Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T01:23:53.805Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Trainee Led Quality Improvement Addressing Lack of Transparency in Referral Processes for Psychiatric Reviews in the Maudsley Adolescent Mental Health Service

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2023

Amabel Dessain*
Affiliation:
Kings College London, London, United Kingdom South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
Karolos Dionelis
Affiliation:
South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
Anto Ingrassia
Affiliation:
Kings College London, London, United Kingdom South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
*
*Corresponding author.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Aims

The Specialist Adolescent Mental Health Service at the Maudsley Hospital provides multi-disciplinary mental health care to adolescents in London. There is currently no policy by which non-medical members of the multi-disciplinary team can request a psychiatric review for their patients. Staff feedback revealed problems with the medical review referral process to be a lack of clarity on how to make referrals, and a lack of transparency (e.g. referral outcome, approximate waiting time).This projected aimed to improve the clarity of the process for requesting psychiatric reviews and to develop skills in leadership as a future child psychiatrist.

Methods

We designed and introduced a referral form and integrated waiting list. Next we developed a policy document for making referrals. Finally we modified the referral form so that when submitted, it automatically updated the integrated waiting list. At the outset and after each intervention we resurveyed the staff.

Results

At the outset 71% of staff reported finding the process somewhat unclear, while 29% reported finding the referral process neither clear nor unclear. Following the final change 100% staff each reported finding the process very clear or somewhat clear.

Conclusion

The changes we implemented resulted in a clearer and more transparent referral process for medical reviews. We anticipate that this improved staff satisfaction will equally translate into some benefits for patient care, such as more clarity around when a medical review can be expected and what it might entail.

Type
Quality Improvement
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NC
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. This does not need to be placed under each abstract, just each page is fine.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Royal College of Psychiatrists

Footnotes

Abstracts were reviewed by the RCPsych Academic Faculty rather than by the standard BJPsych Open peer review process and should not be quoted as peer-reviewed by BJPsych Open in any subsequent publication.

Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.