[Anxiety and mood disorders are independent risk factors for cardiovascular diseases]. / Stemmings- en angststoornissen als risicofactor voor cardiovasculaire ziekten.

OBJECTIVE: Psychiatric conditions are insufficiently highlighted as cardiovascular risk factors in the CVRM guideline. Objectives of this review are 1) to determine if anxiety and mood symptoms/disorders are independent cardiovascular risk factors; 2) to compare this risk to a population without these psychiatric conditions and 3) to ascertain the influence of psychiatric disease severity. DESIGN: Narrative systematic review METHOD: We searched for meta-analyses and systematic reviews in PubMed. Quality assessment by AMSTAR criteria. RESULTS: 10 reviews were included from 172 hits. (Sub)clinical depression and mood disorders are associated with an increased independent risk to develop cardiovascular diseases, coronary artery disease, myocardial infarction and cerebrovascular disease. Bipolar disorders increase the cerebrovascular risk, but not myocardial infarction. Anxiety disorders/symptoms heighten the cardiovascular, myocardial and cerebrovascular risk. CONCLUSION: Anxiety and mood symptoms/disorders are independent cardiovascular risk factors. Severe anxiety and mood disorders should be included as separate risk factors in the CVRM guideline.

[Collaborative somatic care for patients with severe mental illness]. / Gezamenlijke somatische zorg voor patiënten met een ernstige psychische aandoening.

Patients with severe mental illness have an accumulation of risk factors for physical diseases like cardiovascular diseases, metabolic syndrome, diabetes mellitus and COPD. These patients receive suboptimal care in the Netherlands. A major barrier to optimal care is the lack of collaboration between mental health professionals and general practitioners. An improvement could be made if all medical professionals actively supported these high-risk patients in taking adequate care of their health needs. This improvement can only be made if general practitioners and mental health professionals collaborate in a timely and structured manner.

Improvement of care for the physical health of patients with severe mental illness: a qualitative study assessing the view of patients and families.

BACKGROUND: Patients with severe mental illness (SMI) experience more physical comorbidity than the general population. Multiple factors, including inadequate seeking of healthcare and health care related factors such as lack of collaboration, underlie this undesirable situation. To improve this situation, the logistics of physical health care for patients with SMI need to be changed. We asked both patients and their families about their views on the current organization of care, and how this care could be improved. METHODS: Group and individual interviews were conducted with patients and family of patients to explore their needs and preferences concerning the care for the physical health of patients with SMI, and to explore the shortcomings they had experienced. Using thematic analysis, responses were firstly divided into common topics, after which these topics were grouped into themes. RESULTS: Three major themes for the improvement of the physical care of patients with SMI were found. Firstly, the reduced ability of patients with SMI to survey their own physical health interests requires health care that is tailored to these needs. Secondly, the lack of collaboration amongst mental health care professionals and general practitioners (GPs) hinders optimal care. Thirdly, concerns were expressed regarding the implementation of monitoring and supporting a healthy lifestyle. Patients with SMI welcome this implementation, but the logistics of providing this care can be improved. CONCLUSIONS: An optimal approach for caring for the physical health of patients with SMI requires a professional approach, which is different to the routine care provided to the general public. This approach can and should be accomplished within the usual organizational structure. However, this requires tailoring of the health care to the needs of patients with SMI, as well as structural collaboration between mental health care professionals and GPs.

[Is the diagnosis 'depression' still useful?]. / Is de diagnose 'depressie' nog wel bruikbaar?

The DSM diagnosis of depression is based solely on the presence of symptoms, without taking into account the context in which these symptoms have occurred. For this reason, the DSM diagnosis does not distinguish between sadness as a normal reaction to a painful loss and pathologically depressive reactions that are disproportionate to personal life events and circumstances. According to a group of mental health expert general practitioners, a true depressive disorder is characterized by a depression that has acquired a life of its own and is hard to control. This depression is severe, and is recognized by the patient as alien to his or her character. Loss of the ability to experience pleasure in ordinary things (anhedonia) and thoughts about death as an alternative for the torment experienced are often present. We recommend the diagnosis of depression be reserved for clearly pathologically depressive reactions that are also recognized as such by the patient.

[Depression, cancer and physician-assisted euthanasia]. / Depressie en kanker. Toch euthanasie?

A 73-year-old woman suffering from chronic recurrent depression and in the terminal phase of breast cancer requested euthanasia from her family doctor. Patients with a history of chronic depression have more difficulty proving that they have made a conscious choice to terminate their lives; however, depression does not necessarily alter the patient's ability to make decisions. In order to judge each case adequately, information from all those involved in the case (e.g. family, professionals) is important. It is vital that a SCEN ('Support and Counselling by Euthanasia in the Netherlands') doctor is consulted in good time in order to be sure that the patient is able to express himself or herself properly.

