Randomised Controlled Trial of a Collaborative Care Model with Psychiatric Consultation for Persistent Medically Unexplained Symptoms in General Practice

Background: Anxiety, mild depression and somatization are common in primary care (PC). Several studies have suggested that they may play a role in causing an excessive use of health care services, especially when combined with medical morbidity. The present case-control study explored how psychiatric and psychosomatic diagnoses and perceived quality of life are associated with the phenomenon of frequent attendance. Method: Fifty most frequent attenders (FAs) in a 1-year period at a PC clinic in Italy were compared with 50 randomly selected average frequency attenders at the same clinic. Sociodemographic and medical data were collected from PC files. The SCID-brief version for research and the Structured Interview for Diagnostic Criteria for Use in Psychosomatic Research (DCPR) were administered to both patient groups. Quality of life was also assessed. Results: FA status was associated with being female, older, less well educated, and living with their spouses and/or children. Medical-psychiatric comorbidity was more frequent in the FA group than in the control group. The median number of psychosomatic-DCPR syndromes per patient was 4 among FAs compared to only 1 in controls. Functional somatic symptoms secondary to a psychiatric disorder, type A behavior, irritable mood, and demoralization were significantly associated with being an FA. Perceived quality of life was significantly lower among FAs, although this was no longer significant after adjusting for sociodemographic variables. Conclusions: The present study confirms the association between medical-psychiatric comorbidity and frequent utilization of PC resources. It suggests a role for DCPR criteria in revealing subthreshold psychiatric comorbidity predicting a pattern of frequent attendance.

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

Frequent Attenders in Primary Care: Impact of Medical, Psychiatric and Psychosomatic Diagnoses

Ferrari

Galeazzi

Mackinnon

et al. 2008

“…Patients with FSS may be treated effectively with psychotherapy provided by specialists [13,14,15,16]. However, for capacity reasons and because early intervention could be more cost-effective and prevent chronification of the condition, pragmatic primary care trials with GPs as therapists are needed [17].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Training General Practitioners in the Treatment of Functional Somatic Symptoms: Effects on Patient Health in a Cluster-Randomised Controlled Trial (the Functional Illness in Primary Care Study)

Toft

Rosendal

Ørnbøl

et al. 2010

Background: Patients with medically unexplained or functional somatic symptoms (FSS) are prevalent in primary care. In this pragmatic cluster-randomised controlled trial we aimed to test the effect of a training programme (The Extended Reattribution and Management model) for general practitioners (GPs) in the treatment of FSS. Methods: 38 participating GPs were randomised to the control group or the training group. The GPs included consecutive 18- to 65-year-old patients presenting during a 3-week period for new health complaints. We assessed a stratified subsample with the psychiatric interview Schedules of Clinical Assessment in Neuropsychiatry. Of 701 patients interviewed, 350 fulfilled the diagnostic criteria for any ICD-10 somatoform disorder (SD) and 111 presented FSS without fulfilling these criteria (sub-threshold SD). Patients completed questionnaires at baseline and after 3, 12 and 24 months. The questionnaires included assessment of health status (36-item Medical Outcomes Study Short Form; SF-36), health anxiety (Whiteley-7) and physical symptoms (Symptom Check List-90, somatization subscale). Results: Patients with SD consulting trained GPs improved more on our primary outcome of physical functioning than patients consulting control GPs at the 3-month follow-up (p = 0.004), but the improvement was not statistically significant at later follow-up. We found no significant differences in improvement between patients with SD and those with sub-threshold SD. Results for other SF-36 subscales, physical symptoms and health anxiety only showed statistically significant differences between the intervention and control groups for patients with SD; patients consulting trained GPs had less improvement in vitality, health anxiety and physical symptoms at 24 months compared with the control group. Conclusions: GP training may accelerate improvement in physical functioning for patients with SD. However, the effect is small and may not be clinically significant.

“…Consequently, psychiatric intervention studies have been conducted with the aim to improve health outcome in patients with somatic and psychiatric comorbidities [8, 10, 11]. While some of these studies demonstrated a beneficial effect on psychosocial and medical outcomes [12,13,14] and health care utilization [15, 16], others showed only minor or no effects [17].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of a Multifaceted Psychiatric Intervention Targeted for the Complex Medically Ill: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Stiefel¹,

Zdrojewski²,

Hadj³

et al. 2008

Background: This study evaluated a multifaceted psychiatric intervention targeted at the complex medically ill identified by means of the INTERMED, an instrument to assess case complexity. Methods: Of 885 rheumatology inpatients and diabetes outpatients who were assessed for eligibility, 247 were identified as complex (INTERMED score >20) and randomized to the intervention (n = 125, 84 rheumatology and 41 diabetes patients) or care as usual (n = 122, 78 rheumatology and 44 diabetes patients). For the majority of the cases the multifaceted intervention consisted of an intervention conducted by a psychiatric liaison nurse and/or of referral to a liaison psychiatrist, followed by advice to the treating physician or organization of a multidisciplinary case conference. Baseline and follow-up at months 3, 6, 9 and 12 measured prevalence of major depression (Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview), depressive symptoms (Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Rating Scale), physical and mental health (SF-36), quality of life (EuroQol), health care utilization and HbA_1c levels (diabetic patients). Results: Prevalence of major depression was reduced from 61% (T0) to 28% (T4) in the intervention group and remained stable in care as usual (57% at T0 to 50% at T4). Compared to care as usual, significant improvement over time was observed in the intervention group with regard to depressive symptoms (F = 11.9; p = 0.001), perception of physical (F = 5.7; p = 0.018) and mental health (F = 3.9; p = 0.047) and quality of life (F = 21.8; p < 0.001). Effects tended to be stronger in diabetes patients, in patients with baseline major depression and in patients with moderate INTERMED scores. Finally, hospital admissions occurred less often in the intervention group, reaching statistical significance for the period between 6 and 9 months of follow-up (p = 0.02). Conclusions: The results suggest that a psychiatric intervention targeted for complex medical patients can improve health outcomes.