Table of Contents Table of Contents
Previous Page  562 / 812 Next Page
Information
Show Menu
Previous Page 562 / 812 Next Page
Page Background

S558

24th European Congress of Psychiatry / European Psychiatry 33S (2016) S349–S805

abuse, family, school and neighbourhood violence and economic

disadvantage. General psychopathology and psychological distress

were measured using the Brief Symptom Inventory. Data was

analyzed using SPSS. Descriptive data is provided for all mea-

sured variables, and correlation between the number of childhood

adverse events and the BSI total score were calculated using the

Spearman’s rho.

Results/conclusions

Since the study is currently ongoing, and data

collection will be completed by December 2015, we will only be

able to provide final results and conclusions by the time of submis-

sion of our work presentation, in March 2016. Total sample size is

expected to be in excess of 100 subjects.

Disclosure of interest

The authors have not supplied their decla-

ration of competing interest.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eurpsy.2016.01.1636

EV652

Knowledge of patients’ voting rights

amongst mental health professionals

working in the London Borough of

Westminster during the 2015 UK

general election

T. MacLaren

1 , 2 ,

, J. Townell

3

, S. Shanmugham

3

, V. Argent

3

,

L. De Ridder

4

, A. Venkataraman

3

, M. Clarke

3

, M. Khwaja

3

1

Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust, General

Adult and Old Age Psychiatry, London, United Kingdom

2

Imperial College London, Faculty of Medicine, London, United

Kingdom

3

Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust, General

Adult Psychiatry, London, United Kingdom

4

Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust, Child and

Adolescent Psychiatry, London, United Kingdom

Corresponding author.

Introduction

Being able to participate in elections and to vote

are important components of social inclusion; empowering people

with mental illness to have a voice.

It is important that mental health professionals understand the vot-

ing rights of adults withmental illness in order to be able to provide

appropriate advice and support.

Objectives

To explore knowledge of the voting rights of adults

living with mental illness amongst mental health professionals

working in both community and inpatient settings inWestminster,

London.

Aims

To understand the level of knowledge amongst mental

health professionals regarding the voting rights of patients with

mental illness in order to identify unmet training needs.

Methods

A survey, in the form of a staff quiz was undertaken in

all community and inpatient teams prior to the May 2015 general

election. All multidisciplinary team members were included.

Results

In total, 211 surveys were completed. Ninety-eight per-

cent of staff correctly identified that being a psychiatric inpatient

does not change an individual’s right to vote. Less than 50% of the

staff members demonstrated correct understanding of the rights

of patients detained under forensic sections, and the rights of the

homeless to vote.

Conclusions

It is encouraging that knowledge of voting rights

amongst staff appeared higher in our survey than in some published

surveys. However, despite the development of a Trust Voting Rights

Policy and Educational Film prior to the 2015 general election fur-

ther staff education, particularly the rights of those detained under

forensic sections or who are homeless, is required.

Disclosure of interest

The authors have not supplied their decla-

ration of competing interest.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eurpsy.2016.01.1637

EV653

Difference between normal and

priority consultations on mental

health centers

C. Manso Bazús

, J. Valdes Valdazo , E. Garcia Fernandez ,

L.T. Velilla Diez , J. Min Kim , C. Martinez Martinez ,

M.Á. Heredero Sanz

Complejo Asistencial Universitario de León, Psiquiatria, León, Spain

Corresponding author.

Introduction

Currently, in mental health teams there is over-

load in the first consultations, therefore, patients cannot be treated

properly.

Objective

This study tries to reflect the differences between pref-

erential and ordinary consultations, as well as the differences in the

delay in the support between them.

Methodology

This is a retrospective observational study where

data are collected for 3 months of the first consultations that are

taken to a mental health center.

Results

The study reflects that preferential or normal (ordinary)

derivation has no influence when it comes to the patient going or

not going to the consultation.

On the other hand, there are very significant differences statistically

in the waiting time between patients with normal and preferential

priority.

Conclusions

According to the results observed would be advis-

able to use appropriate criteria to decide the priority of a patient’s

cares.

Disclosure of interest

The authors have not supplied their decla-

ration of competing interest.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eurpsy.2016.01.1638

EV654

Comparative study between

preferential consultations and most

common diagnoses

C. Manso Bazús

, J. V

aldes Valdazo , E. Garcia Fernandez ,

L.T. Velilla Diez , J. Min Kim , C. Martinez Martinez ,

M.Á. Heredero Sanz

Complejo Asistencial Universitario de León, Psiquiatria, León, Spain

Corresponding author.

Introduction

To the specialized attention arrives as preferred

patients with minor diagnosis.

Objective

We do a relation between the type (nor-

mal/preferential) derivation of the first consultations and their

corresponding diagnosis.

Methodology

Retrospective observational study with data gath-

ered during 3 months, which handle 2 variables: on the one hand,

type of derivation and on the other, effected diagnosis.

Results

The most frequent diagnosis found are adaptative dis-

orders and affective disorders, corresponding to 45.45% and 9.1%,

respectively of preferred leads.

Conclusions

Almost half of preferential queries (consultations)

could be treated in first instance by primary care physicians releas-

ing mental health care burden.

Disclosure of interest

The authors have not supplied their decla-

ration of competing interest.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eurpsy.2016.01.1639