Search

Objective: This paper presents the findings of a study evaluating the effectiveness, accessibility, sustainability and patient satisfaction of the Assessment PLUS model. This model aimed to reduce patients' symptomology, improve their functioning and alleviate the demand on Psychological Therapies Team (PTT) staff, particularly in response to the challenges posed by the COVID‐19 pandemic. Methods: The intervention was offered to 55 patients with mild‐to‐moderate mental health conditions across three localities in Lanarkshire, UK, of whom only 25 completed the sessions. Clinical outcome measure scores, patients' feedback, wait times, discharge, returning patients and re‐referral rates were analysed using a mixed methods approach. Results: The results of the statistical analysis highlight a statistically significant improvement (p < 0.001) in patients' presentations and results of the thematic analysis reveal that almost all patients found the intervention helpful and returned overall positive feedback. On completing the intervention, less than a third of patients returned to the waiting list, while more than half were discharged completely. At the 6‐month follow‐up, those returning to the PTT waitlists (n = 12) had between 6 and 8 sessions on average, while over the 80% of those discharged from A+ did not require further psychological input. The average wait time across the full sample was 6 weeks. Conclusions: In summary, the results of the mixed methods analysis demonstrate a significant improvement in patients' presentations after completing the A+ intervention. The majority of patients found the intervention helpful and provided positive feedback. Moreover, a significant proportion of patients were discharged completely, and those who returned to the PTT waitlists required fewer sessions on average. The average wait time for the full sample was just over 6 weeks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Whole university approaches to student mental health and well‐being increasingly involve university counselling and mental health services (UCMHSs) as key stakeholders in higher education and the fulfilment of good academic outcomes. However, previous research using routine outcome measures has focussed on psychological distress only. Research is needed to demonstrate the value of university counselling on academic outcomes. This study aimed at profiling the psychological distress of a student sample according to the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation—Outcome Measure (CORE‐OM); measuring the change in perceived impact of problems on academic outcomes, and measuring the perceived impact of counselling on academic outcomes. Students from two UK university counselling services completed the CORE‐OM and the Counselling Impact on Academic Outcomes (CIAO) questionnaire as part of routine practice. After counselling, 67.4% (n = 323) of students with planned endings to counselling showed at least reliable improvement on the CORE‐OM. Significant reductions in the perceived impact of problems on all academic outcomes were also found. On average, 83% (n = 398) of students found counselling helpful for academic outcomes to at least a limited extent. University counselling was found to reduce psychological distress and the impact of problems on academic outcomes. Psychometric examination of the CIAO tool is warranted to strengthen its use. The need for robust data across UCMHSs is demonstrated by both the strengths and limitations of this study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]