Primary care contact, clinical management, and suicide risk following discharge from inpatient mental health care: a case-control study.

IF 2.5 Q2 PRIMARY HEALTH CARE BJGP Open Pub Date : 2024-10-29 DOI:10.3399/BJGPO.2023.0165
Rebecca Musgrove, Matthew J Carr, Nav Kapur, Carolyn A Chew-Graham, Faraz Mughal, Darren M Ashcroft, Roger T Webb
{"title":"Primary care contact, clinical management, and suicide risk following discharge from inpatient mental health care: a case-control study.","authors":"Rebecca Musgrove, Matthew J Carr, Nav Kapur, Carolyn A Chew-Graham, Faraz Mughal, Darren M Ashcroft, Roger T Webb","doi":"10.3399/BJGPO.2023.0165","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Evidence is sparse regarding service usage and the clinical management of people recently discharged from inpatient psychiatric care who die by suicide.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To improve understanding of how people discharged from inpatient mental health care are supported by primary care during this high-risk transition.</p><p><strong>Design & setting: </strong>A nested case-control study, utilising interlinked primary and secondary care records in England for people who died within a year of discharge between 2001 and 2019, matched on age, sex, practice-level deprivation, and region with up to 20 living discharged people.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We described patterns of consultation, prescription of psychotropic medication, and continuity of care for people who died by suicide and those who survived. Mutually adjusted relative risk estimates were generated for a range of primary care and clinical variables.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>More than 40% of patients who died within 2 weeks of discharge and >80% of patients who died within 1 year of discharge had at least one primary care consultation within the respective time periods. Evidence of discharge communication from hospital was infrequent. Within-practice continuity of care was relatively high. Those who died by suicide were less likely to consult within 2 weeks of discharge (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 0.61 [95% confidence interval {CI} = 0.42 to 0.89]), more likely to consult in the week before death (AOR 1.71 [95% CI = 1.36 to 2.15]), be prescribed multiple types of psychotropic medication (AOR 1.73 [95% CI = 1.28 to 2.33]), experience readmission, and have a diagnosis outside of the 'severe mental illness' definition.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Primary care clinicians have opportunities to intervene and should prioritise patients experiencing transition from inpatient care. Clear communication and liaison between services is essential to provide timely support.</p>","PeriodicalId":36541,"journal":{"name":"BJGP Open","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BJGP Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGPO.2023.0165","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PRIMARY HEALTH CARE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Evidence is sparse regarding service usage and the clinical management of people recently discharged from inpatient psychiatric care who die by suicide.

Aim: To improve understanding of how people discharged from inpatient mental health care are supported by primary care during this high-risk transition.

Design & setting: A nested case-control study, utilising interlinked primary and secondary care records in England for people who died within a year of discharge between 2001 and 2019, matched on age, sex, practice-level deprivation, and region with up to 20 living discharged people.

Method: We described patterns of consultation, prescription of psychotropic medication, and continuity of care for people who died by suicide and those who survived. Mutually adjusted relative risk estimates were generated for a range of primary care and clinical variables.

Results: More than 40% of patients who died within 2 weeks of discharge and >80% of patients who died within 1 year of discharge had at least one primary care consultation within the respective time periods. Evidence of discharge communication from hospital was infrequent. Within-practice continuity of care was relatively high. Those who died by suicide were less likely to consult within 2 weeks of discharge (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 0.61 [95% confidence interval {CI} = 0.42 to 0.89]), more likely to consult in the week before death (AOR 1.71 [95% CI = 1.36 to 2.15]), be prescribed multiple types of psychotropic medication (AOR 1.73 [95% CI = 1.28 to 2.33]), experience readmission, and have a diagnosis outside of the 'severe mental illness' definition.

Conclusion: Primary care clinicians have opportunities to intervene and should prioritise patients experiencing transition from inpatient care. Clear communication and liaison between services is essential to provide timely support.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
住院精神病患者出院后的初级保健接触、临床管理和自杀风险。
背景:目标:进一步了解在这一高风险过渡时期,从精神疾病住院治疗出院的患者如何获得初级医疗支持:利用英格兰相互关联的初级和二级医疗记录,对2001年至2019年期间出院后一年内死亡的患者进行嵌套病例对照研究,根据年龄、性别、医疗机构贫困程度和地区与最多20名在世的出院患者进行配对:我们描述了自杀死亡者和存活者的就诊模式、精神药物处方以及护理的连续性。结果:超过40%的患者在自杀后2个月内死亡:超过40%在两周内死亡的患者和80%在两周后死亡的患者至少接受过一次初级医疗咨询。出院沟通的证据并不常见。诊所内护理的连续性相对较高。自杀死亡者在出院后两周内就诊的可能性较低,AOR值为0.61(0.42-0.89);在死亡前一周就诊的可能性较高,AOR值为1.71(1.36-2.15);被开具多种类型精神药物的可能性较高(AOR值为1.73,1.28-2.33);再次入院的可能性较高;被诊断为 "严重精神疾病 "以外的疾病的可能性较高:结论:初级保健临床医生有机会进行干预,并应优先考虑从住院治疗转出的患者。服务机构之间的明确沟通和联系对于提供及时的支持至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BJGP Open
BJGP Open Medicine-Family Practice
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
181
审稿时长
22 weeks
期刊最新文献
General practice characteristics associated with pay-for-performance in the UK: a systematic review. How do GPs communicate the urgent suspected cancer referral pathway to patients? A qualitative study of GP-patient consultations. Could a behaviour change intervention be used to address under-recognition of work-related asthma in primary care? A systematic review. Editorial: Global health inequity and primary care. Clinical decision making and risk appraisal using electronic risk assessment tools (eRATs) for cancer diagnosis: A qualitative study of GP experiences.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1