We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
An audit to assess the impact of an Integrated Psychological Medicine Service (IPMS) on healthcare utilization pre & post intervention. We hypothesized that an IPMS approach would reduce healthcare utilization.
Background
The IPMS focusses on integrating biopsychosocial assessments into physical healthcare pathways. It has developed in stages as opportunities presented in different specialities leading to a heterogeneous non-standardised service. The key aim is involvement of mental health practitioners, psychologists & psychiatrists in complex patients with comorbidity or functional presentations in combination with the specialty MDT. This audit is the first attempt to gather data across all involved specialities and complete a randomised deep dive into cases.
Method
Referrals into IMPS from July 2019 to June 2020 pulled 129 referrals, of which a 10% randomised sample of 13 patients was selected to analyse. 5 patients had one year of data either side of the duration of the IPMS intervention (excluding 8 patients with incomplete data sets).
We analysed; the duration & nature of the IPMS intervention, the number, duration & speciality of inpatient admissions & short stays, outpatient attendances, non-attendances & patient cancellations. Psychosocial information was also gathered. One non-randomised patient was analysed as a comparative case illustration.
Result
Randomised patients; patient 78's utilisation remained static, patient 71 post-referral engaged with health psychology & reduced healthcare utilisation. Patient 7 increased healthcare utilisation post-referral secondary to health complications. Patient 54 did not attend & increased healthcare utilisation post-referral. Patient 106 had increased healthcare utilisation post-referral from a new health condition. The randomised sample identified limitations of using healthcare utilisation as an outcome measure when contrasted to the non-randomised case (which significantly reduced healthcare utilisation post-referral).
Conclusion
Correlation only can be inferred from the data due to sample size, limitations & confounding factors e.g. psycho-social life events, acquired illness. Alternative outcome measurements documented (e.g PHQ9/GAD7) were not reliably recorded across pathways.
The results evidenced that single cases can demonstrate highly desirable effects of a biopsychosocial approach but they can also skew data sets if results are pooled due to the small sample size & heterogeneous interventions. With some patients an increase in healthcare utilisation was appropriate for an improved clinical outcome. This audit identified that utilising healthcare utilisation as an outcome measure is a crude tool with significant limitations & the need to agree tailored outcome measures based on the type of intervention to assess the impact of IPMS.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.