Care provided by general practitioners to patients with psychotic disorders: a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Patients suffering from psychotic disorders have an increased risk of comorbid somatic diseases such as cardiovascular disorders and diabetes mellitus. Doctor-related factors, such as unfamiliarity with these patients, as well as patient-related factors, such as cognitive disturbance and negative symptoms, contribute to suboptimal health care for these patients.General practitioners (GPs) could play a key role in diagnosing and treating this somatic comorbidity as in the Netherlands, almost all residents are registered at a general practice. This study aims to find out whether there are any differences between the levels of health care provided by GPs to patients with psychotic disorders, compared to other types of patients. METHODS: A cohort of patients with an ICPC code of psychosis and two matched control groups, one consisting of patients with other mental problems and the other one of patients without any mental problems, were followed over a period of 5 years. RESULTS: Patients with psychotic disorders (N = 734) contacted the GP practice more often than patients in the control groups. These patients, both adults (p = 0.051) and the elderly (p < 0.005), received more home visits from their GPs. In the adult group (16 to 65 years old inclusive), the number of consultations was significantly higher among both psychosis patients and the group of patients with other mental problems (p < 0.0005). The number of telephone consultations was significantly higher in both age categories, adult group (p < 0.0005), and > 65 years old (p = 0.007). With regard to chronic illnesses, elderly psychosis patients had fewer contacts related to cardiovascular diseases or chronic lung diseases. CONCLUSION: Patients with psychotic disorders contact the GP practice more frequently than other types of patients. Adult psychosis patients with diabetes mellitus, cardiovascular diseases or chronic lung diseases receive the same amount of health care for these diseases as other primary care patients. The finding that older patients with psychotic disorders are diagnosed with cardiovascular diseases and obstructive lung diseases less frequently than other types of elderly patients requires further study.

Care for patients with severe mental illness: the general practitioner's role perspective.

BACKGROUND: Patients with severe mental illness (SMI) experience distress and disabilities in several aspects of life, and they have a higher risk of somatic co-morbidity. Both patients and their family members need the support of an easily accessible primary care system. The willingness of general practitioners and the impeding factors for them to participate in providing care for patients with severe mental illness in the acute and the chronic or residual phase were explored. METHODS: A questionnaire survey of a sample of Dutch general practitioners spread over the Netherlands was carried out. This comprised 20 questions on the GP's 'Opinion and Task Perspective', 19 questions on 'Treatment and Experiences', and 27 questions on 'Characteristics of the General Practitioner and the Practice Organisation'. RESULTS: 186 general practitioners distributed over urban areas (49%), urbanised rural areas (38%) and rural areas (15%) of the Netherlands participated. The findings were as follows: GPs currently considered themselves as the first contact in the acute psychotic phase. In the chronic or residual phase GPs saw their core task as to diagnose and treat somatic co-morbidity. A majority would be willing to monitor the general health of these patients as well. It appeared that GP trainers and GPs with a smaller practice setting made follow-up appointments and were willing to monitor the self-care of patients with SMI more often than GPs with larger practices.GPs also saw their role as giving support and information to the patient's family.However, they felt a need for recognition of their competencies when working with mental health care specialists. CONCLUSION: GPs were willing to participate in providing care for patients with SMI. They considered themselves responsible for psychotic emergency cases, for monitoring physical health in the chronic phase, and for supporting the relatives of psychotic patients.

Somatic diseases in patients with schizophrenia in general practice: their prevalence and health care.

BACKGROUND: Schizophrenia patients frequently develop somatic co-morbidity. Core tasks for GPs are the prevention and diagnosis of somatic diseases and the provision of care for patients with chronic diseases. Schizophrenia patients experience difficulties in recognizing and coping with their physical problems; however GPs have neither specific management policies nor guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of somatic co-morbidity in schizophrenia patients. This paper systematically reviews the prevalence and treatment of somatic co-morbidity in schizophrenia patients in general practice. METHODS: The MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO data-bases and the Cochrane Library were searched and original research articles on somatic diseases of schizophrenia patients and their treatment in the primary care setting were selected. RESULTS: The results of this search show that the incidence of a wide range of diseases, such as diabetes mellitus, the metabolic syndrome, coronary heart diseases, and COPD is significantly higher in schizophrenia patients than in the normal population. The health of schizophrenic patients is less than optimal in several areas, partly due to their inadequate help-seeking behaviour. Current GP management of such patients appears not to take this fact into account. However, when schizophrenic patients seek the GP's help, they value the care provided. CONCLUSION: Schizophrenia patients are at risk of undetected somatic co-morbidity. They present physical complaints at a late, more serious stage. GPs should take this into account by adopting proactive behaviour. The development of a set of guidelines with a clear description of the GP's responsibilities would facilitate the desired changes in the management of somatic diseases in these patients.

How do General Practitioners experience providing care for their psychotic patients?

BACKGROUND: In primary care, GPs usually provide care for patients with chronic diseases according to professional guidelines. However, such guidelines are not available in the Netherlands for patients with recurring psychoses. It seems that the specific difficulties that GPs experience in providing care for these patients hinder the development and implementation of such guidelines. This study aims to explore the chances and problems GPs meet when providing care for patients susceptible for recurring psychoses, including schizophrenia and related disorders, bipolar disorder, and psychotic depression. METHODS: A qualitative study of focus group discussions with practising GPs in both town and rural areas. Transcripts from three focus groups with 19 GPs were analysed with the computer program 'Kwalitan'. Theoretical saturation was achieved after these three groups. RESULTS: Analysis showed that eight categories of factors influenced the GPs' care for psychotic patients: patient presentation (acute vs. chronic phase), emotional impact, expertise, professional attitude, patient related factors, patient's family, practice organization, and collaboration with psychiatric specialists. CONCLUSION: Current primary care for psychotic patients depends very much on personal characteristics of the GP and the quality of local collaboration with the Mental Health Service. A quantitative study among GPs using a questionnaire based on the eight categories mentioned above would determine the extent of the problems and limitations experienced with this type of care. From the results of this quantitative study, new realistic guidelines could be developed to improve the quality of care for psychotic patients.