

Available online at
ScienceDirect
www.sciencedirect.com24th European Congress of Psychiatry
Core symposia
Symposium: choosing wisely – prioritization in
mental health care?
CS01
Making mental health part of the
solution for reducing the negative
impact of austerity – a perspective
from England
S. Bailey
The Royal College of Psychiatrists, London, United Kingdom
This paper will describe four initiatives in England to protect the
mental health of the population.
1. Lobbying government – presenting the evidence about how
mental health services can reduce the impact of austerity on fami-
lies and communities.
2. Building psychosocial resilience in schools through well being
programmes and through “enabling environments” in the work-
place.
3. Delivering sustainability in mental and physical healthcare:
– prevention – don’t get ill in the first place;
– patient empowerment – if unwell patient to self manage where
possible;
– lean service design – if healthcare services necessary, these
should be efficient and high value;
– low carbon – reducing carbon footprint and waste.
4. Working across medicine – choosing wisely:
– promoting conversations between doctors and patients to choose
care that is:
– supported by evidence,
– not duplicative of other tests of procedures already received,
– free from harm,
– truly necessary.
Disclosure of interest
The author has not supplied his declaration
of competing interest.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eurpsy.2016.01.782CS02
Choosing wisely in Germany –
adapting an international initiative to
a national healthcare agenda
D. Klemperer
Ostbayerische Technische Hochschule Regensburg, Faculty of Social
and Health Care Sciences, Regensburg, Germany
Overuse and underuse in healthcare is a chronic problem
in most healthcare systems. Inspired by the North American
Choosing Wisely Initiative, the Association of Scientific Medical
Societies in Germany (AWMF), which actually counts 173 mem-
ber organisations, decided to address the problem. The aim of
the German “Gemeinsam klug entscheiden” (deciding together
wisely)-initiative is to reduce overuse, underuse and misuse of
health interventions in areas where recommendations of clini-
cal practice guidelines (CPG) are not adequately implemented or
missing. Starting point are the positive and negative recommen-
dations of the CPGs, which the AWMF-member societies have
developed for more than 20 years, following the manual and rules
set up by AWMF. To identify and select recommendations method-
ological criteria have been developed by a working group in a
consensus-based process. The development of AWMF-CPGs fol-
lows a methodology that aims to ensure the full integration of
evidence, an interdisciplinary and interprofessional perspective,
the prevention of bias as a consequence of conflicts of interest and
full transparency of the development process.
Disclosure of interest
The author has not supplied his declaration
of competing interest.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eurpsy.2016.01.783CS03
Choosing wisely – the viewpoint and
experiences of the American
Psychiatric Association
J. McIntyre
University of Rochester, Psychiatry, Rochester, NY, USA
Choosing wisely, a program developed by the American Board of
Internal Medicine in 2012, is advancing a national dialogue on
avoiding wasteful or unnecessary medical tests, treatments or pro-
cedures. Recommendations are chosen that have a strong evidence
base. There are now over seventy specialty society partners includ-
ing the American Psychiatric Association. The program attempts
to involve patients in the dialogue and an important partner in
the program is consumer reports. In this presentation, information
about the origins of the program, its development and the impact it
has on the practice of medicine will be reviewed. Also the measures
developed and submitted by the American Psychiatric Association
will be discussed and potential additional psychiatricmeasureswill
be discussed. The strengths and weaknesses of the programwill be
identified.
Disclosure of interest
The author has not supplied his declaration
of competing interest.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eurpsy.2016.01.7840924-9338/$ – see front matter