Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T07:53:34.680Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Who's lost in waiting?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 March 2020

P. Ossola ,
N. Jovanovic ,
H. McColl ,
V. Giordano ,
C. Johnston Webber ,
M. Steel ,
N. Ramjaun  and
O. Andlauer
P. Ossola
Affiliation:
University of Parma, Psychiatry Unit- Department of Neuroscience, Parma, Italy East London NHS Foundation Trust, Early Intervention City and Hackney, London, United Kingdom
N. Jovanovic
Affiliation:
Queen Mary University of London, The Barts and London School of Medicine and Dentistry, London, United Kingdom
H. McColl
Affiliation:
East London NHS Foundation Trust, Early Intervention City and Hackney, London, United Kingdom
V. Giordano
Affiliation:
East London NHS Foundation Trust, Early Intervention City and Hackney, London, United Kingdom
C. Johnston Webber
Affiliation:
East London NHS Foundation Trust, Early Intervention City and Hackney, London, United Kingdom
M. Steel
Affiliation:
East London NHS Foundation Trust, Early Intervention City and Hackney, London, United Kingdom
N. Ramjaun
Affiliation:
East London NHS Foundation Trust, Early Intervention City and Hackney, London, United Kingdom
O. Andlauer
Affiliation:
East London NHS Foundation Trust, Early Intervention City and Hackney, London, United Kingdom

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.
Introduction

Early intervention services (EIS) can significantly reduce the rate of relapse, risk of suicide and number of hospital admissions for people with first episode of psychosis (FEP). However, care pathways in FEP can be complex, thus extending the period before patients commence appropriate treatment. Recently in the UK, guidelines have set a limit of two-weeks before patients with a FEP receive treatment at EIS.

Objectives

We explored the impact of this new policy on referrals to an EIS in the area City and Hackney, London, which has one of the highest incidence of psychosis in the UK.

Methods

Referrals from 6 months of 2015 have been compared with the data from the same period of 2016, once the waiting standard had been implemented.

Results

We observed more than a two-fold increase in the monthly number of referrals (9.4 in 2015; 20 in 2016) and this wasn’t due to a rise of inappropriate referrals (2.23% in 2015; 1.53% in 2016). Moreover the number of referrals doubled further when, in addition, the City & Hackney EIS went from a 18–35-year-service to an “ageless” adult service.

Conclusion

The recent focus on FEP in the UK might have increased awareness and reduced stigma, leading to the increment in referrals. Also, shortening the waiting time made the service more accessible for those that would have gave up in front of a longer waiting list. Interestingly enough a peak in the number of referrals has been observed from September 2016 when another standard was implemented.

Disclosure of interest

The authors have not supplied their declaration of competing interest.

Type
e-Poster Viewing: Epidemiology and social psychiatry
Information
European Psychiatry , Volume 41 , Issue S1: Abstract of the 25th European Congress of Psychiatry , April 2017 , pp. S577
Copyright
Copyright © European Psychiatric Association 2017
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.