surgery.

Functional somatic syndromes

Common medical disorders that fail to achieve proportionate clinical or research attention are usually complex, hidden or stigmatized. Functional somatic syndromes are all three of these, complicated further by ongoing disagreements about terminology and diagnostic criteria.

Liaison old age psychiatry service in a medical setting: description of the newcastle clinical service

Liaison Old Age Psychiatry services (LOAP) have begun to emerge in the UK and further development of the service is supported by the latest health policies. Since qualitative and quantitative studies in this area are lacking, we have undertaken a detailed quantitative prospective review of referrals to the Newcastle LOAP to evaluate the clinical activity of the service. We report high referral rates and turnover for the LOAP service. Reasons for referral are diverse, ranging from requests for level of care and capacity assessments and transfer to other clinical services to management of behaviour, diagnosis, and treatment. We outline the value of a multidisciplinary model of LOAP activity, including the important role of the liaison nursing team, in providing a rapid response, screening, and followup of high number of clinical referrals to the service.

The evolution of a new publication type: Steps and challenges of producing overviews of reviews

BACKGROUND

To date, the Cochrane Child Health Field has published 18 overviews of reviews in our journal, Evidence-based Child Health: A Cochrane Review Journal. In this article, we highlight some of the logistical and methodological challenges of producing such syntheses. As this is a new and evolving publication type, we hope that our experience will benefit others who engage in this process. Current Methods: We discuss the process we have developed to produce overviews of reviews relevant to our mandate, including identification of the research question, establishment of the author team, selection of outcomes and included SRs, and presentation of findings. Ongoing Development: We discuss the lessons we have learned, outstanding challenges for overview authors, and the limitations of overviews.

CONCLUSIONS

Overviews of reviews are only as good as the SRs and primary studies on which they are based; gaps or lack of currency in this evidence will weaken the overview of reviews. Future directions in this work must address questions of bias and loss of information. Methods for overviews of reviews targeted for specific groups, such as children, need more elaboration. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Audit of an inpatient liaison psychiatry consultation service

PURPOSE

The purpose of this paper is to examine an audit that was performed of all patients referred to a liaison psychiatry inpatient consultation service which sought to establish a baseline for demographics, type of referral, and management of referrals, with a view to introducing improved evidence-based treatments. It also aims to examine timeliness of response to referrals benchmarked against published standards.

DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH

All inpatient referrals to a liaison psychiatry service were recorded over a six-month period, including demographics, diagnosis, management and timeliness of response to referrals. The data were retrospectively analysed and compared against international standards.

FINDINGS

A total of 172 referrals were received in the six months. Commonest referral reasons included assessments regarding depressive disorders (23.8 per cent), delirium/other cognitive disorders (19.2 per cent), alcohol-related disorders (18.6 per cent), anxiety disorders (14.5 per cent), and risk management (12.2 per cent). Evidence-based practices were not utilised effectively for a number of different types of presentations. A total of 40.1 per cent of referrals were seen on the same day, 75.4 per cent by the end of the next day, and 93.4 per cent by the end of the following day.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Use of a hospital protocol for management of delirium may improve outcomes for these patients. Evidence-based techniques, such as brief intervention therapies, may be beneficial for referrals involving alcohol dependence. Referrals were seen reasonably quickly, but there is room for improvement when compared with published standards.

ORIGINALITY/VALUE

This paper provides valuable information for those involved in management of liaison psychiatry consultation services, providing ideas for development and implementation of evidence based practices.

Effects of a multifaceted psychiatric intervention targeted for the complex medically ill: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

This study evaluated a multifaceted psychiatric intervention targeted at the complex medically ill identified by means of the INTERMED, an instrument to assess case complexity.

METHODS

Of 885 rheumatology inpatients and diabetes outpatients who were assessed for eligibility, 247 were identified as complex (INTERMED score >20) and randomized to the intervention (n = 125, 84 rheumatology and 41 diabetes patients) or care as usual (n = 122, 78 rheumatology and 44 diabetes patients). For the majority of the cases the multifaceted intervention consisted of an intervention conducted by a psychiatric liaison nurse and/or of referral to a liaison psychiatrist, followed by advice to the treating physician or organization of a multidisciplinary case conference. Baseline and follow-up at months 3, 6, 9 and 12 measured prevalence of major depression (Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview), depressive symptoms (Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Rating Scale), physical and mental health (SF-36), quality of life (EuroQol), health care utilization and HbA(1c) levels (diabetic patients).

RESULTS

Prevalence of major depression was reduced from 61% (T0) to 28% (T4) in the intervention group and remained stable in care as usual (57% at T0 to 50% at T4). Compared to care as usual, significant improvement over time was observed in the intervention group with regard to depressive symptoms (F = 11.9; p = 0.001), perception of physical (F = 5.7; p = 0.018) and mental health (F = 3.9; p = 0.047) and quality of life (F = 21.8; p < 0.001). Effects tended to be stronger in diabetes patients, in patients with baseline major depression and in patients with moderate INTERMED scores. Finally, hospital admissions occurred less often in the intervention group, reaching statistical significance for the period between 6 and 9 months of follow-up (p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

The results suggest that a psychiatric intervention targeted for complex medical patients can improve health outcomes.

