Thematic results
Thematic analysis revealed five overarching themes: GP roles, knowledge and experience, caregiver roles, collaboration, and a standardised approach. The results are narratively presented accordingly. Box 1 presents the key findings per theme.
GP roles
Prevention
— General health promotion — Education on potential risk factors for MHDs — Identify provoking risk factors for MHDs and act on them
Assessment
Treatment
— Treatment of common and less complex MHDs — Referral of rare or complex MHDs — Prescribing psychotropic medication
Follow-up
GPs’ knowledge and experience
Low priority in research and GPs’ educational programmes Lack of evidence-based primary care knowledge Reliance on experience-based knowledge Caregiver roles
Recognising symptoms of MHDs and seeking help Overcoming communication difficulties Providing additional information Joint decision making Executing and monitoring the treatment plan Identifying adverse side effects of psychotropic medication
Collaboration
A standardised approach
|
Box 1. Primary care for patients with both ID and MHD
GP roles
The publications reveal the GP as the key figure in the identification, initiation, and coordination of treatment of patients with ID and MHD.31,36–45 Several GP roles in the care for this patient group are described, however, with varying acceptance, experience, and fulfilment among GPs.42,46,47
The GP roles relate, in the first place, to ‘prevention of MHDs’,32,43,44,48,49 in the sense of a ‘proactive approach’. This comprises general health promotion and targeted education about healthy living or substance use,32,44,49 but also identification of MHD-provoking risk factors and development of prevention strategies.31,43,48,49
Second, GPs are expected to fulfil an important role in the diagnostic assessment of MHDs, which is described as challenging for GPs.50 Indications of inaccurate diagnoses48,51 and underdiagnosis in primary care are frequently reported4,31,41,42,48,49,52–56 and may result in inappropriate care and progression of the disorder to a more severe stage that is less responsive to treatment.23,52,57–59 Overdiagnosis occurs as well, however, leading to unnecessary prescriptions of medication.53,57 Diagnostic failure is seen as related to communication problems, with patients with ID described as less able to label their feelings and communicate their needs,44,53,57,60–62 resulting in an atypical presentation of symptoms29,43,44,57,63–65 and a more complicated assessment.42,48,52,54,61,66 It is deemed important for the GP to exclude somatic, environmental, and other causes of symptoms before considering an MHD,43,44,48,51,53,64,65,67–73 which requires a holistic, multidimensional approach.29,44
Third, regarding GPs’ ‘treatment role’, it is indicated that GPs should be able to handle less complex MHDs in people with ID.40,44,68 For this patient group the same requirements and treatment guidelines apply as for patients with MHD but without ID,44,57,65,71,73 with the necessity to refer patients with more complex disorders to specialised care.44,68 GPs prescribe psychotropic medication to a higher number of patients with ID (17%– 63%) than other patients.4,74,75 In addition, a higher number of patients with ID are reported with psychotropic prescriptions than with recorded MHDs, indicating off-label prescription.4,39,44,49,75–80 Behavioural problems are often described as an indication to start medication,4,39,59,73,74,78,79 specifically in cases of limited access to alternative treatment strategies.4 Prescribed medication is reported as predominantly long-term medication,75 and a large proportion (62%–70%) is prescribed without a psychiatrist’s involvement.50,51,81 Medication prescription can be considered part of a multidisciplinary and holistic care plan;65 however, in primary practice, GPs are less likely than psychiatrists to provide psychosocial interventions.72
Finally, ‘follow up’ by GPs is considered an essential element in the treatment of patients with ID and MHD.48,50,65,69,73,82–84 It enables the monitoring of treatment responses and possible adverse side effects, leading to early adjustment of the treatment plan.50,73 However, a lack of effective monitoring of psychotropic medication by GPs is often described.28,42,51, 55,74,81,85,86 It is stipulated that this relates to GPs’ lack of specific experience and knowledge,51,81,87 uncertainty about who of the involved professionals is responsible for follow-up,47,83,86,88,89 patient problems in communicating and presenting (side) effects of medication,44,49,65 and dependence on observations by, and cooperation with, caregivers.39,44,49,50,62,69,72
Knowledge and experience
There is general consensus that GPs generally have limited knowledge about, and experience in, managing patients with ID and MHD,24,37,40,42,43,46,50–52,58,66,69,81,87,90–96 caused by a lack of priority in medical training programmes37,40,43,50,52,58,66,93 and a lack of research concerning this patient group.93 This results in limited evidence-based knowledge43,47,50,65,67,93,97 and reliance on experience-based knowledge instead.50 It is indicated that limited knowledge and experience create feelings of insecurity in GPs when addressing patients with ID and MHD,50 lack of caregivers’ confidence in the GP,52 and insufficient care.37,41,44,52,58,66,81,91,92,97 Although GPs are interested in more training and education regarding patients with ID and MHD,24,37,41,42,44,52,58,66,87,90,91 in practice it is seen as a challenge to engage them, caused by the small size of the population and the variety of competing medical issues.58,70 Publications underline the importance of investment in more research and initiatives for effective training, skill development,37,42,50,58,92,96 and evidence-based guidelines for GPs.42,50,98
Caregiver roles
