Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users
to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response
is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual
response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the
browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published
online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed.
Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles.
The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being
wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our
attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not
including references and author details. We will no longer post responses
that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
We read with interest Roy’s letter. We too are optimistic that mental
health professionals will, in time, see the benefits of copying
correspondence to patients. However, it seems understandable that given
the sensitive nature of the contents of a psychiatric consultation there
might be more concern about patients reading copies of correspondence in
comparison to the relatively more straightforward and often less intimate
nature of, for example, a surgical consultation.
In January 2002 the Wimbledon Community Mental Health Team(CMHT) at
South West London & St George’s Mental Health NHS Trust began to send
copies of all correspondence between professionals about patients to
patients routinely, with their explicit consent. This included letters to
General Practitioners and discharge summaries. Information obtained from
third parties was excluded, unless they consented or they were health care
professionals. A copy was not sent if it was felt that seeing a copy
letter would potentially damage the health of the patient (this exclusion
applied to less then 5% of letters).
We sent out a simple questionnaire which consisted of five
statements about the policy which respondents were asked to rate on a five
point scale (ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree) with the
first 100 copies of initial assessment letters to GPs that were sent to
patients.
40%(40 patients) filled in and returned the questionnaires, of these
one was filled out incorrectly. 94% of respondents understood the contents
of the copy letter. 95% of respondents thought the initiative a good
idea. 38% of respondents found reading the letter uncomfortable.(Although
it could be argued that this is not necessarily damaging to treatment).
82% of respondents wanted the policy extended to other specialties.
The adult directorate at the Trust has extended the above policy to
all the Trust’s CMHTs in October 2002. This has therefore been routine
practice over the past 10 months in 22 CMHTs in South West London & St
George’s Mental Health NHS Trust. We hope that any concerns mental
health professionals have about copying correspondence to patients will be
diminished by this data.
Copying Correspondance in Mental Health
We read with interest Roy’s letter. We too are optimistic that mental
health professionals will, in time, see the benefits of copying
correspondence to patients. However, it seems understandable that given
the sensitive nature of the contents of a psychiatric consultation there
might be more concern about patients reading copies of correspondence in
comparison to the relatively more straightforward and often less intimate
nature of, for example, a surgical consultation.
In January 2002 the Wimbledon Community Mental Health Team(CMHT) at
South West London & St George’s Mental Health NHS Trust began to send
copies of all correspondence between professionals about patients to
patients routinely, with their explicit consent. This included letters to
General Practitioners and discharge summaries. Information obtained from
third parties was excluded, unless they consented or they were health care
professionals. A copy was not sent if it was felt that seeing a copy
letter would potentially damage the health of the patient (this exclusion
applied to less then 5% of letters).
We sent out a simple questionnaire which consisted of five
statements about the policy which respondents were asked to rate on a five
point scale (ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree) with the
first 100 copies of initial assessment letters to GPs that were sent to
patients.
40%(40 patients) filled in and returned the questionnaires, of these
one was filled out incorrectly. 94% of respondents understood the contents
of the copy letter. 95% of respondents thought the initiative a good
idea. 38% of respondents found reading the letter uncomfortable.(Although
it could be argued that this is not necessarily damaging to treatment).
82% of respondents wanted the policy extended to other specialties.
The adult directorate at the Trust has extended the above policy to
all the Trust’s CMHTs in October 2002. This has therefore been routine
practice over the past 10 months in 22 CMHTs in South West London & St
George’s Mental Health NHS Trust. We hope that any concerns mental
health professionals have about copying correspondence to patients will be
diminished by this data.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests