Aims and method Communication of responsibility for lithium monitoring and the ? ow of information between primary and secondary care was assessed by postal questionnaire. Guidelines were then introduced and a re-audit carried out two years later.Results Initial audit showed that the doctor responsible for lithium monitoring was only identi Ã Â½ able in 59% of cases. The majority of general practitioners had received information about monitoring from the consultant prior to taking on the task. Following the introduction of guidelines re-audit showed a marked increase in identi-Ã Â½ cation of the responsible professional to 87.5% of cases. There was also a shift towards monitoring in primary care.Clinical implications Communication between primary and secondary care is vital and can be improved by guidelines.
All Published work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Copyright © 2019 All rights reserved. iMedPub LTD Last revised : September 20, 2019