Search

Background: Functional somatic symptoms (FFS) and bodily distress disorders are highly prevalent across all medical settings. Services for these patients are dispersed across the health care system with minimal conceptual and operational integration, and patients do not currently access therapeutic offers in significant numbers due to a mismatch between their and professionals’ understanding of the nature of the symptoms. New service models are urgently needed to address patients’ needs and to align with advances in aetiological evidence and diagnostic classification systems to overcome the body–mind dichotomy. Method: A panel of clinical experts from different clinical services involved in providing aspects of health care for patients with functional symptoms reviewed the current care provision. This review and the results from a focus group exploration of patients with lived experience of functional symptoms were explored by the multidisciplinary expert group, and the conclusions are summarised as recommendations for best practice. Results: The mapping exercise and multidisciplinary expert consultation revealed five themes for service improvement and pathway development: time/access, communication, barrier-free care, choice and governance. Service users identified four meta-themes for best practice recommendations: focus on healthcare professional communication and listening skills as well as professional attributes and knowledge base to help patients being both believed and understood in order to accept their condition; systemic and care pathway issues such as stronger emphasis on primary care as the first point of contact for patients, resources to reduce the length of the patient journey from initial assessment to diagnosis and treatment. Conclusion: We propose a novel, integrated care pathway for patients with ‘functional somatic disorder’, which delivers care according to and working with patients’ explanatory beliefs. The therapeutic model should operate based upon an understanding of the embodied nature of patient’s complaints and provide flexible access points to the care pathway. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Severe mental illness (SMI) is associated with care delivery problems because of the high levels of clinical resources needed to address patient's psychosocial impairment and to support inclusion in society. Current routine appointment systems do not adequately foster recovery care and are not systematically capturing information suggestive of urgent care needs. This study aimed to assess the feasibility, acceptability, and potential clinical benefits of a mobile technology health management tool to enhance community care for people with severe mental illness. Methods: This randomised-controlled feasibility pilot study utilised mixed quantitative (measure on subjective quality of life as primary outcome; questionnaires on self-management skills, medication adherence scale as secondary outcomes) and qualitative (thematic analysis) methodologies. The intervention was a simple interactive technology (Short Message Service - SMS) communication system called 'Florence', and had three components: medication and appointment reminders, daily individually defined wellbeing scores and optionally coded request for additional support. Eligible participants (diagnosed with schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder or bipolar disorder ≥1 year) were randomised (1:1) to either treatment as usual (TAU, N = 29) or TAU and the technology-assisted intervention (N = 36). Results: Preliminary results suggest that the health technology tool appeared to offer a practicable and acceptable intervention for patients with SMI in managing their condition. Recruitment and retention data indicated feasibility, the qualitative analysis identified suggestions for further improvement of the intervention. Patients engaged well and benefited from SMS reminders and from monitoring their individual wellbeing scores; recommendations were made to further personalise the intervention. The care coordinators did not utilise aspects of the intervention per protocol due to a variety of organisational barriers. Quantitative analysis of outcomes (including a patient-reported outcome measure on subjective quality of life, self-efficacy/competence and medication adherence measures) did not identify significant changes between groups over time in favour of the Florence intervention, given high baseline scores. The wellbeing scores, however, were positively correlated with all outcome measures. Conclusion: It is feasible to conduct an adequately powered full trial to evaluate this intervention. Inclusion criteria should be revised to include patients with a higher level of need and clinicians should receive more in-depth assistance in managing the tools effectively. The preliminary data suggests that this intervention can aid recovery care and individually defined wellbeing scores are highly predictive of a range of recovery outcomes; they could, therefore, guide the allocation of routine care resources. Trial registration: ISRCTN34124141; retrospectively registered, date of registration 05/11/2019. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]