Search

ObjectivePrevious work has raised questions about the role of general practitioners (GPs) in the identification of neurodevelopmental conditions such as autism spectrum disorders (autism) and attention deficit hyperactivity disorders (ADHD). This study aimed to explore how GPs identify these conditions in practice and their perspectives on recent changes to local referral pathways that mean referrals to the neurodevelopmental team come through educational professionals and health visitors, rather than GPs. This study also aimed to explore Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) specialist’s perspectives on the role of GPs.SettingGP practices, local neurodevelopmental services and specialist CAMHS services in the UK.Participants: semistructured interviews were conducted with GPs (n=8), specialists in local CAMHS (n=7), and professionals at national CAMHS services around the country (n=10). Interviews were conducted between January and May 2019. A framework approach informed by thematic analysis was used to analyse the data.ResultsGPs drew on various forms of tacit and explicit information including behavioural markers, parental report, prior knowledge of the family, expert and lay resources. Opinions varied between GPs regarding changes to the referral pathway, with some accepting the changes and others describing it as a ‘disaster’. CAMHS specialists tended to feel that GPs required more neurodevelopmental training and time to conduct consultations.ConclusionThis study adds to the literature showing that GPs use an array of information sources when making referral decisions for autism and ADHD. Further work is urgently required to evaluate the impact of reconfiguring neurodevelopmental referral pathways such that GPs have a diminished role in identification.

Many healthcare systems are organised such that General Practitioners (GPs) often have a key role in identifying autism spectrum disorders (hereafter collectively referred to as autism) in children. In this review, we explored what GPs know about autism and the factors that influence their ability to identify and manage care for their patients with autism in practice. We conducted a systematic narrative review using eight electronic databases. These included Embase and MEDLINE via Ovid, Web of Knowledge, PsycINFO via Ebscohost, PubMed, Scopus, ProQuest Dissertations and Thesis, and Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts (ASSIA) via ProQuest. Our search yielded 2,743 citations. Primary research studies were included, and we did not impose any geographical, language or date restrictions. We identified 17 studies that met our inclusion criteria. Studies included in the review were conducted between 2003 and 2019. We thematically synthesised the material and identified the following themes: the prototypical image of a child with autism; experience, sources of information, and managing care; barriers to identification; strategies to aid in identification; and characteristics that facilitate expertise. Together, the findings from this review present a mixed picture of GP knowledge and experiences in identifying autism and managing care for children with the condition. At one end of the continuum, there were GPs who had not heard of autism or endorsed outmoded aetiological theories. Others, however, demonstrated a sound knowledge of the conditions but had limited confidence in their ability to identify the condition. Many GPs and researchers alike called for more training and this might be effective. However, framing the problem as one of a lack of training risks silences the array of organisational factors that impact on a GP's ability to provide care for these patients.

Clinical practitioners are frequently encouraged, through literature, training, and policy, to learn, understand, refer to and use their knowledge of attachment theory and research when working to meet the needs of children and families. However, there has been very little empirical study of how practitioners understand and perceive the relevance of attachment concepts and methods. Q-methodology was used to examine the perceptions of attachment knowledge and its applications for practice among 30 UK clinicians working with children and an international group of 31 attachment researchers. Factor analysis revealed three perspectives, described as: i) pragmatic, developmental, and uncertain, ii) academic, and iii) autodidactic and therapeutic. Participants agreed on core tenants of theory, their aspirations for clinical practice and the inaccessibility of current assessment measures for practitioners. Yet they diverged on their understandings of attachment insecurity, disorganisation, and the implications of both for various aspects of child development., Wellcome; NIHR School of Primary Care Research

Many healthcare systems are organised such that General Practitioners (GPs) often have a key role in identifying autism spectrum disorders (hereafter collectively referred to as autism) in children. In this review, we explored what GPs know about autism and the factors that influence their ability to identify and manage care for their patients with autism in practice. We conducted a systematic narrative review using eight electronic databases. These included Embase and MEDLINE via Ovid, Web of Knowledge, PsycINFO via Ebscohost, PubMed, Scopus, ProQuest Dissertations and Thesis, and Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts (ASSIA) via ProQuest. Our search yielded 2,743 citations. Primary research studies were included, and we did not impose any geographical, language or date restrictions. We identified 17 studies that met our inclusion criteria. Studies included in the review were conducted between 2003 and 2019. We thematically synthesised the material and identified the following themes: the prototypical image of a child with autism; experience, sources of information, and managing care; barriers to identification; strategies to aid in identification; and characteristics that facilitate expertise. Together, the findings from this review present a mixed picture of GP knowledge and experiences in identifying autism and managing care for children with the condition. At one end of the continuum, there were GPs who had not heard of autism or endorsed outmoded aetiological theories. Others, however, demonstrated a sound knowledge of the conditions but had limited confidence in their ability to identify the condition. Many GPs and researchers alike called for more training and this might be effective. However, framing the problem as one of a lack of training risks silences the array of organisational factors that impact on a GP's ability to provide care for these patients.