Search

Purpose Many patients referred by their GP for an assessment by secondary mental health services are unlikely to ever meet eligibility thresholds for specialist treatment and support. A new service was developed to support people in primary care. “the authors evaluate” whether the phased introduction of the Lambeth Living Well Network (LWN) Hub to a population in south London led to: a reduction in the overall volume of patients referred from primary care for a secondary mental health care assessment; and an increase in the proportion of patients referred who met specialist service eligibility criteria, as indicated by the likelihood of being accepted in secondary care. Design/methodology/approach The evaluation applied a quasi-experimental interrupted time series design using electronic patient records data for a National Health Service (NHS) provider of secondary mental health services in south London. Findings Scale-up of the Hub to the whole of the population of Lambeth led to an average of 98 fewer secondary care assessments per month (95% CI −118 to −78) compared to an average of 203 assessments per month estimated in the absence of the Hub; and an absolute incremental increase in the probability of acceptance for specialist intervention of 0.20 (95% CI; 0.14 to 0.27) above an average probability of acceptance of 0.57 in the absence of the Hub. Research limitations/implications Mental health outcomes for people using the service and system wide-service impacts were not evaluated preventing a more holistic evaluation of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the LWN Hub. Practical implications Providing general practitioners with access to service infrastructure designed to help people whose needs cannot be managed within specialist mental health services can prevent unnecessary referrals into secondary care assessment teams. Social implications Reducing unnecessary referrals through provision of a primary-care linked mental health service will reduce delay in access to professional support that can address specific mental-health related needs that could not be offered within the secondary care services and could prevent the escalation of problems. Originality/value The authors use NHS data to facilitate the novel application of a quasi-experimental methodology to deliver new evidence on whether an innovative primary care linked mental health service was effective in delivering on one of its key aims.

BackgroundEarly in 2020, mental health services had to rapidly shift from face-to-face models of care to delivering the majority of treatments remotely (by video or phone call or occasionally messaging) due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This resulted in several challenges for staff and patients, but also in benefits such as convenience or increased access for people with impaired mobility or in rural areas. There is a need to understand the extent and impacts of telemental health implementation, and barriers and facilitators to its effective and acceptable use. This is relevant both to future emergency adoption of telemental health, and to debates on its future use in routine mental health care.ObjectiveTo investigate the adoption and impacts of telemental health approaches during the COVID-19 Pandemic, and facilitators and barriers to optimal implementation.MethodsFour databases (PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL and Web of Science) were searched for primary research relating to remote working, mental health care, and the COVID-19 pandemic. Preprint servers were also searched. Results of studies were synthesised using framework synthesis.ResultsA total of 77 papers met our inclusion criteria. In most studies, the majority of contacts could be transferred to a remote form during the pandemic, and good acceptability to service users and clinicians tended to be reported, at least where the alternative to remote contacts was interrupting care. However, a range of impediments to dealing optimal care by this means were also identified.ConclusionsImplementation of telemental health allowed some continuing support to the majority of service users during the COVID-19 pandemic and has value in an emergency situation. However, not all service users can be reached by this means, and better evidence is now needed on long-term impacts on therapeutic relationships and quality of care, and on impacts on groups at risk of digital exclusion and how to mitigate these.

BACKGROUND Early in 2020, mental health services had to rapidly shift from face-to-face models of care to delivering the majority of treatments remotely (by video or phone call or occasionally messaging) due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This resulted in several challenges for staff and patients, but also in benefits such as convenience or increased access for people with impaired mobility or in rural areas. There is a need to understand the extent and impacts of telemental health implementation, and barriers and facilitators to its effective and acceptable use. This is relevant both to future emergency adoption of telemental health and to debates on its future use in routine mental health care. OBJECTIVE To investigate the adoption and impacts of telemental health approaches during the COVID-19 pandemic, and facilitators and barriers to optimal implementation. METHODS Four databases (PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Web of Science) were searched for primary research relating to remote working, mental health care, and the COVID-19 pandemic. Preprint servers were also searched. Results of studies were synthesized using framework synthesis. RESULTS A total of 77 papers met our inclusion criteria. In most studies, the majority of contacts could be transferred to a remote form during the pandemic, and good acceptability to service users and clinicians tended to be reported, at least where the alternative to remote contacts was interrupting care. However, a range of impediments to dealing optimal care by this means were also identified. CONCLUSIONS Implementation of telemental health allowed some continuing support to the majority of service users during the COVID-19 pandemic and has value in an emergency situation. However, not all service users can be reached by this means, and better evidence is now needed on long-term impacts on therapeutic relationships and quality of care, and on impacts on groups at risk of digital exclusion and how to mitigate these. CLINICALTRIAL PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews CRD42021211025; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021211025

