t III t to of H I of t t REFER

moving on fromearly intervention services for psychosis Lester et al’s paper is timely.1 Many early intervention in psychosis (EIP) teams have been in action for over 3 years and are refining dischargepathways to primary care. This interface is not just with colleagues but nowalsowith commissioners.While there is robust economic evidence for EIP, this perhaps sits outside the regular reading of most GPs.2 This interface needs active management and should not be relied on to grow organically. Every interaction with GPs should name the team and provide opportunity for shared learning, enhanced by the many leaflets covering this area.3 There is a need to help GPs to understand whatpatientshavebeenexperiencing for the proceeding 3 years and not just to advise on subsequentmanagement. In aworld of ever changing services it is particularly important that they can be supported to navigate their way back in and EIP teams would tend to maintain responsibility for this, sometimes necessitating a brief period of re-engagement to do so. This is added value fromaneconomically justified team.GPsare often left with a client who is still on medication and are quite reasonably asking for how long they may continue, when medication can be safely stopped, and what the considerations and risks in doing somay be. There is a concern that vocational aspects, that are particularly valued by clients,may be among thehardest to access from primary care