Open AccessThe role of local inpatient psychiatric units and general practitioner on continuity of care in Northern Norway: A case‐register study
Author(s) -
Myklebust Lars Henrik,
Lassemo Eva
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
international journal of methods in psychiatric research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.275
H-Index - 73
eISSN - 1557-0657
pISSN - 1049-8931
DOI - 10.1002/mpr.1866
Subject(s) - continuity of care , medicine , mental health , inpatient care , ambulatory care , service (business) , outpatient clinic , nursing , facilitation , family medicine , specialist care , affect (linguistics) , psychiatry , health care , primary care , psychology , business , communication , marketing , neuroscience , economics , economic growth
Objectives The general practitioners' (GP) role in the care of mental health patients has received increased attention. The literature underlines the need for integration of primary and specialist services, but cross‐boundary continuity for patients with severe conditions may be particularly poor. The aim of this study was to analyze the collaboration between primary care and different models of specialized psychiatric services for patients with severe conditions. Methods We compared a local and a centralized model of mental health care. Service utilization over a 5‐year period was studied. Results Findings suggest that a local institution‐based model of services positively affects the use of both GP and specialist outpatient care, with most inpatients utilizing both GP and specialist outpatient consultations. In the centralized model, a substantial proportion of inpatients only used GP outpatient care. Furthermore, inpatients that used both GP and specialist outpatient services received more of both services compared to those who did not enter specialist outpatient care at all. Conclusion Local inpatient units may positively affect continuity of care and collaboration between general practitioners and specialist psychiatric services compared to more traditional hospital units, probably because better functional integration of services, better facilitation of clinical alliances/relationships, or a more network‐oriented treatment philosophy.