BACKGROUND Telemental health care has been rapidly adopted for maintaining services during the COVID-19 pandemic, and a substantial interest is now being devoted in its future role. Service planning and policy making for recovery from the pandemic and beyond should draw on both COVID-19 experiences and the substantial research evidence accumulated before this pandemic. OBJECTIVE We aim to conduct an umbrella review of systematic reviews available on the literature and evidence-based guidance on telemental health, including both qualitative and quantitative literature. METHODS Three databases were searched between January 2010 and August 2020 for systematic reviews meeting the predefined criteria. The retrieved reviews were independently screened, and those meeting the inclusion criteria were synthesized and assessed for risk of bias. Narrative synthesis was used to report these findings. RESULTS In total, 19 systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria. A total of 15 reviews examined clinical effectiveness, 8 reported on the aspects of telemental health implementation, 10 reported on acceptability to service users and clinicians, 2 reported on cost-effectiveness, and 1 reported on guidance. Most reviews were assessed to be of low quality. The findings suggested that video-based communication could be as effective and acceptable as face-to-face formats, at least in the short term. Evidence on the extent of digital exclusion and how it can be overcome and that on some significant contexts, such as children and young people’s services and inpatient settings, was found to be lacking. CONCLUSIONS This umbrella review suggests that telemental health has the potential to be an effective and acceptable form of service delivery. However, we found limited evidence on the impact of its large-scale implementation across catchment areas. Combining previous evidence and COVID-19 experiences may allow realistic planning for the future implementation of telemental health. CLINICALTRIAL

BackgroundTele-mental health care has been rapidly adopted to maintain services during the pandemic, and there is now substantial interest in its future role. Service planning and policy making for recovery from the pandemic and beyond should draw not only on COVID-19 experiences, but also on the substantial research evidence accumulated prior to this.Aimsto conduct an umbrella review of systematic reviews of research literature and evidence-based guidance on remote working in mental health, including both qualitative and quantitative literature.MethodThree databases were searched between January 2010 and August 2020 for systematic reviews meeting pre-defined criteria. Reviews retrieved were independently screened and those meeting inclusion criteria were synthesised and assessed for risk of bias. Narrative synthesis was used to report findingsResultsNineteen systematic reviews met inclusion criteria. Fifteen examined clinical effectiveness, eight reported on aspects of tele-mental health implementation, ten reported on acceptability to service users and clinicians, two on cost-effectiveness and one on guidance. Most reviews were assessed as low quality. Findings suggested that video-based communication could be as effective and acceptable as face-face formats, at least in the short-term. Evidence was lacking on extent of digital exclusion and how it can be overcome, or on significant context such as children and young people and inpatient settings.ConclusionsThis umbrella review suggests that tele-mental health has potential to be an effective and acceptable form of service delivery. However, we found limited evidence on impacts of large-scale implementation across catchment areas. Combining previous evidence and COVID-19 experiences may allow realistic planning for future tele-mental health implementation.

The authors have removed this preprint from Research Square.

Background Prior research suggests that the placement of patients on clinically inappropriate hospital wards may increase the risk of experiencing patient safety issues. Objective To explore patients' perspectives of the quality and safety of the care received during their inpatient stay on a clinically inappropriate hospital ward. Design Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews. Participants and setting Nineteen patients who had spent time on at least one clinically inappropriate ward during their hospital stay at a large NHS teaching hospital in England. Results Patients would prefer to be treated on the correct specialty ward, but it is generally accepted that this may not be possible. When patients are placed on inappropriate wards, they may lack a sense of belonging. Participants commented on potential failings in communication, medical staff availability, nurses' knowledge and the resources available, each of which may contribute to unsafe care. Conclusions Patients generally acknowledge the need for placement on inappropriate wards due to demand for inpatient beds, but may report dissatisfaction in terms of preference and belonging. Importantly, patients recount issues resulting from this placement that may compromise their safety. Hospital managers should be encouraged to appreciate this insight and potential threat to safe practice and where possible avoid inappropriate ward transfers and admissions. Where such admissions are unavoidable, staff should take action to address the gaps in safety of care that have been identified.

