Cargando…

Delivering stepped care: an analysis of implementation in routine practice

BACKGROUND: In the United Kingdom, clinical guidelines recommend that services for depression and anxiety should be structured around a stepped care model, where patients receive treatment at different 'steps,' with the intensity of treatment (i.e., the amount and type) increasing at each...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Richards, David A, Bower, Peter, Pagel, Christina, Weaver, Alice, Utley, Martin, Cape, John, Pilling, Steve, Lovell, Karina, Gilbody, Simon, Leibowitz, Judy, Owens, Lilian, Paxton, Roger, Hennessy, Sue, Simpson, Angela, Gallivan, Steve, Tomson, David, Vasilakis, Christos
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2012
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3283464/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22248385
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-7-3
_version_ 1782224190245437440
author Richards, David A
Bower, Peter
Pagel, Christina
Weaver, Alice
Utley, Martin
Cape, John
Pilling, Steve
Lovell, Karina
Gilbody, Simon
Leibowitz, Judy
Owens, Lilian
Paxton, Roger
Hennessy, Sue
Simpson, Angela
Gallivan, Steve
Tomson, David
Vasilakis, Christos
author_facet Richards, David A
Bower, Peter
Pagel, Christina
Weaver, Alice
Utley, Martin
Cape, John
Pilling, Steve
Lovell, Karina
Gilbody, Simon
Leibowitz, Judy
Owens, Lilian
Paxton, Roger
Hennessy, Sue
Simpson, Angela
Gallivan, Steve
Tomson, David
Vasilakis, Christos
author_sort Richards, David A
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: In the United Kingdom, clinical guidelines recommend that services for depression and anxiety should be structured around a stepped care model, where patients receive treatment at different 'steps,' with the intensity of treatment (i.e., the amount and type) increasing at each step if they fail to benefit at previous steps. There are very limited data available on the implementation of this model, particularly on the intensity of psychological treatment at each step. Our objective was to describe patient pathways through stepped care services and the impact of this on patient flow and management. METHODS: We recorded service design features of four National Health Service sites implementing stepped care (e.g., the types of treatments available and their links with other treatments), together with the actual treatments received by individual patients and their transitions between different treatment steps. We computed the proportions of patients accessing, receiving, and transiting between the various steps and mapped these proportions visually to illustrate patient movement. RESULTS: We collected throughput data on 7,698 patients referred. Patient pathways were highly complex and very variable within and between sites. The ratio of low (e.g., self-help) to high-intensity (e.g., cognitive behaviour therapy) treatments delivered varied between sites from 22:1, through 2.1:1, 1.4:1 to 0.5:1. The numbers of patients allocated directly to high-intensity treatment varied from 3% to 45%. Rates of stepping up from low-intensity treatment to high-intensity treatment were less than 10%. CONCLUSIONS: When services attempt to implement the recommendation for stepped care in the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidelines, there were significant differences in implementation and consequent high levels of variation in patient pathways. Evaluations driven by the principles of implementation science (such as targeted planning, defined implementation strategies, and clear activity specification around service organisation) are required to improve evidence on the most effective, efficient, and acceptable stepped care systems.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3283464
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2012
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-32834642012-02-22 Delivering stepped care: an analysis of implementation in routine practice Richards, David A Bower, Peter Pagel, Christina Weaver, Alice Utley, Martin Cape, John Pilling, Steve Lovell, Karina Gilbody, Simon Leibowitz, Judy Owens, Lilian Paxton, Roger Hennessy, Sue Simpson, Angela Gallivan, Steve Tomson, David Vasilakis, Christos Implement Sci Research BACKGROUND: In the United Kingdom, clinical guidelines recommend that services for depression and anxiety should be structured around a stepped care model, where patients receive treatment at different 'steps,' with the intensity of treatment (i.e., the amount and type) increasing at each step if they fail to benefit at previous steps. There are very limited data available on the implementation of this model, particularly on the intensity of psychological treatment at each step. Our objective was to describe patient pathways through stepped care services and the impact of this on patient flow and management. METHODS: We recorded service design features of four National Health Service sites implementing stepped care (e.g., the types of treatments available and their links with other treatments), together with the actual treatments received by individual patients and their transitions between different treatment steps. We computed the proportions of patients accessing, receiving, and transiting between the various steps and mapped these proportions visually to illustrate patient movement. RESULTS: We collected throughput data on 7,698 patients referred. Patient pathways were highly complex and very variable within and between sites. The ratio of low (e.g., self-help) to high-intensity (e.g., cognitive behaviour therapy) treatments delivered varied between sites from 22:1, through 2.1:1, 1.4:1 to 0.5:1. The numbers of patients allocated directly to high-intensity treatment varied from 3% to 45%. Rates of stepping up from low-intensity treatment to high-intensity treatment were less than 10%. CONCLUSIONS: When services attempt to implement the recommendation for stepped care in the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidelines, there were significant differences in implementation and consequent high levels of variation in patient pathways. Evaluations driven by the principles of implementation science (such as targeted planning, defined implementation strategies, and clear activity specification around service organisation) are required to improve evidence on the most effective, efficient, and acceptable stepped care systems. BioMed Central 2012-01-16 /pmc/articles/PMC3283464/ /pubmed/22248385 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-7-3 Text en Copyright ©2012 Richards et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research
Richards, David A
Bower, Peter
Pagel, Christina
Weaver, Alice
Utley, Martin
Cape, John
Pilling, Steve
Lovell, Karina
Gilbody, Simon
Leibowitz, Judy
Owens, Lilian
Paxton, Roger
Hennessy, Sue
Simpson, Angela
Gallivan, Steve
Tomson, David
Vasilakis, Christos
Delivering stepped care: an analysis of implementation in routine practice
title Delivering stepped care: an analysis of implementation in routine practice
title_full Delivering stepped care: an analysis of implementation in routine practice
title_fullStr Delivering stepped care: an analysis of implementation in routine practice
title_full_unstemmed Delivering stepped care: an analysis of implementation in routine practice
title_short Delivering stepped care: an analysis of implementation in routine practice
title_sort delivering stepped care: an analysis of implementation in routine practice
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3283464/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22248385
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-7-3
work_keys_str_mv AT richardsdavida deliveringsteppedcareananalysisofimplementationinroutinepractice
AT bowerpeter deliveringsteppedcareananalysisofimplementationinroutinepractice
AT pagelchristina deliveringsteppedcareananalysisofimplementationinroutinepractice
AT weaveralice deliveringsteppedcareananalysisofimplementationinroutinepractice
AT utleymartin deliveringsteppedcareananalysisofimplementationinroutinepractice
AT capejohn deliveringsteppedcareananalysisofimplementationinroutinepractice
AT pillingsteve deliveringsteppedcareananalysisofimplementationinroutinepractice
AT lovellkarina deliveringsteppedcareananalysisofimplementationinroutinepractice
AT gilbodysimon deliveringsteppedcareananalysisofimplementationinroutinepractice
AT leibowitzjudy deliveringsteppedcareananalysisofimplementationinroutinepractice
AT owenslilian deliveringsteppedcareananalysisofimplementationinroutinepractice
AT paxtonroger deliveringsteppedcareananalysisofimplementationinroutinepractice
AT hennessysue deliveringsteppedcareananalysisofimplementationinroutinepractice
AT simpsonangela deliveringsteppedcareananalysisofimplementationinroutinepractice
AT gallivansteve deliveringsteppedcareananalysisofimplementationinroutinepractice
AT tomsondavid deliveringsteppedcareananalysisofimplementationinroutinepractice
AT vasilakischristos deliveringsteppedcareananalysisofimplementationinroutinepractice