Who needs collaborative care treatment? A qualitative study exploring attitudes towards and experiences with mental healthcare among general practitioners and care managers.

BACKGROUND: Collaborative care treatment is widely recognized as an effective approach to improve the quality of mental healthcare through enhanced and structured collaboration between general practice and specialized psychiatry. However, studies indicate that the complexity of collaborative care treatment interventions challenge the implementation in real-life general practice settings. Four Danish Collaborative Care Models were launched in 2014 for patients with mild/moderate anxiety and depression. These involved collaboration between general practitioners, care managers and consultant psychiatrists. Taking a multi-practice bottom-up approach, this paper aims to explore the perceived barriers and enablers related to collaborative care for patients with mental health problems and to investigate the actual experiences with a Danish collaborative care model in a single-case study in order to identify enablers and barriers for successful implementation. METHODS: Combining interviews and observations of usual treatment practices, we conducted a multi-practice study among general practitioners who were not involved in the Danish collaborative care models to explore their perspectives on existing mental health treatment and to investigate (from a bottom-up approach) their perceptions of and need for collaborative care in mental health treatment. Additionally, by combining observations and qualitative interviews, we followed the implementation of a Danish collaborative care model in a single-case study to convey identified barriers and enablers of the collaborative care model. RESULTS: Experienced and perceived enablers of the Danish collaborative care model mainly consisted of a need for new treatment options to deal with mild/moderate anxiety and depression. The model was considered to meet the need for a free fast track to high-quality treatment. Experienced barriers included: poor adaptation of the model to the working conditions and needs in daily general practice, time consumption, unsustainable logistical set-up and unclear care manager role. General practitioners in the multi-practice study considered access to treatment and not collaboration with specialised psychiatry to be essential for this group of patients. CONCLUSIONS: The study calls for increased attention to implementation processes and better adaptation of collaborative care models to the clinical reality of general practice. Future interventions should address the treatment needs of specific patient populations and should involve relevant stakeholders in the design and implementation processes.

Purified granulocytes in extracorporeal cell therapy: A multifaceted approach to combat sepsis-induced immunoparalysis.

BACKGROUND: Immune cell dysfunction plays a central role in sepsis-induced immunoparalysis. Targeted treatment using healthy donor immune cell transfusions, particularly granulocyte concentrates (GC) potentially induces tissue damage. Initial trials using GC in an extracorporeal immune cell perfusion system provided evidence for beneficial effects with fewer side effects, by separating patient and donor immune cell compartments. A multicenter clinical trial is exploring feasibility and effects of a 6-h treatment (NCT06143137). This ex vivo study examines technical feasibility and cellular effects of an extended treatment interval up to 24 h. METHODS: Standard GC were purified to increase the potential storage time and subsequently implemented in the extracorporeal immune cell perfusion system. Parameters assessed included cell viability, phagocytosis activity, oxidative burst, cytokine release, and metabolic parameters of purified. GC during an extended circulation time of up to 24 h. RESULTS: After storage of 72 h granulocytes were viable throughout the study period and exhibited preserved functionality and metabolic activity. The findings highlight a time-dependent nature of cytokine release by neutrophils in the extracorporeal circuit, as cytokine secretion patterns showed IL-8 peaking within 6 h, while MCP-1, IL-6, IL-1ß, and TNF-α increased after 24 h of circulation. CONCLUSION: Purified GC remain functional after 72 h of storage and additional 24 h in the circulating treatment model. Cytokine secretion patterns revealed a significant increase, especially between 10 and 24 h of treatment. Extending treatment time holds promise for enhancing immune response against sepsis-induced immunoparalysis. These findings provide valuable insights for optimizing immune-targeted therapeutic interventions.

Involving patients in medicines optimisation in general practice: a development study of the "PREparing Patients for Active Involvement in medication Review" (PREPAIR) tool.

BACKGROUND: Many patients have multiple health conditions and take multiple medications (polypharmacy). Active patient involvement may improve treatment outcomes and ensure patient-centred care. Yet, patient involvement remains a challenge in clinical practice. We aimed to develop and pilot test a questionnaire-based preparation and dialogue tool, the PREparing Patients for Active Involvement in medication Review (PREPAIR) tool, to encourage the involvement of patients with polypharmacy in medicines optimisation in general practice. METHODS: We conducted a literature review followed by a co-production process to develop the tool: a workshop with six GPs and pilot testing, including observations and interviews, with 22 patients, three GPs and three practice staff. During this process, we made continuous adaptations to the prototype. We analysed the qualitative data thematically, focusing on the development process and mechanisms of impact. FINDINGS: The final PREPAIR tool included five items concerning the patient's experience of 1) adverse drug reactions, 2) excess medication, 3) unnecessary medication, 4) medication satisfaction and 5) medication-related topics to discuss with the GP (open-ended question). The applied workflow during testing was as follows; the patient completed the PREPAIR tool at home, to encourage reflection on the medication, and brought it to the GP consultation. During the consultation, the GP and the patient reviewed the patient's responses and discussed potential medication-related problems. For some patients, the increased reflection led to worries about the medications. Still, the pilot testing showed that, when using the PREPAIR tool, the patients arrived at the clinic well prepared and empowered to speak. From the PREPAIR-supported dialogue, the GPs obtained a better understanding of patients' perspectives and provided a more patient-centred consultation. For the patients, the PREPAIR-supported dialogue ultimately promoted an increased sense of security, satisfaction and insight into their medication, despite initial worries for some patients. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a brief tool to support active patient involvement in medication review in general practice. The PREPAIR-tool was well received by both patients and GPs and fitted well into the existing clinical practice. Our findings suggest that the PREPAIR-tool can support patient involvement during consultations and facilitate patient-centred care.