An investigation of the correspondence between psychological problems diagnosed by GPs and those subsequently targeted for treatment by clinical psychologists.

Health bulletin Pub Date : 2001-05-01
N Broomfield, P Fleming, D Foot
{"title":"An investigation of the correspondence between psychological problems diagnosed by GPs and those subsequently targeted for treatment by clinical psychologists.","authors":"N Broomfield,&nbsp;P Fleming,&nbsp;D Foot","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>1. To observe the level of concordance between problems identified by GPs in the referral letter, and primary treatment targets identified by Clinical Psychologists following assessment within an NHS Clinical Psychology Department. 2. To examine whether concordance between GP and Psychologist varies for different psychological problem areas. 3. To examine whether concordance between GP and Psychologist varies with time spent on the waiting list.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A retrospective review, and classification, of GP referral letters and Psychologists treatment targets.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>A Department of Clinical Psychology based in Scotland. Sixty five GPs based across fifteen GP practices refer to the department.</p><p><strong>Cases: </strong>Four hundred and one patients consecutively referred by GPs to the Department of Clinical Psychology between April 1 1996 and March 31 1998, and subsequently assessed by one of the qualified Clinical Psychologists. Two hundred and seventy three cases were female (68.08%), 128 male (31.92%).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall agreement between GP referred problem and Psychologist treatment target, coded in terms of EPPIC 'reasons for care' categories, was 'fair', and observed for 59.6% of cases. High agreement for eating disorders, moderate agreement for anxiety and depression, and low agreement for relationship/social problems was observed. Analysis indicated one third of anxiety referrals and one half of depression referrals were treated differently. Agreement levels were high for short waiting times, and lower for long waiting times, although findings for intermediate waiting times were mixed.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Moderate agreement levels between GP and Clinical Psychologist in cases initially referred for anxiety and depression replicate previous findings. Low levels of agreement for relationship/social problems were not anticipated. The implications of results for future research and service provision are outlined.</p>","PeriodicalId":75896,"journal":{"name":"Health bulletin","volume":"59 3","pages":"178-87"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2001-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health bulletin","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: 1. To observe the level of concordance between problems identified by GPs in the referral letter, and primary treatment targets identified by Clinical Psychologists following assessment within an NHS Clinical Psychology Department. 2. To examine whether concordance between GP and Psychologist varies for different psychological problem areas. 3. To examine whether concordance between GP and Psychologist varies with time spent on the waiting list.

Design: A retrospective review, and classification, of GP referral letters and Psychologists treatment targets.

Setting: A Department of Clinical Psychology based in Scotland. Sixty five GPs based across fifteen GP practices refer to the department.

Cases: Four hundred and one patients consecutively referred by GPs to the Department of Clinical Psychology between April 1 1996 and March 31 1998, and subsequently assessed by one of the qualified Clinical Psychologists. Two hundred and seventy three cases were female (68.08%), 128 male (31.92%).

Results: Overall agreement between GP referred problem and Psychologist treatment target, coded in terms of EPPIC 'reasons for care' categories, was 'fair', and observed for 59.6% of cases. High agreement for eating disorders, moderate agreement for anxiety and depression, and low agreement for relationship/social problems was observed. Analysis indicated one third of anxiety referrals and one half of depression referrals were treated differently. Agreement levels were high for short waiting times, and lower for long waiting times, although findings for intermediate waiting times were mixed.

Conclusions: Moderate agreement levels between GP and Clinical Psychologist in cases initially referred for anxiety and depression replicate previous findings. Low levels of agreement for relationship/social problems were not anticipated. The implications of results for future research and service provision are outlined.

由全科医生诊断的心理问题与随后由临床心理学家治疗的心理问题之间对应关系的调查。
目的:1。观察全科医生在转诊信中确定的问题与临床心理学家在NHS临床心理学系评估后确定的主要治疗目标之间的一致性水平。探讨在不同的心理问题领域,全科医生与心理学家的一致性是否存在差异。3.检验普通医生和心理学家之间的一致性是否随着等待名单的时间而变化。设计:对全科医生转诊信和心理学家治疗目标进行回顾性分析和分类。环境:苏格兰临床心理学系。65名全科医生基于15个全科医生的做法指的是该部门。个案:1996年4月1日至1998年3月31日期间,共有101名病人由全科医生转介至临床心理学系,并由一名合资格的临床心理学家进行评估。其中女性273例(68.08%),男性128例(31.92%)。结果:全科医生转诊问题和心理学家治疗目标之间的总体一致,根据EPPIC“护理原因”类别编码,是“公平”的,59.6%的病例被观察到。饮食失调的一致性高,焦虑和抑郁的一致性中等,关系/社会问题的一致性低。分析表明,三分之一的焦虑症转诊和一半的抑郁症转诊被区别对待。对于短等待时间的认同程度较高,对于长等待时间的认同程度较低,尽管对于中间等待时间的认同程度参差不齐。结论:全科医生和临床心理学家在最初因焦虑和抑郁而转诊的病例中存在中等程度的一致性,重复了先前的研究结果。对人际关系/社会问题的低水平认同是意料之外的。本文概述了研究结果对未来研究和服务提供的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书