Advances in Psychiatric Treatment (2005) 11: 139-141
© 2005 The Royal College of Psychiatrists
Shared care, individual expertise
INVITED COMMENTARY ON... SHARED CARE FOR PEOPLE WITH MENTAL ILLNESS
Tom Burns
Tom Burns is Professor of Social Psychiatry at the University of Oxford (University Department of Psychiatry, Warneford Hospital, Oxford OX3 7JX, UK. Tel: 01865 226 474; fax: 01865 793 101; e-mail: tom.burns{at}psych.ox.ac.uk). His research interests have been mainly in service structures in community care, but for several years he worked with Tony Kendrick (now Professor of General Practice at Southampton University) on a series of studies of the care of severe mental illness in primary care. It was this set of studies that focused his attention on the issues of shared care.
‘Shared care in mental health is now a policy imperative in England and Wales, yet its meaning ... [is] ... still open to debate’. Dr Lester’s opening line says it all (Lester, 2005, this issue). We’re all in favour of it, but none of us is exactly sure what it is. Ambiguity is considered a failing in academic publications and, under pressure from editors, we usually excise the unnecessary and unclear. Politicians, however, often deliberately insert ambiguity, as it allows scope for interpretation. By a simple shift in emphasis, either shared care’s achievement can be claimed as a manifesto success or slow progress towards it can be cited to justify further targets.
Any psychiatrist reading Lester’s article will recognise a kindred spirit and be heartened to see such a clear understanding of the needs of people with mental illnesses (in particular, such a recognition of the complex and special needs of the more severely ill among them). Closer working relationships and better communication are in the best interests of the patients, the general practitioners (GPs) and the psychiatrists. So what’s in a name? Does it matter that all these issues are subsumed under the rubric of ‘shared care’? I think it does.
A common goal that is open to the wide range of interpretations that Lester outlines is just as likely to increase misunderstanding across the primary/secondary care boundary as to reduce it. The very plasticity of the term frustrates our search for those changes in practice that improve collaborative working and are durable, feasible and not critically dependent on individual local initiative. The literature on shared care in mental health is littered with innovations which have made some difference, but few which have generalised or outlived the enthusiasm of their champion. Avoiding the term altogether and disaggregating the components of shared care may take us further.
 |
Improved communication
|
|---|
There is an overwhelming case for improved communication between primary and secondary care in this area. There are well recognised ways of trying to improve liaison between community mental health teams (CMHTs) and GPs (Burns & Bale, 1997), and one approach that seems to be more feasible and productive in the long run is the practice-based liaison meeting. Such liaison (where GPs and CMHTs get to know each other and form realistic expectations of what each has to offer), allied with reasonable local agreements on waiting times for assessment and continuity of care in CMHTs, would answer most of the listed concerns about poor communication.
|
Patient-held records
|
|---|
Although patient-held records and crisis cards may or may not reduce miscommunication, their purpose is more ambitious. The Warner study (Warner et al, 2000) did not demonstrate a sustainable, generalisable improvement, any more than Ben Essex’s pioneering work (Essex et al, 1990) did in the 1980s. What both shared was an enormous investment of energy to support an innovation that faded away soon after the studies had ended. However, both these studies and the Henderson study of crisis cards (Henderson et al, 2004) have a wider significance. They are attempts not only to improve communication, but to explore and alter the power relationship in mental health practice. As such, it is not their immediate failure to generalise or to improve care that is so important but their contribution to a wider conception of the research and service development challenge.
|
Physical and psychiatric care of serious mental illness
|
|---|
The complementary (not shared) roles of primary and secondary care are most clearly demonstrated in the guidance on the care of serious mental illness cited by Lester. Serious mental illness substantially raises morbidity, and it is proposed that greater vigilance is needed both with regular health checks and in the monitoring of antipsychotics prescribed and administered in primary care. The use of registers and protocols to identify high-risk groups and improve their care is not dependent on shared care. This independence is highlighted by the finding that up to a third of schizophrenia patients received all their care in primary care (Kendrick et al, 1994) – following the guidelines is good care but not necessarily shared care.
|
Boundaries aren’t always bad things
|
|---|
It will be clear that I share Dr Lester’s ambition for closer working relationships between CMHTs and primary care teams. However, I have perhaps more faith in systems that have evolved and endured than in systems imposed on what Lester recognises as a sceptical profession. Clearly it is not desirable to have a fragmented system of care requiring patients and GPs to jump through hoops to obtain needed treatments. We want it to be as facilitatory and smooth as possible. On the other hand, there is only so much expertise that any one individual can master. Being a GP is fairly demanding and so is being a psychiatrist – trying to be both is unrealistic.
Boundaries should exist only where they make sense (a somewhat hypocritical comment coming from one whose profession seems engaged in an apparently endless process of subspecialising). Boundaries ensure that practitioners are not required to act outside their competence and they help define for others what we do. Clarity about competences and appropriate divisions of responsibilities usually improve relationships. Our emphasis should be on fostering harmonious collaboration; sometimes this will involve shared care, but more often it will simply need better communication and improved understanding of our different skills and tasks.
|
References
|
|---|
Burns, T. & Bale, R. (1997) Establishing a mental health liaison attachment with primary care. Advances in Psychiatric Treatment, 3, 219–224.
Essex, B., Doig, R. & Renshaw, J. (1990) Pilot study of records of shared care for people with mental illnesses. BMJ, 300, 1442–1446.
Henderson, C., Flood, C., Leese, M., et al (2004) Effect of joint crisis plans on use of compulsory treatment in psychiatry: single blind randomised controlled trial. BMJ, 329, 136–138.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Kendrick, T., Burns, T., Freeling, P., et al (1994) Provision of care to general practice patients with disabling long-term mental illness: a survey in 16 practices. British Journal of General Practice, 44, 301–305.
Lester, H. (2005) Shared care for people with mental illness: a GP’s perspective. Advances in Psychiatric Treatment, 11, 133–139.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Warner, J. P., King, M., Blizard, R., et al (2000) Patient-held shared care records for individuals with mental illness. British Journal of Psychiatry, 177, 319–324.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Related articles in APT:
- Shared care for people with mental illness: a GP’s perspective
- Helen Lester
APT 2005 11: 133-139.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
Top
Improved communication
Patient-held records