4.3 Article

Primary Care Providers' Views on Metabolic Monitoring of Outpatients Taking Antipsychotic Medication

期刊

PSYCHIATRIC SERVICES
卷 64, 期 6, 页码 597-599

出版社

AMER PSYCHIATRIC PUBLISHING, INC
DOI: 10.1176/appi.ps.002542012

关键词

-

资金

  1. Center for Aging in Diverse Communities under the Resource Centers for Minority Aging Research program by the National Institute on Aging [P30-AG15272]
  2. National Center for Research Resources, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
  3. National Institutes of Health (NIH) Office of the Director through UCSF-CTSI [KL2 RR024130]
  4. National Institutes of Mental Health [1K23MH093689]
  5. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases [P30DK092924]
  6. ATT Foundation
  7. Pfizer
  8. McKesson Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate attitudes of primary care providers toward barriers to metabolic monitoring and to characterize their beliefs about providers' responsibility for monitoring and reducing cardiovascular risk for people with severe mental illness. Methods: An anonymous survey was administered to 214 primary care providers working in 23 public community health clinics in San Francisco. Results: The response rate was 77% (164 of 214). Nearly 40% of primary care providers were unaware of consensus guidelines for metabolic monitoring of people who take second-generation antipsychotic medications. Responses showed variation in providers' beliefs about who should monitor patients' metabolic risk. The major barriers to metabolic monitoring were severity of psychiatric illness, difficulty collaborating with psychiatrists, and difficulty arranging psychiatric follow-up. Conclusions: Primary care providers believed that better communication between primary care providers and psychiatrists would facilitate metabolic monitoring and promote better treatment for patients with severe mental illness who are taking antipsychotic medications.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据