Mark Savill1, Haley V Skymba1, J Daniel Ragland1, Tara Niendam1, Rachel L Loewy1, Tyler A Lesh1, Cameron Carter1, Howard H Goldman1. 1. Dr. Savill and Dr. Loewy are with the Weill Institute for Neurosciences, University of California, San Francisco. Ms. Skymba, Dr. Ragland, Dr. Niendam, Dr. Lesh, and Dr. Carter are with the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of California, Davis, Sacramento. Dr. Goldman is with the University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Although screening for psychosis may reduce the duration of untreated psychosis, the barriers and facilitators associated with implementing such a procedure in various care settings have not been explored. METHODS: Investigators conducted in-depth, semistructured interviews with 17 members of school counseling services or community mental health staff at sites that administer a psychosis screening tool. Using an inductive approach to thematic analysis, they evaluated the acceptability of psychosis screening and barriers to and facilitators of implementation. RESULTS: Participants reported few barriers to implementation. However, several service-, client-, and program-level factors were considered to significantly affect the implementation of screening. Most participants found that using the screening tool did not significantly affect their overall workload. Facilitators included leadership support, the novelty of using a technology-based screener, regular staff training, and the importance of establishing an effective link between community services and specialty care, with these factors important at different stages of the process. Screening for psychosis was associated with significant advantages over referrals based on clinical judgment alone, including increased speed and accuracy of identification, increased confidence in diagnosis, and the provision of a clear pathway to specialty treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The experiences of school counseling and community mental health teams suggest that incorporating a technology-based screening procedure for early psychosis is feasible. Identifying barriers and facilitators at various stages of the screening procedure may reduce the dropout of clients potentially eligible for early psychosis care.
OBJECTIVE: Although screening for psychosis may reduce the duration of untreated psychosis, the barriers and facilitators associated with implementing such a procedure in various care settings have not been explored. METHODS: Investigators conducted in-depth, semistructured interviews with 17 members of school counseling services or community mental health staff at sites that administer a psychosis screening tool. Using an inductive approach to thematic analysis, they evaluated the acceptability of psychosis screening and barriers to and facilitators of implementation. RESULTS:Participants reported few barriers to implementation. However, several service-, client-, and program-level factors were considered to significantly affect the implementation of screening. Most participants found that using the screening tool did not significantly affect their overall workload. Facilitators included leadership support, the novelty of using a technology-based screener, regular staff training, and the importance of establishing an effective link between community services and specialty care, with these factors important at different stages of the process. Screening for psychosis was associated with significant advantages over referrals based on clinical judgment alone, including increased speed and accuracy of identification, increased confidence in diagnosis, and the provision of a clear pathway to specialty treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The experiences of school counseling and community mental health teams suggest that incorporating a technology-based screening procedure for early psychosis is feasible. Identifying barriers and facilitators at various stages of the screening procedure may reduce the dropout of clients potentially eligible for early psychosis care.
Entities:
Keywords:
Community mental health services, Schools; Prodromal Questionnaire,; Psychoses; Screening
Authors: J O Johannessen; T H McGlashan; T K Larsen; M Horneland; I Joa; S Mardal; R Kvebaek; S Friis; I Melle; S Opjordsmoen; E Simonsen; H Ulrik; P Vaglum Journal: Schizophr Res Date: 2001-08-01 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Meredith G Harris; Lisa P Henry; Susy M Harrigan; Rosemary Purcell; Orli S Schwartz; Simone E Farrelly; Amy L Prosser; Henry J Jackson; Patrick D McGorry Journal: Schizophr Res Date: 2005-11-01 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: J Rietdijk; R Klaassen; H Ising; S Dragt; D H Nieman; J van de Kamp; P Cuijpers; D Linszen; M van der Gaag Journal: Acta Psychiatr Scand Date: 2012-02-15 Impact factor: 6.392
Authors: Max Birchwood; Charlotte Connor; Helen Lester; Paul Patterson; Nick Freemantle; Max Marshall; David Fowler; Shôn Lewis; Peter Jones; Tim Amos; Linda Everard; Swaran P Singh Journal: Br J Psychiatry Date: 2013-05-23 Impact factor: 9.319
Authors: Peter L Phalen; Pamela Rakhshan Rouhakhtar; Zachary B Millman; Elizabeth Thompson; Jordan DeVylder; Vijay Mittal; Evan Carter; Gloria Reeves; Jason Schiffman Journal: Psychiatry Res Date: 2018-11-03 Impact factor: 3.222