Transmural collaborative care model for the review of antipsychotics: a feasibility study of a complex intervention.

General practitioners (GPs) are often unaware of antipsychotic (AP)-induced cardiovascular risk (CVR) and therefore patients using atypical APs are not systematically monitored. We evaluated the feasibility of a complex intervention designed to review the use of APs and advise on CVR-lowering strategies in a transmural collaboration. A mixed methods prospective cohort study in three general practices in the Netherlands was conducted in 2021. The intervention comprised three steps: a digital information meeting, a multidisciplinary meeting, and a shared decision-making visit to the GP. We assessed patient recruitment and retention rates, advice given and adopted, and CVR with QRISK3 score and mental state with MHI-5 at baseline and three months post-intervention. GPs invited 57 of 146 eligible patients (39%), of whom 28 (19%) participated. The intervention was completed by 23 (82%) and follow-up by 18 participants (64%). At the multidisciplinary meeting, 22 (78%) patients were advised to change AP use. Other advice concerned medication (other than APs), lifestyle, monitoring, and psychotherapy. At 3-months post-intervention, 41% (28/68) of this advice was adopted. Our findings suggest that this complex intervention is feasible for evaluating health improvement in patients using AP in a trial.

Cardiovascular risk management in patients with severe mental illness or taking antipsychotics: A qualitative study on barriers and facilitators among dutch general practitioners.

BACKGROUND: Patients with severe mental illness (SMI) or receiving treatment with antipsychotics (APs) have an increased risk of cardiovascular disease. Cardiovascular risk management (CVRM) increasingly depends on general practitioners (GPs) because of the shift of mental healthcare from secondary to primary care and the surge of off-label AP prescriptions. Nevertheless, the uptake of patients with SMI/APs in CVRM programmes in Dutch primary care is low. OBJECTIVES: To explore which barriers and facilitators GPs foresee when including and treating patients with SMI or using APs in an existing CVRM programme. METHODS: In 2019, we conducted a qualitative study among 13 Dutch GPs. During individual in-depth, semi-structured interviews a computer-generated list of eligible patients who lacked annual cardiovascular risk (CVR) screening guided the interview. Data was analysed thematically. RESULTS: The main barriers identified were: (i) underestimation of patient CVR and ambivalence to apply risk-lowering strategies such as smoking cessation, (ii) disproportionate burden on GPs in deprived areas, (iii) poor information exchange between GPs and psychiatrists, and (iv) scepticism about patient compliance, especially those with more complex conditions. The main facilitators included: (i) support of GPs through a computer-generated list of eligible patients and (ii) involvement of family or carers. CONCLUSION: This study displays a range of barriers and facilitators anticipated by GPs. These indicate the preconditions required to remove barriers and facilitate GPs, namely adequate recommendations in practice guidelines, improved consultation opportunities with psychiatrists, practical advice to support patient adherence and incentives for practices in deprived areas.

Cardiovascular risk screening of patients with serious mental illness or use of antipsychotics in family practice.

BACKGROUND: Patients with serious mental illness (SMI) and patients on antipsychotics (AP) have an elevated risk for cardiovascular diseases. In the Netherlands, the mental healthcare for these patients is increasingly taken care of by family practitioners (FP) as a result of a shift from secondary to primary care. Therefore, it is essential to increase our knowledge regarding the characteristics of this patient group and the (somatic) care provided by their FPs. The aim was to examine the rate of cardiovascular risk screening in patients with SMI or the use of AP in family practice. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of 151.238 patients listed in 24 family practices in the Netherlands. From electronic medical records we extracted data concerning diagnoses, measurement values of CVR factors, medication and frequency of visits over a 2 year period. Primary outcome was the rate of patients who were screened for CVR factors. We compared three groups: patients with SMI/AP without diabetes or CVD (SMI/AP-only), patients with SMI/AP and diabetes mellitus (SMI/AP + DM), patients with SMI/AP and a history of cardiovascular disease (SMI/AP + CVD). We explored factors associated with adequate screening using multilevel logistic regression. RESULTS: We identified 1705 patients with SMI/AP, 834 with a SMI diagnosis, 1150 using AP. The screening rate for CVR in the SMI/AP-only group (n = 1383) was adequate in 8.5%. Screening was higher in the SMI/AP - +DM (n = 206, 68.4% adequate, OR 24.6 (95%CI, 17.3-35.1) and SMI/AP + CVD (n = 116, 26.7% adequate, OR 4.2 (95%CI, 2.7-6.6). A high frequency of visits, age, the use of AP and a diagnosis of COPD were associated with a higher screening rate. In addition we also examined differences between patients with SMI and patients using AP without SMI. CONCLUSION: CVR screening in patients with SMI/AP is performed poorly in Dutch family practices. Acceptable screening rates were found only among SMI/AP patients with diabetes mellitus as comorbidity. The finding of a large group of AP users without a SMI diagnosis may indicate that FPs often prescribe AP off-label, lack information about the diagnosis, or use the wrong code.