Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-fnpn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-01T16:27:16.202Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Point-of-Care Blood Testing in Severe Mental Illness: A Mixed-Methods Evaluation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2024

Monty Lyman*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
Jack Fanshawe
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
Josh Brewin
Affiliation:
Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, Oxford, United Kingdom
Thomas Fanshawe
Affiliation:
Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, Oxford, United Kingdom
Philip Turner
Affiliation:
Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, Oxford, United Kingdom
*
*Presenting author.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Aims

There is a significant mortality gap between the general population and people with SMI. This is especially prominent in those with psychotic disorders, underpinned by an increased risk of cardiometabolic disease. Identifying patients at risk early in their psychotic disorder is of key importance to reduce this mortality gap. Despite the recognised importance of regular physical health assessments in this group, completion rates are suboptimal. Point-of-care testing (POCT) to screen for diabetes and hyperlipidaemia, providing a result from a fingerprick sample in under 10 minutes presents a potential solution to enhance delivery of physical health checks and improve health outcomes in a proactive manner.

We introduced POCT across EIP teams in Southeast of England and evaluated the impact on physical health check completion rates and the quality of clinician-patient interactions in EIP teams.

Methods

A stepped wedge study was performed, introducing Abbot Afinion-2 machines across 30 EIP teams in all eight Mental Health Trusts in South East England (2021–2022). Numbers of completed physical health checks, and HBA1C and lipids blood tests completed in six months before and six months after introduction of POCT were collected from individual patients. Data were compared with those from the South West, which acted as a control region. Data were analysed from National Clinical Audit of Psychosis (NCAP) over comparable date range (2021–2022) to corroborate the findings. Clinician questionnaires were administered at three timepoints (after training, two-months, and eight-months), capturing training experiences, device usability and impacts on patient interactions.

Results

In Southeast England, the rate and quality of physical health checks increased after introduction of POCT HbA1c testing OR 2.02 (95% CI 1.17 to 3.49), lipids 2.38 (1.43 to 3.97), and total completed health checks 3.61 (1.94 to 7.94). These increases were not seen in the Southwest region that did not introduce the machines. A post-hoc review of national audit data also showed a greater improvement of health checks in the intervention group compared with the comparator group over an overlapping timescale. Findings from the questionnaires evidenced improved patient engagement, clinician empowerment and the preference of POCT over traditional blood tests in this setting.

Conclusion

POCT is associated with improvements in the rate and quality of physical health checks, and this study emphasizes the potential of POCT in reducing health inequalities and enhancing holistic care for individuals living with severe mental illness.

Type
1 Research
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Royal College of Psychiatrists

Footnotes

Abstracts were reviewed by the RCPsych Academic Faculty rather than by the standard BJPsych Open peer review process and should not be quoted as peer-reviewed by BJPsych Open in any subsequent publication.

Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.