Objective To explore NHS staff members' perceptions and experiences of the contributory factors that may underpin patient safety issues in those who are placed on a hospital ward that would not normally treat their illness (such patients are often called ‘outliers’ ‘sleep outs’ or ‘boarders’). Design Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews. Setting A single large teaching hospital in the north of England. Participants 29 members of NHS staff (doctors, nurses and non-clinical or management staff). Results Five themes describing contributory factors underlying safety issues were identified: competing demands on staff time created by having patients on inappropriate wards and patients who are on the correct specialty ward to care for; poor communication between the correct specialty ward and the clinically inappropriate ward; lack of knowledge or specialist expertise on clinically inappropriate wards; an unsuitable ward environment for patients on inappropriate wards; and the characteristics of patients who are placed on clinically inappropriate wards (specifically staff perceive patients on inappropriate wards to be medically fit and therefore of lower priority and moving patients between wards may disorientate confused or impaired patients). Examples of how these contributory factors may lead to safety issues are given. Conclusions NHS staff report that placement of patients on clinically inappropriate wards is a specific patient safety concern. The application of James Reason's Swiss cheese model of accident causation suggests that placement on an inappropriate ward constitutes a ‘latent condition’ which may expose patients to contributory factors that underlie adverse events.

goulding l., furze g. & birks y. (2010) Randomized controlled trials of interventions to change maladaptive illness beliefs in people with coronary heart disease: systematic review. Journal of Advanced Nursing 66(5), 946–961. Abstract Title. Randomized controlled trials of interventions to change maladaptive illness beliefs in people with coronary heart disease: systematic review. Aim. This paper is a report of a systematic review of randomized controlled trials of interventions to change maladaptive illness beliefs in people with coronary heart disease, and was conducted to determine whether such interventions were effective in changing maladaptive beliefs, and to assess any consequent change in coping and outcome. Background. An increasing body of evidence suggests that faulty beliefs can lead to maladaptive behaviours and, in turn, to poor outcomes. However, the effectiveness of interventions to change such faulty illness beliefs in people with coronary heart disease is unknown. Data sources. Multiple data bases were searched using a systematic search strategy. In addition, reference lists of included papers were checked and key authors in the field contacted. Review methods. The systematic review included randomized controlled trials with adults of any age with a diagnosis of coronary heart disease and an intervention aimed at changing cardiac beliefs. The primary outcome measured was change in beliefs about coronary heart disease. Results. Thirteen trials met the inclusion criteria. Owing to the heterogeneity of these studies, quantitative synthesis was not practicable. Descriptive synthesis of the results suggested that cognitive behavioural and counselling/education interventions can be effective in changing beliefs. The effects of changing beliefs on behavioural, functional and psychological outcomes remain unclear. Conclusion. While some interventions may be effective in changing beliefs in people with coronary heart disease, the effect of these changes on outcome is not clear. Further high quality research is required before firmer guidance can be given to clinicians on the most effective method to dispel cardiac misconceptions.

Objective\ud To identify the factors that promote and compromise the implementation of reasonably adjusted healthcare services for patients with intellectual disabilities in acute National Health Service (NHS) hospitals.\ud \ud Design\ud A mixed-methods study involving interviews, questionnaires and participant observation (July 2011–March 2013).\ud \ud Setting\ud Six acute NHS hospital trusts in England.\ud \ud Methods\ud Reasonable adjustments for people with intellectual disabilities were identified through the literature. Data were collected on implementation and staff understanding of these adjustments.\ud \ud Results\ud Data collected included staff questionnaires (n=990), staff interviews (n=68), interviews with adults with intellectual disabilities (n=33), questionnaires (n=88) and interviews (n=37) with carers of patients with intellectual disabilities, and expert panel discussions (n=42). Hospital strategies that supported implementation of reasonable adjustments did not reliably translate into consistent provision of such adjustments. Good practice often depended on the knowledge, understanding and flexibility of individual staff and teams, leading to the delivery of reasonable adjustments being haphazard throughout the organisation. Major barriers included: lack of effective systems for identifying and flagging patients with intellectual disabilities, lack of staff understanding of the reasonable adjustments that may be needed, lack of clear lines of responsibility and accountability for implementing reasonable adjustments, and lack of allocation of additional funding and resources. Key enablers were the Intellectual Disability Liaison Nurse and the ward manager.\ud \ud Conclusions\ud The evidence suggests that ward culture, staff attitudes and staff knowledge are crucial in ensuring that hospital services are accessible to vulnerable patients. The authors suggest that flagging the need for specific reasonable adjustments, rather than the vulnerable condition itself, may address some of the barriers. Further research is recommended that describes and quantifies the most frequently needed reasonable adjustments within the hospital pathways of vulnerable patient groups, and the most effective organisational infrastructure required to guarantee their use, together with resource implications.