Background Patients with severe mental illness (SMI) or receiving treatment with antipsychotics (APs) have an increased risk of cardiovascular disease. Cardiovascular risk management (CVRM) increasingly depends on general practitioners (GPs) because of the shift of mental healthcare from secondary to primary care and the surge of off-label AP prescriptions. Nevertheless, the uptake of patients with SMI/APs in CVRM programmes in Dutch primary care is low. Objectives To explore which barriers and facilitators GPs foresee when including and treating patients with SMI or using APs in an existing CVRM programme. Methods In 2019, we conducted a qualitative study among 13 Dutch GPs. During individual in-depth, semi-structured interviews a computer-generated list of eligible patients who lacked annual cardiovascular risk (CVR) screening guided the interview. Data was analysed thematically. Results The main barriers identified were: (i) underestimation of patient CVR and ambivalence to apply risk-lowering strategies such as smoking cessation, (ii) disproportionate burden on GPs in deprived areas, (iii) poor information exchange between GPs and psychiatrists, and (iv) scepticism about patient compliance, especially those with more complex conditions. The main facilitators included: (i) support of GPs through a computer-generated list of eligible patients and (ii) involvement of family or carers. Conclusion This study displays a range of barriers and facilitators anticipated by GPs. These indicate the preconditions required to remove barriers and facilitate GPs, namely adequate recommendations in practice guidelines, improved consultation opportunities with psychiatrists, practical advice to support patient adherence and incentives for practices in deprived areas.

Background Patients with serious mental illness (SMI) and patients on antipsychotics (AP) have an elevated risk for cardiovascular diseases. In the Netherlands, the mental healthcare for these patients is increasingly taken care of by family practitioners (FP) as a result of a shift from secondary to primary care. Therefore, it is essential to increase our knowledge regarding the characteristics of this patient group and the (somatic) care provided by their FPs. The aim was to examine the rate of cardiovascular risk screening in patients with SMI or the use of AP in family practice. Methods We performed a retrospective cohort study of 151.238 patients listed in 24 family practices in the Netherlands. From electronic medical records we extracted data concerning diagnoses, measurement values of CVR factors, medication and frequency of visits over a 2 year period. Primary outcome was the rate of patients who were screened for CVR factors. We compared three groups: patients with SMI/AP without diabetes or CVD (SMI/AP-only), patients with SMI/AP and diabetes mellitus (SMI/AP + DM), patients with SMI/AP and a history of cardiovascular disease (SMI/AP + CVD). We explored factors associated with adequate screening using multilevel logistic regression. Results We identified 1705 patients with SMI/AP, 834 with a SMI diagnosis, 1150 using AP. The screening rate for CVR in the SMI/AP-only group ( n = 1383) was adequate in 8.5%. Screening was higher in the SMI/AP − +DM ( n = 206, 68.4% adequate, OR 24.6 (95%CI, 17.3–35.1) and SMI/AP + CVD ( n = 116, 26.7% adequate, OR 4.2 (95%CI, 2.7–6.6). A high frequency of visits, age, the use of AP and a diagnosis of COPD were associated with a higher screening rate. In addition we also examined differences between patients with SMI and patients using AP without SMI. Conclusion CVR screening in patients with SMI/AP is performed poorly in Dutch family practices. Acceptable screening rates were found only among SMI/AP patients with diabetes mellitus as comorbidity. The finding of a large group of AP users without a SMI diagnosis may indicate that FPs often prescribe AP off-label, lack information about the diagnosis, or use the wrong code.

Background: Patients with serious mental illness (SMI) and patients on antipsychotics (AP) have an elevated risk for cardiovascular diseases. In the Netherlands, the mental healthcare for these patients is increasingly taken care of by family practitioners (FP) as a result of a shift from secondary to primary care. Therefore, it is essential to increase our knowledge regarding the characteristics of this patient group and the (somatic) care provided by their FPs. The aim was to examine the rate of cardiovascular risk screening in patients with SMI or the use of AP in family practice.Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study of 151.238 patients listed in 24 family practices in the Netherlands.From electronic medical records we extracted data concerning diagnoses, measurement values of CVR factors, medication and frequency of visits over a 2 year period. Primary outcome was the rate of patients who were screened for CVR factors. We compared three groups: patients with SMI/AP without diabetes or CVD (SMI/AP-only), patients with SMI/AP and diabetes mellitus (SMI/AP+DM), patients with SMI/AP and a history of cardiovascular disease (SMI/AP+CVD). We explored factors associated with adequate screening using multilevel logistic regression.Results: We identified 1705 patients with SMI/AP, 834 with a SMI diagnosis, 1150 using AP. The screening rate for CVR in the SMI/AP-only group (n=1383) was adequate in 8.5%. Screening was higher in the SMI/AP-+DM (n=206, 68.4% adequate, OR 24.6 (95%CI, 17.3-35.1) and SMI/AP+CVD (n=116, 26.7% adequate, OR 4.2 (95%CI, 2.7-6.6). A high frequency of visits, age, the use of AP and a diagnosis of COPD were associated with a higher screening rate. In addition we also examined differences between patients with SMI and patients using AP without SMI.Conclusion: CVR screening in patients with SMI/AP is performed poorly in Dutch family practices. Acceptable screening rates were found only among SMI/AP patients with diabetes mellitus as comorbidity. The finding of a large group of AP users without a SMI diagnosis may indicate that FPs often prescribe AP off-label, lack information about the diagnosis, or use the wrong code.

No abstract

Background Patients with a serious mental illness (SMI) and those using antipsychotics (AP) have an elevated risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD). In the Netherlands, the mental healthcare for these patients is increasingly provided by family practitioners (FPs), following a shift from secondary to primary care. It is therefore essential to better understand the characteristics of this patient group and the (somatic) care provided by their FPs. The aim of this study was to examine the rate of cardiovascular risk (CVR) screening in patients with SMI or those using APs in family practice. Methods We performed a retrospective cohort study of 151,238 patients registered with 24 family practices in the Netherlands. From electronic medical records, we extracted data concerning diagnoses, the measurement of CVR factors, medication, and the frequency of visits over a two-year year period. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who were screened for CVR factors. We compared three groups: patients with SMI or using AP without diabetes or CVD (SMI/AP only), patients with SMI or using AP and diabetes mellitus (SMI/AP+DM), and patients with SMI or using AP and a history of CVD (SMI/AP+CVD). We explored the factors associated with adequate screening using a multilevel logistic regression. Results We identified 1705 patients with SMI or using AP, 834 of whom had a SMI diagnosis and 1150 of whom used AP. CVR was adequately screened in 8.5% of the SMI/AP-only group (117 of 1383 patients). Screening was much more commonly performed in the SMI/AP+DM (n=206, 68.4% adequate) and SMI/AP+CVD (n=116, 26.7% adequate) groups. (ORs for moderate and adequate screening 21.8 (95%CI, 15.4-30.8) and 4.3 (95%CI, 2.8-6.6) respectively). A high frequency of FP visits, age, the use of AP, and a diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were associated with a higher screening rate. In addition, we examined the differences between patients with SMI and patients using AP in the absence of a SMI. ConclusionsCVR screening in patients with SMI or using AP is often inadequate or lacking in Dutch family practices. Acceptable screening rates were found only among SMI/AP patients with diabetes mellitus as a comorbidity.