Search

Objectives: This study aims to identify patient and treatment factors that affect clinical outcomes of community psychological therapy through the development of a predictive model using historic data from 2 services in London. In addition, the study aims to assess the completeness of data collection, explore how treatment outcomes are discriminated using current criteria for classifying recovery, and assess the feasibility and need for undertaking a future larger population analysis. Design: Observational, retrospective discriminant analysis. Setting: 2 London community mental health services that provide psychological therapies for common mental disorders including anxiety and depression. Participants: A total of 7388 patients attended the services between February 2009 and May 2012, of which 4393 (59%) completed therapy, or there was an agreement to end therapy, and were included in the study. Primary and secondary outcome measures: Different combinations of the clinical outcome scores for anxiety Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7 and depression Patient Health Questionnaire-9 were used to construct different treatment outcomes. Results: The predictive models were able to assign a positive or negative clinical outcome to each patient based on 5 independent pre-treatment variables, with an accuracy of 69.4% and 79.3%, respectively: initial severity of anxiety and depression, ethnicity, deprivation and gender. The number of sessions attended/missed were also important factors identified in recovery. Conclusions: Predicting whether patients are likely to have a positive outcome following treatment at entry might allow suitable modification of scheduled treatment, possibly resulting in improvements in outcomes. The model also highlights factors not only associated with poorer outcomes but inextricably linked to prevalence of common mental disorders, emphasising the importance of social determinants not only in poor health but also poor recovery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: A passport-sized booklet, designed by patients for patients to record details about their medicines, has been developed as part of a wider project focusing on improving prescribing in the elderly ('ImPE'). We undertook an evaluation of 'My Medication Passport' to gain an understanding of its value to patients and how it may be used in communications about medicines. Setting: The Passport was launched in secondary care with the initial users being older people discharged home after an admission to one of the four North West London participating Trusts. The uptake subsequently spread to other (community) locations and other age groups. Participants: We recruited more than 200 patients from a cohort who had been given a passport as part of the improvement projects at one of four sites. Of them, 63% (133) completed the structured telephone questionnaire including 27% for whom English was not their first language. Approximately half of the respondents were male and 40% were over 70 years of age. Results: More than half of the respondents had found their medication passport useful or helpful in some way; 42% through sharing details from it with others (most frequently family, carer or doctor) or using it as a platform for conversations with healthcare professionals. One-third of those questioned carried the passport with them at all times. Conclusions: My Medication Passport has been positively evaluated; we have a better understanding of how it is used by patients, what they are recording and how it can be an aid to dialogue about medicines with family, carers and healthcare professionals. Further development and spread is underway including an App for smartphones that will be subject to wider evaluation to include feedback from clinicians. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]