La prise en charge de la dépression est majoritairement effectuée par les médecins généralistes. Sa détection et sa prise en charge ne sont pas optimales. Le but de ce travail était d’identifier les difficultés perçues par les médecins généralistes en France dans la prise en charge des patients dépressifs et d’analyser leurs propositions pour y remédier.

Un questionnaire postal standardisé a été envoyé à tous les médecins généralistes de l’interrégion nord-ouest.

Le profil des 2087 réponses (25 % de répondeurs) était similaire à la population source. Globalement 28 % des généralistes connaissaient les guides de pratique clinique. L’insuffisance de l’offre de soins spécialisés était remise en cause, mais surtout leur accès était jugé difficile et la communication déficiente. Les généralistes proposaient des outils pour améliorer les soins : formations centrées sur la relation d’aide, circuit privilégié pour le patient, permanence téléphonique dédiée, annuaire sociomédical complet. Pour eux, l’amélioration de la prise en charge ne passait pas uniquement par l’amélioration de la démographie mais aussi par une réflexion sur le rôle des intervenants, la communication et la coordination interprofessionnelle afin de faciliter le circuit de soins.

La prise en charge des patients dépressifs est jugée insatisfaisante en France par les médecins généralistes, qui souhaitent à la fois des réponses alternatives (psychologues), des aides à leur propre intervention et un recours amélioré aux soins spécialisés en psychiatrie.

Depression is a quite common condition, and its treatment is mainly provided by General Practitioner (GP). It is already known that detection and treatment requires significant improvement. The well known and high consumption of antidepressant drugs in France, the highest of all other European countries, requires specific studies. The causes of this situation are not clear and seem to be numerous: Patient’s demands, social claims; lack of initial and continuous medical education, bad GP demographic trends, and lack of them in rural areas; pharmaceutical company pressure; and organisation of the health care system. GP are the main medical actors of the primary care system in France. The aim of this study was to survey GP perceptions on secondary care services, seek the views and barriers to the provision of good services, and ask them about perceptions and solutions they could suggest.

A structured postal questionnaire was sent to all GP of the north-west region of France, asking physicians about obstacles perceived when taking care of depressive patients; factors influencing the use of services, specialised advice, treatments, access to psychiatrists and psychological care. Their psychiatric knowledge and demographic data were also assessed. Quantitative data were analysed using Epi-Info software, and qualitative data were transcribed and coded manually.

A total of 25% of the GP returned the questionnaire (n=2097 in 8709). The sample profile was the same as the studied population. Less than a third of the GP (28%) were aware of the clinical guidelines on depression, and less than a fifth (18%) had clinical experience of psychiatry during their studies. Lack of time was not the main obstacle assessed by the GP. Their complaints were about lack of mental health services, difficulty in accessing services, and about general liaison between primary and secondary health care services: they reported difficulties obtaining quick and good response from the specialist either for emergency or non emergency cases. Regarding secondary care, they mainly referred to the psychiatrist, rather than to the psychologist, probably because this second option is not reimbursed by the social security system. Not surprisingly, medication was cited as the most frequently used treatment, followed by psychotherapy and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), and almost never self help literature and self help groups. Trained GP considered they were much more comfortable coping with depressed patients, less frequently using secondary care providers, and easily alternative solutions rather than antidepressant drugs. This situation suggests the usefulness of medical education, and is attested by many qualitative answers.

It is not sure that the low rate of knowledge of the guidelines should be judged only as a lack of professionalism. According to the “French Society of Primary Care”, clinical guidelines need updating, and it is known that those available could be useful only for half of the situations encountered in primary care. Operational propositions urgently need to be proposed. Recent questioning of the real interest of pharmaceutical options in the treatment of depression is another argument. Nor can we wait for a hypothetic rise in the demographic situation. The GP have several propositions to improve these problems, e.g. continuous medical education (CME) focusing on “patient centred therapy”, dedicated hotline or circuit for depressed people, and an adapted sociomedical directory. They also feel that political awareness about lack of physicians is required, but say that improving quality of care does not rely only on improving demographics. They ask for funds for psychological care. When thinking about the circuit of care, the role of all care providers, and their communication, a global vision appears unavoidable, which would get rid of the divisions between out-patients and the hospital.

Despite an unavoidable questioning on the dysfunctions of the health care system, quality of care and probably pharmaceutical consumption for the depressed patient might be improved by simple tools, such as adapted CME for primary care physicians, and communication improvement between secondary and primary care systems.