No consensus exists on search reporting methods for systematic reviews

OBJECTIVES

The reporting of the search methods used in systematic reviews has implications for how systematic reviews are critically appraised, their reproducibility and how easily they may be updated. The objective of this paper was to identify validated or evaluated search reporting instruments used in reporting systematic review searches and to compare reported and recommended searching practices.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

This cohort study was a systematic review. The search strategy to identify instruments addressing the reporting of search strategies was developed first in the Library & Information Science Abstracts (LISAs) database and then adapted for MEDLINE and five additional databases. Additional instruments were identified through experts. Current reporting practice data were analyzed from a cohort of 297 recent systematic reviews.

RESULTS

Of the 11 instruments examined, 7 cited supporting evidence but only 4 were validated. Eighteen different reporting items were identified but only one item, "databases used," appeared in all instruments. There was a trend toward including more items in more recent instruments (r=0.41). Current search reporting practices ranged from a high of 98.7% for databases used to a low of 11.4% for qualifications of the searcher.

CONCLUSIONS

There is no clear consensus regarding optimum reporting of systematic review search methods and commonly recommended items show suboptimal reporting.

Examining models of mental health service delivery in the emergency department

The purpose of the present paper was to review the current models of mental health service delivery used in the emergency department (ED) setting. A search was conducted of the nursing and medical literature from 1990 to 2007 for relevant articles and reports. Consideration was also given to the global and local context influencing contemporary mental health services. Wider sociopolitical and socioeconomic influences and systemic changes in health-care delivery have dictated a considerable shift in attention for mental health services worldwide. The ED is a topical location that has attracted interest and necessitated a response. The mental health liaison nurse (MHLN) role embedded within the ED structure has demonstrated the most positive outcomes to date. This model aims to raise mental health awareness and address concerns over patient-focused outcomes such as reduced waiting times, therapeutic intervention and more efficient coordination of care and follow up for individuals presenting to the ED in psychological distress. Further research is required into all methods of mental health service delivery to the ED. The MHLN role is a cost-effective approach that has gained widespread approval from ED staff and mental health patients and is consistent with national and international expectations for mental health services to become fully integrated within general health care. The mental health nurse practitioner role situated within the ED represents a potentially promising alternative for enhanced public access to specialized mental health care.

Diamonds in the coalface: new research in consultation-liaison psychiatry

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Consultation-liaison psychiatry deals with patients who manifest both psychological and somatic symptoms and involves a close and collaborative interaction with other medical specialities. While it is a clinically rich area, resource constraints and service requirements have meant that it has perhaps contributed a little below its weight in academic terms. This review, although far from exhaustive, seeks to present some themes of recent research in this fascinating discipline.

RECENT FINDINGS

The need to demonstrate the utility, and ensure the funding, of a service that is all too often regarded as 'non-core' by both mental health services and general hospitals remains constant. Useful work is being done in streamlining data collection, accurately measuring disability and improving outcomes for these complex and resource-intensive patients. Recent reviews have helped to clarify our understanding of medication-induced depression, the treatment options in self-harm, the place of psychosocial interventions in oncology, and the relationship between depression and heart disease among other areas.

SUMMARY

Consultation-liaison psychiatry is a fascinating and underresearched field. Important work remains to be done in service delivery, diagnosis, treatment and outcome, as well as medical ethics and systems research. Although our knowledge is progressing, many existing studies are underpowered and multisite collaborations are necessary. Our patients carry an enormous burden of ill health and require the services of skilled clinicians, advocates and treatment brokers.

Somatoform disorders: the role of consultation liaison psychiatry

The somatoform disorders are encountered commonly in both primary and secondary care. Despite their high incidence, few hospitals have teams with the expertise to manage this group of conditions. The lack of appropriate carers leads to inappropriate care, including increased numbers of admissions and investigations, to the detriment of the patients. The absence of appropriate care also increases the cost to the health services. Multidisciplinary Consultation Liaison (C-L) Psychiatry teams operate within non-psychiatric settings and are dedicated to the mental health care of patients presenting in these areas. Their unique skills and approaches offer support and education to these non-psychiatric teams and care to this group of patients. They are thus ideally placed to assess, diagnose and manage individuals presenting with somatoform disorders. Unfortunately, these teams are not widely available, largely because the current climate within psychiatry leads services to concentrate on what is defined as serious mental illness, a term usually used synonymously with psychotic disorders, despite the large number of people suffering from somatoform disorders and the cost of their care. The dislike that some colleagues have for this group of conditions may further hamper the creation of these services. In order to provide efficient assessment of and treatment for individuals with somatoform disorders, C-L Psychiatry teams must be created to lead clinical development, research and training in this discipline. These teams will also lead on the further research required.