In the publications, it is noted that patients with ID and MHDs are often reliant on formal or informal caregivers for receiving care,23,43,49,57,62,69,72,99 as a first point of reference, to recognise symptoms of MHDs and seek help.23,43,62,73,99 For this task, it is deemed important that caregivers have some knowledge of associated symptoms; however, this knowledge is often lacking.23,42–44,100 Second, patients are frequently dependent on caregivers for joint decision making44 and giving informed consent regarding treatment options such as psychotropic medication.4,49,65,68,72 Third, caregivers have important roles in the execution of the treatment plan regarding medication adherence and identifying and monitoring possible side effects.49,50,73,82 A symptoms checklist is mentioned as a helpful tool for caregivers to provide the GP with the information needed.40,73 Furthermore, it is noted that the referral process can be complex, and support by caregivers can be essential to prevent delay in care.96,100
In addition, the GP is reliant on caregivers understanding symptom presentation,29,43,44,53,57,60–65 overcoming communication difficulties,43,57,69,72 and providing additional information.57,63,73 It is indicated that the more severe the ID, the more reliant the GP is on caregivers.63 Therefore, GPs should determine the key people in a patient’s life73 and proactively involve them.49,72 However, GPs should also realise that some caregivers may give information from their personal perspective, use different definitions of medical terms than the GP,44 and themselves have limited knowledge about the patient53,62,72,81,94 or limited communication skills.42,44
Collaboration
The publications emphasise the importance of GPs collaborating with other professionals in providing care for patients with ID and MHD. The collaborative partners mentioned are diverse and comprise both medical specialists (for example, psychiatrists and pharmacists) and services such as community or addiction services. Described areas for collaboration are the assessment of symptoms,43,44,49,50,56,63,64,72,75 level of communicational skills and cognitive functioning,44,86 and obtaining advice on referral,31,72,78 treatment,30,44,48–50,72,75,86 or prevention.49 GPs’ options include referral for collegial advice,31,48,72,94 handing the patient over to other professionals,44 or joining a multidisciplinary team giving integrative care to the patient.93,98,101 The latter is described as particularly desirable when the patient has a more severe ID or is in a highly complex situation.39,44,99
Effective collaboration is seen as beneficial for the outcome of mental health care in primary care28,39,42,44,93,94,96,98,102 as it is believed to increase the identification of MHDs, improve access to mental health care,98,101 and reduce hospitalisation103 and costs.98,101 However, inappropriate referrals are reported,90,94 resulting from unclear referral options and procedures.44,45,96,100,104 Adequate information exchange between GPs and other professionals, in the form of standardised, timely letters, is underlined as important for sharing essential information38,62,94,105–107 and continuity of care.105,106 Yet, audit studies on referral letters and letters from psychiatrists to GPs show that important information is often missing.62,94,100,105,107 Finally, it is stated that, in multidisciplinary collaboration, the alignment of responsibilities in treatment and follow-up should be clear.44,68,108 Particularly in cross-domain collaboration, it may be unclear who is involved, how responsibilities are shared, and how care is financed.47,83,86,88,89,96,104 It is mentioned that adequate division of responsibilities may depend on the main causal factor(s) of the MHD and may necessitate using care plans and convening case conferences.68 Responsibilities should be clearly stated in writing and reviewed regularly.88 Consequently, suggested preconditions for effective collaboration are accessible referral options, clarity about referral procedures, adequate information exchange between the professionals, and consensus on responsibilities.3,24,39,41,88,94,96,107
It is noted as a barrier that, from a historical point of view, primary and secondary care services are separate units culturally,98 organisationally,42 and financially.96,98,101 To improve the quality of collaboration, the roles of both GPs and other involved professionals should be defined more clearly,60,72 existing models should be evaluated,42,109 clinical pathways and/or models should be improved,24,42,109 specialist capacity should be enhanced,41 and payment models should be re-examined to stimulate collaborative care.98,101 Policymakers’ involvement in this matter is seen as important.98,101
A standardised approach
In several publications, a standardised approach is seen as a way to improve the quality of care for patients with both ID and MHD.43–45,49,50,65,68,83,110 First, standardised screening for MHDs gives GPs the opportunity to consider potential mental health issues at an early stage.44,49 Second, a structured multidimensional approach in the assessment leads to more appropriate and accurate diagnosis, treatment, and referral.44,45,49,65,68 Finally, systematic and standardised medication prescriptions and reviews identify potential medication-related problems at an early stage.43,50,65,83,110
Although guidelines and instruments are available to support GPs in applying a standardised approach in the general population, they are often not adapted to patients with ID.40,43,44,72,73,80 Some publications covered specific guidelines for prescribing and/or monitoring medication for MHDs in patients with ID,39,47,49,54,59,65,67,73,82 and applicable tools for detecting unmet health needs in patients with ID.31,40,49,60,69 It is suggested that GPs are insufficiently familiar with these ID-specific guidelines and tools.51,87