4.4 Article

Is there a gap between recommended and 'real world' practice in the management of depression in young people? A medical file audit of practice

期刊

BMC HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH
卷 12, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1472-6963-12-178

关键词

-

资金

  1. Colonial Foundation
  2. NHMRC training fellowship

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Literature has shown that dissemination of guidelines alone is insufficient to ensure that guideline recommendations are incorporated into every day clinical practice. Methods: We aimed to investigate the gaps between guideline recommendations and clinical practice in the management of young people with depression by undertaking an audit of medical files in a catchment area public mental health service for 15 to 25 year olds in Melbourne, Australia. Results: The results showed that the assessment and recording of depression severity to ensure appropriate treatment planning was not systematic nor consistent; that the majority of young people (74.5%) were prescribed an antidepressant before an adequate trial of psychotherapy was undertaken and that less than 50% were monitored for depression symptom improvement and antidepressant treatment emergent suicide related behaviours (35% and 30% respectively). Encouragingly 92% of first line prescriptions for those aged 18 years or under who were previously antidepressant-naive was for fluoxetine as recommended. Conclusions: This research has highlighted the need for targeted strategies to ensure effective implementation. These strategies might include practice system tools that allow for systematic monitoring of depression symptoms and adverse side effects, particularly suicide related behaviours. Additionally, youth specific psychotherapy that incorporates the most effective components for this age group, delivered in a youth friendly way would likely aid effective implementation of guideline recommendations for engagement in an adequate trial of psychotherapy before medication is initiated.

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

4.4
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