Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Improving referral to psychological support unit at Saudi Red Crescent Authority in Riyadh Region
  1. Ahmad Yousif Alzahrani1,
  2. Sabri abd Allah Mahmod1,
  3. Thamer Mohammad Bakhamis1,
  4. Khaled Al-Surimi2,3
  1. 1 Department of Emergency Medical Services, Saudi Red Crescent Authority, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
  2. 2 Department of Health System and Quality Management, King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, College of Public Health and Health Informatics, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
  3. 3 Department of Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College, London, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Ahmad Yousif Alzahrani; ahmad96{at}hotmail.com

Abstract

The Psychological Support Unit (PSU) performance in Saudi Red Crescent Authority (SRCA) showed that only a small number of case referred seeking psychological advice and management from PSU among all SRCA employees. However, research shows that between 28% and 52% of emergency medical services (EMS) providers usually seek psychological help in various EMS cultures, where 86% of them usually suffer from critical stress. Thus, we decided to design a quality improvement project that aims to improve the referral process by increasing cases referred to the PSU at SRCA in Riyadh Region by 75% in 2 months. A multidisciplinary team has been formed to analyse the problem using quality tools including, brainstorming, fishbone diagram and flow chart of the PSU processes. Several possible reasons have been identified, such as lack of awareness among the SRCA’s employees about PSU and its services, and the concern about privacy and confidentiality during psychological consultations in the PSU, in addition to the long referring process to PSU. The team decided to test the following change ideas: increasing the awareness of employees about the PSU services, improving the privacy and confidentiality during the consultation using electronic channels, and finally re-engineering the referral process to make it lean and remove all the unnecessary steps. Several improvement interventions have been tested sequentially in three consecutive Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles on a weekly basis. The project findings demonstrated that the first change idea was successful but not reaching the target while the second change had led to huge impact exceeding our target but with short effect. On the other hand, although the third change idea of re-engineering the PSU referral process had led to negative result initially, over the following weeks of measurement the results turned to be positive and meeting our expectations. We concluded that re-engineering referral process is most effective improvement intervention among other change ideas in term of magnitude and sustainability of the effect on increasing the number of referral cases to the PSU. We recommend conducting further testing and measuring of these change ideas in other PSU across the SRCA to understand the diffident context in other regions of SRCA.

  • medical emergency team
  • mental health
  • quality improvement

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Footnotes

  • Contributors AYA and TMB have planned this project. SAM performed conduction of the study, while both AYA and SAM reported the results. KA-S and AYA contributed to submitting and reviewing the manuscript as guarantors.

  • Funding None declared.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.