Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T10:36:05.966Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

First Episode Psychosis: Primary care experience and implications to service development

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 April 2020

M. El-Adl
Affiliation:
Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Trust, Northampton, United Kingdom
J. Burke
Affiliation:
Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Trust, Northampton, United Kingdom
K. Little
Affiliation:
Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Trust, Northampton, United Kingdom

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.
Background

First episode psychosis (FEP) studies show that average time between onset of symptoms and first effective treatment is often one year or more1. This long duration of untreated psychosis (DUP) is undesirable for various reasons:

  1. Early treatment helps minimise the risk of serious consequences 2,3

  2. Shorter DUP is associated with better clinical response.4

  3. Early results suggest that early intervention in psychosis (EIP) service is more cost effective than generic services.5

The attitude to treatment of ‘Psychosis’ has recently changed from focusing on severe and enduring mental illness to include early intervention.10 New terms appeared including duration of untreated psychosis (DUP) from onset of positive psychotic symptoms until starting treatment and duration of untreated illness (DUI) from onset of prodrome until starting treatment.11

Aim

To access the local Primary Care experience of FEP before developing the local EIP service.

Method

A confidential questionnaire consisted of 8 questions sent by the Clinical Governance Support Team (CGST) to all Northamptonshire GPs requesting response within 3 weeks.

Main results

Response rate is 43% (123 GPs responded out of 284). GPs are less likely to start treatment of FEP. FEP are less likely to ask for a psychiatric referral but more likely to accept if offered by GP. 53% of GPs tend to refer all FEP cases to psychiatric service & 43% only refer those who request/accept referral. 74% of GPs agreed that EIP service was needed, 21% were unsure The likely causes of delayed referral of FEP by GPs: Patients disengaging, stigma, difficulty accessing psychiatric service, carers’ lack of knowledge and diagnostic uncertainty.

Conclusion

FEP patients are less likely to ask for referral to psychiatric service but likely to accept if offered. The likely causes for FEP delayed referral to psychiatric service: patients disengaging, stigma, carers’ lack of knowledge, service is difficult to access or inappropriate and diagnostic uncertainty. GPs need to be adequately informed about EIP & their important role to achieve this.

Type
S50. Symposium: First Episode Psychosis: A Transcultural Experience
Copyright
Copyright © European Psychiatric Association 2007

References

McGlashan, TH: Recovery style from mental illness and long-term outcome. Journal of Nervous and Mental Diseases, 1987; 175, 68168510.1097/00005053-198711000-00006CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Larsen, TK, Johannsen, JO & Opjordsmoen, S: First episode schizophrenia with long duration of untreated psychosis. British Journal of Psychiatry, 1998; (suppl.33), 172,455210.1192/S0007125000297651CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wyatt, RJ, Damiani, M & Henter, ID: First episode schizophrenia. British Journal of Psychiatry, 1998; 172(suppl.33), 778310.1192/S0007125000297705CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perkins, DO, Lieberman, JA, Hongbin, GU, et al for the HGDH Research Group: Predictors of antipsychotic treatment response in patients with first episode schizophrenia, schizoaffective and schizophreniform disorders. British Journal of Psychiatry, 2005; 185, 182410.1192/bjp.185.1.18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mihalopoulos, C, McGorry, P.D., Carter, R.C, Is phase-specific, community oriented treatment of early psychosis an economically viable method of improving outcome? Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavia, 1999; 100,475510.1111/j.1600-0447.1999.tb10913.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.