Search

Aim: To audit New Zealand district health boards' (DHBs) metabolic monitoring policies in relation to consumers prescribed second-generation antipsychotic medications using a best practice guideline., Methods: Metabolic monitoring policies from DHBs and one private clinic were analysed in relation to a best practice standard developed from the current literature and published guidelines relevant to metabolic syndrome., Results: Fourteen of New Zealand's 20 DHBs currently have metabolic monitoring policies for consumers prescribed antipsychotic medication. Two of those policies are consistent with the literature-based guideline. Eight policies include actions to be taken when consumers meet criteria for metabolic syndrome. Four DHBs have systems for measuring their rates of metabolic monitoring. There is no consensus on who is clinically responsible for metabolic monitoring., Conclusions: Metabolic monitoring by mental health services in New Zealand reflects international experience that current levels of monitoring are low and policies are not always in place. Collaboration across the mental health and primary care sectors together with the adoption of a consensus guideline is needed to improve rates of monitoring and reduce current rates of physical health morbidities., Competing Interests: Aimee Staveley reports grants from The University of Auckland Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences during the conduct of the study. Dr O'Brien reports summer scholarship from University of Auckland during the conduct of the study.

Aim: Increasing pressure is being placed to facilitate Community Mental Health (CMH) patients' discharge to primary care. However, engagement following discharge is an under-researched area. This audit aimed to measure engagement and explore the factors that are associated with engagement in primary care following discharge from CMH., Method: Primary care teams for 55 service users discharged from Auckland District Health Board CMH centres between July and December 2012 were approached as part of an audit and asked to provide information regarding engagement with general practitioners., Results: From the 50 responses received, the median number of GP visits per year was 3.7 and the mean was 4.41. 72% of the sample had contact with their GP at least every 3-4 months, however 8% did not engage with their primary care team. Differences in attendance following discharge based on age, diagnosis or socioeconomic status were not found. There was a suggestion that where GPs had responsibility for ongoing prescribing individuals engaged more frequently., Conclusion: Generally, discharged individuals engage with their primary care team well, and at a level many clinicians would be comfortable with. There is a proportion of the population that does not engage at this level, which requires further study.