Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T02:49:30.731Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Pathways to Care at Early Intervention in Psychosis Liverpool: A Cross-Sectional Retrospective Audit Cycle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2023

Benjamin Koetsier*
Affiliation:
Early Intervention in Psychosis Team, Liverpool, United Kingdom
John Stevens
Affiliation:
Early Intervention in Psychosis Team, Liverpool, United Kingdom
Chloe Uffendell
Affiliation:
Early Intervention in Psychosis Team, Liverpool, United Kingdom
*
*Corresponding 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

Early Intervention in Psychosis (EIP) services provide an evidence-based approach to the identification and treatment of patients experiencing a first episode of psychosis (FEP). The NICE access and waiting time standard is that 60% of people experiencing FEP are treated with an approved care package within two weeks of referral. This is defined by allocation of an EIP care coordinator, though the offer of antipsychotics is also important. The aims of this audit were to (1) Collect data on EIP referral to treatment pathways and explore delays (2) Explore the origin of EIP referrals (3) Explore timings of referrals to review with a prescriber (4) Compare two audit periods to assess recommendation efficacy and provide future recommendations to reduce delays.

Methods

Two retrospective audits were carried out on patients accepted onto the FEP pathway at EIP Liverpool in May & June 2020 (34 patients) and December 2021 (11 patients).

Data were collected for each patient on time spent at stages of the referral pathway from initial referral to mental health services to first medical review with an EIP clinician. Further data included each patient's first point of contact with mental health services, the referral origin and first contact with a prescriber.

Data were collected using electronic health records. Duplicate referrals and extended inpatient admissions were excluded from prescriber analysis. Initial audit results from 2020 were compared with the re-audit in 2021, assessing for changes in pathway provision and compliance with the NICE standard.

Results

The results found that there was a 43.5% increase in wait time on the EIP referral pathway between the periods audited in 2020 and 2021, from an average of 9.8 to 22.5 days, related to the COVID-19 pandemic. The primary delays for both periods were referral assessment, care coordinator allocation and prescriber review.

The type of prescriber reviewing remained consistent, with reviews being conducted by a consultant for >50% of patients in both periods.

Conclusion

Between the two audited periods, the average pathway to care time increased to over the NICE standard despite implemented recommendations from the initial audit.

Stages of the referral pathway facing significant delays came from within the service, due to an increase in referrals, an increase in patients experiencing FEP by 50% and a change in the origin of referrals. A framework for improvement is recommended to improve pathways to care and outcomes for patients experiencing FEP within the EIP service.

Type
Audit
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NC
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. This does not need to be placed under each abstract, just each page is fine.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the 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.