Search

England’s national Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) programme advocates stepped care as its organizational delivery of psychological therapies to common mental health problems. There is limited evidence regarding the efficacy of stepped care as a service delivery model, heterogeneity of definition and differences in model implementation in both research and routine practice, hence outcome comparison in terms of effectiveness of model is difficult. Despite sound evidence of the efficacy of low intensity interventions there appears to be a perpetuation of the notion that severity and complexity should only be treated by a high intensity intervention through the continuation of a stratified care model. Yet no psychotherapy treatment is found to be more superior to another, and not enough is known about what works for whom to aid the matching of treatment decision. In the absence of understanding precise treatment factors optimal for recovery, it may be useful to better understand the impact of a service delivery model, and whether different models achieve different outcomes. This study aims to contribute to the discussion regarding the stepped care definition and delivery, and explores the impact on clinical outcomes where different types of stepped care have been implemented within the same service. An observational cohort study analysed retrospective data (n = 16,723) over a 4 year period, in a single IAPT service, where delivery changed from one type of stepped care model to another. We compared the outcomes of treatment completers with a stratified care model and a progression care model. We also explored the assumption that patients who score severe on psychological measures, and therefore are potentially complex, would achieve better outcomes in a stratified model. Outcomes in each model type were compared, alongside baseline factor variables. A significant association was observed between a recovery outcome and model type, with patients 1.5 times more likely to recover in the progression delivery model. The potential implications are that with a progression stepped care model of service delivery, more patients can be treated with a lower intensity intervention, even with initial severe presentations, ensuring that only those that need high intensity CBT or equivalent are stepped up. This could provide services with an effective clinical model that is efficient and potentially more cost effective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Prescribing is a complex skill required of doctors and, increasingly, other healthcare professionals. Use of a personal formulary can help to develop this skill. In 2006-9, we developed a core list of the 100 most commonly prescribed drugs. Our aim in the present study was to update this 'starter formulary' to ensure its continued relevance for prescriber training., Methods: We analysed large contemporary primary and secondary care datasets to identify the most frequently prescribed medicinal products. Items were classified into natural groups, broadly following their British National Formulary classification. The resulting drug groups were included in the core list if they comprised ≥0.1% prescriptions in both settings or ≥0.2-0.3% prescriptions in one setting. Drugs from emergency guidelines that did not qualify by prescribing frequency completed the list., Results: Over 1 billion primary care items and approximately 1.8 million secondary care prescriptions were analysed. The updated list comprises 81 drug groups commonly prescribed in both settings; six from primary care; seven from secondary care; and six from emergency guidelines. Eighty-eight per cent of the formulary was unchanged. Notable changes include entry of newer anti-epileptics and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and exit of phenytoin and thiazolidinediones., Conclusions: The relative stability of the core drug list over 9 years and the current update ensure that learning based on this list remains relevant to practice. Trainee prescribers may be encouraged to use this 'starter formulary' to develop a sound basis of prescribing knowledge and skills that they can subsequently apply more widely., (© 2018 The British Pharmacological Society.)