Search

Purpose: This study aims to explore how young people in child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS) in the UK, Ireland, The Netherlands and Croatia, experienced leaving CAMHS and identified a range of factors impeding optimal discharge or transition to adult mental health services (AMHS). Design/methodology/approach: Interviews about discharge or transition planning, including what information was provided about their ongoing mental health needs, undertaken with 34 young people aged 17–24, all previous or current attendees of CAMHS. Some interviews included accounts by parents or carers. Data were thematically analysed. Findings: A number of previously well-documented barriers to a well-delivered discharge or transition were noted. Two issues less frequently reported on were identified and further discussed; they are the provision of an adequately explained, timely and appropriately used diagnosis and post-CAMHS medication management. Overall, planning processes for discharging or transitioning young people from CAMHS are often sub-optimal. Practice with regard to how and when young people are given a diagnosis and arrangements for the continuation of prescribed medication appear to be areas requiring improvement. Originality/value: Study participants came from a large cohort involving a wide range of different services and health systems in the first pan-European study exploring the CAMHS to adult service interface. Two novel and infrequently discussed issues in the literature about young people's mental health transitions, diagnosis and medication management were identified in this cohort and worthy of further study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To develop a patient's attitude questionnaire regarding prevention in oral health for use internationally. Methods: Using a mixed methods approach, a questionnaire was developed and refined as part of ADVOCATE (Added Value for Oral Care) study, involving partners in six countries: Netherlands, Hungary, Denmark, Ireland, Germany, and the UK. A literature review explored the history of oral healthcare delivery systems to develop a template for each of the six ADVOCATE countries. A systematic review identified the perceived barriers and facilitators to preventive oral healthcare and underpinned a topic guide and established the patient questionnaire domains. Focus groups in each ADVOCATE country developed the first version of the questionnaire. Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) in each ADVOCATE country tested the questionnaire and led to further refinement. The questionnaire was produced in five languages. Content validity and reproducibility used principal component analysis (PCA) and exploratory factor analysis (EFA) refined the questionnaire. Results: The literature review aided an understanding of each country's oral healthcare system, and the findings from the 25 studies identified in the systematic review found the main barriers/facilitators to preventive oral healthcare were cost, knowledge (preventive treatments and advice), and a patient awareness and adherence to preventive advice/treatments. Interviews and focus groups with 148 participants in the ADVOCATE study identified receiving the appropriate level of care/feeling valued, cost, level of motivation/priority, not feeling informed, knowledge, and skill mix as the main barriers/facilitators. Fifty‐three PPIE members refined the questionnaire. The pilot questionnaire was tested with 160 participants. Non‐essential or highly correlated variables were then removed, leaving 38 items, covering 6 domains (cost, advice received, advice wanted, message delivery, motivation, knowledge, and responsibility) within the questionnaire. A second pilot test‐run was undertaken with 185 participants. The test‐re‐test reliability demonstrated strong consistency of responses between the two time points (kappa range 0.3–0.7, most p <.0011), which culminated with a final version of the Patient Attitudes to Prevention in Oral Health Questionnaire (PAPOH) questionnaire. Conclusions: This mixed‐methods approach enabled the development of a multi‐language attitudinal questionnaire for use with patients (PAPOH) to compare attitudes to oral disease prevention internationally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives Because of fundamental differences in healthcare systems, US readmission data cannot be extrapolated to the European setting: To investigate the opinions of readmitted patients, their carers, nurses and physicians on predictability and preventability of readmissions and using majority consensus to determine contributing factors that could potentially foresee (preventable) readmissions. Design Prospective observational study. Readmitted patients, their carers, and treating professionals were surveyed during readmission to assess the discharge process and the predictability and preventability of the readmission. Cohen's Kappa measured pairwise agreement of considering readmission as predictable/preventable by patients, carers and professionals. Subsequently, multivariable logistic regressionidentified factors associated with predictability/preventability. Setting 15 hospitals in four European countries Participants 1398 medical patients readmitted unscheduled within 30 days Main Outcome(s) and Measure(s) (1) Agreement between the interviewed groups on considering readmissions likely predictable or preventable;® Factors distinguishing predictable from non-predictable and preventable from non-preventable readmissions. Results The majority deemed 27.8% readmissions potentially predictable and 14.4% potentially preventable. The consensus on predictability and preventability was poor, especially between patients and professionals (kappas ranged from 0.105 to 0.173). The interviewed selected different factors as potentially associated with predictability and preventability. When a patient reported that he was ready for discharge during index admission, the readmission was deemed less likely by the majority (predictability: OR 0.55; 95% CI 0.40 to 0.75; preventability: OR 0.35; 95% CI 0.24 to 0.49). Conclusions There is no consensus between readmitted patients, their carers and treating professionals about predictability and preventability of readmissions, nor associated risk factors. A readmitted patient reporting not feeling ready for discharge at index admission was strongly associated with preventability/predictability. Therefore, healthcare workers should question patients' readiness to go home timely before discharge. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]