Background

Child and adolescent mental health problems are common in primary healthcare settings. However, few parents of children with mental health problems express concerns about these problems during consultations. Based on parental views, we aimed to create quality of care measures for child and adolescent mental health in primary care and develop consensus about the importance of these quality standards within primary care.

Methods

Quality Standards were developed using an iterative approach involving four phases: 1) 34 parents with concerns about their child’s emotional health or behaviour were recruited from a range of community settings including primary care practices to participate in focus group discussions, followed by validation groups or interviews. 2) Preliminary Quality Standards were generated that fully represented the parents’ experiences and were refined following feedback from an expert parent nominal group. 3) 55 experts, including parents and representatives from voluntary organisations, across five panels participated in a modified two-stage Delphi study to develop consensus on the importance of the Quality Standards. The panels comprised general practitioners, other community-based professionals, child and adolescent psychiatrists, other child and adolescent mental health professionals and public health and policy specialists. 4) The final set of Quality Standards was piloted with 52 parents in primary care.

Results

In the Delphi process, all five panels agreed that 10 of 31 Quality Standards were important. Although four panels rated 25–27 statements as important, the general practitioner panel rated 12 as important. The final 10 Quality Standards reflected healthcare domains involving access, confidentiality for young people, practitioner knowledge, communication, continuity of care, and referral to other services. Parents in primary care agreed that all 10 statements were important.

Conclusions

It is feasible to develop a set of Quality Standards to assess mental healthcare provision for children and adolescents seen within primary healthcare services. Primary care practitioners should be aware of parental perspectives about quality of care as these may influence help-seeking behaviours.

Background

Coronary heart disease and depression are both common health problems and by 2020 will be the two leading causes of disability worldwide. Depression has been found to be more common in patients with coronary heart disease but the nature of this relationship is uncertain. In the United Kingdom general practitioners are now being remunerated for case-finding for depression in patients with coronary heart disease, however it is unclear how general practitioners should manage these patients. We aim to explore the relationship between coronary heart disease and depression in a primary care population and to develop an intervention for patients with coronary heart disease and depression.

Methods/design

This programme of research will consist of 4 inter-related studies. A 4 year prospective cohort study of primary care patients with coronary heart disease will be conducted to explore the relationship between coronary heart disease and depression. Within this, a nested case-control biological study will investigate genetic and blood-biomarkers as predictors of depression in this sample. Two qualitative studies, one of patients' perspectives of treatments for coronary heart disease and co-morbid depression and one of primary care professionals' views on the management of patients with coronary heart disease and depression will inform the development of an intervention for this patient group. A feasibility study for a randomised controlled trial will then be conducted.

Discussion

This study will provide information on the relationship between coronary heart disease and depression that will allow health services to determine the efficiency of case-finding for depression in this patient group. The results of the cohort study will also provide information on risk factors for depression. The study will provide evidence on the efficacy and feasibility of a joint patient and professional led intervention and data necessary to plan a definitive randomised controlled trial of the intervention.

Background

Non-adherence to clinical guidelines has been identified as a consistent finding in general practice. The purpose of this study was to develop theory-informed, computer-delivered interventions to promote the implementation of guidelines in general practice. Specifically, our aim was to develop computer-delivered prompts to promote guideline adherence for antibiotic prescribing in respiratory tract infections (RTIs), and adherence to recommendations for secondary stroke prevention.

Methods

A qualitative design was used involving 33 face-to-face interviews with general practitioners (GPs). The prompts used in the interventions were initially developed using aspects of social cognitive theory, drawing on nationally recommended standards for clinical content. The prompts were then presented to GPs during interviews, and iteratively modified and refined based on interview feedback. Inductive thematic analysis was employed to identify responses to the prompts and factors involved in the decision to use them.

Results

GPs reported being more likely to use the prompts if they were perceived as offering support and choice, but less likely to use them if they were perceived as being a method of enforcement. Attitudes towards using the prompts were also related to anticipated patient outcomes, individual prescriber differences, accessibility and presentation of prompts and acceptability of guidelines. Comments on the prompts were largely positive after modifying them based on participant feedback.

Conclusions

Acceptability and satisfaction with computer-delivered prompts to follow guidelines may be increased by working with practitioners to ensure that the prompts will be perceived as valuable tools that can support GPs' practice.

Background

The descriptive information now available for primary care in the UK is unique in international terms. Under the 'Quality and Outcomes Framework' (QOF), data for 147 performance indicators are available for each general practice. We aimed to determine the relationship between the quality of primary care, as judged by the total QOF score, social deprivation and practice characteristics.

Methods

We obtained QOF data for each practice in England and linked these with census derived data (deprivation indices and proportion of patients born in a developing country). Characteristics of practices were also obtained. QOF and census data were available for 8480 practices.

Results

The median QOF score was 999.7 out of a possible maximum of 1050 points. Three characteristics were independently associated with higher QOF scores: training practices, group practices and practices in less socially deprived areas. In a regression model, these three factors explained 14.6% of the variation in QOF score. Higher list sizes per GP, turnover of registered patients, chronic disease prevalence, proportions of elderly patients or patients born in a developing country did not contribute to lower QOF scores in the final model.

Conclusion

Socially deprived areas experience a lower quality of primary care, as judged by QOF scores. Social deprivation itself is an independent predictor of lower quality. Training and group practices are independent predictors of higher quality but these types of practices are less well represented in socially deprived areas.