Search

ObjectivesTo investigate changes in daily mental health (MH) service use and mortality in response to the introduction and the lifting of the COVID-19 ‘lockdown’ policy in Spring 2020.DesignA regression discontinuity in time (RDiT) analysis of daily service-level activity.Setting and participantsMental healthcare data were extracted from 10 UK providers.Outcome measuresDaily (weekly for one site) deaths from all causes, referrals and discharges, inpatient care (admissions, discharges, caseloads) and community services (face-to-face (f2f)/non-f2f contacts, caseloads): Adult, older adult and child/adolescent mental health; early intervention in psychosis; home treatment teams and liaison/Accident and Emergency (A&E). Data were extracted from 1 Jan 2019 to 31 May 2020 for all sites, supplemented to 31 July 2020 for four sites. Changes around the commencement and lifting of COVID-19 ‘lockdown’ policy (23 March and 10 May, respectively) were estimated using a RDiT design with a difference-in-difference approach generating incidence rate ratios (IRRs), meta-analysed across sites.ResultsPooled estimates for the lockdown transition showed increased daily deaths (IRR 2.31, 95% CI 1.86 to 2.87), reduced referrals (IRR 0.62, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.70) and reduced inpatient admissions (IRR 0.75, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.83) and caseloads (IRR 0.85, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.91) compared with the pre lockdown period. All community services saw shifts from f2f to non-f2f contacts, but varied in caseload changes. Lift of lockdown was associated with reduced deaths (IRR 0.42, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.66), increased referrals (IRR 1.36, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.60) and increased inpatient admissions (IRR 1.21, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.42) and caseloads (IRR 1.06, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.12) compared with the lockdown period. Site-wide activity, inpatient care and community services did not return to pre lockdown levels after lift of lockdown, while number of deaths did. Between-site heterogeneity most often indicated variation in size rather than direction of effect.ConclusionsMH service delivery underwent sizeable changes during the first national lockdown, with as-yet unknown and unevaluated consequences.

BackgroundThe 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS17) is used world-wide as an observer-rated measure of depression in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) despite continued uncertainty regarding its factor structure. This study investigated the dimensionality of HDRS17 for patients undergoing treatment in UK mental health settings with moderate to severe persistent major depressive disorder (PMDD).MethodsExploratory Structural Equational Modelling (ESEM) was performed to examine the HDRS17 factor structure for adult PMDD patients with HDRS17 score ≥16. Participants (n = 187) were drawn from a multicentre RCT conducted in UK community mental health settings evaluating the outcomes of a depression service comprising CBT and psychopharmacology within a collaborative care model, against treatment as usual (TAU). The construct stability across a 12-month follow-up was examined through a measurement equivalence/invariance (ME/I) procedure via ESEM.ResultsESEM showed HDRS17 had a bi-factor structure for PMDD patients (baseline mean (sd) HDRS17 22.6 (5.2); 87% PMDD >1 year) with an overall depression factor and two group factors: vegetative-worry and retardation-agitation, further complicated by negative item loading. This bi-factor structure was stable over 12 months follow up. Analysis of the HDRS6 showed it had a unidimensional structure, with positive item loading also stable over 12 months.ConclusionsIn this cohort of moderate-severe PMDD the HDRS17 had a bi-factor structure stable across 12 months with negative item loading on domain specific factors, indicating that it may be more appropriate to multidimensional assessment of settled clinical states, with shorter unidimensional subscales such as the HDRS6 used as measures of change.

Aim Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (NHFT) provides a variety of mental health services across Nottinghamshire. During out-of-hours work, junior doctors cover each of these three main hospital sites. The Health Education East Midlands (HEE) Quality Management visit concluded the handover system in NHFT was not fit for purpose, posing significant risks to both patients and junior doctors. The aim of our quality improvement project was to assess these concerns using a mixed methodology, including local surveys and audit; and secondly to make any necessary quality improvements to the handover process and guidance. The pre-implementation evaluation of the handover system in use consisted of a survey and an audit. Methods The quality improvement strategy involved a two-pronged approach, which included the development of a new IT-based handover recording tool and improving education and training in its use. We used Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles between August 2015 and August 2016 to implement changes. Phase 2 of the project involved audit, education and training to consolidate and reinforce the change to make it sustainable through creation of a white board animation video for junior doctors. Results Percentage of recorded handovers was the main outcome measure. Quality outcomes improved after the phase 1 and were sustained during the phase 2 of the project due to introduction of mandatory recording fields. Conclusion We learnt that the active engagement of end users in the designing and implementation of the new IT handover system was a key factor in optimal development. We learnt that continuous induction, training and monitoring are important to sustain high usage of the system. Also, use of project management tools from the start will improve efficiency and time management. This project demonstrates how existing resources within a NHS Trust can be collaboratively and iteratively deployed to improve patient care.

Summary Background Persistent moderate or severe unipolar depression is common and expensive to treat. Clinical guidelines recommend combined pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy. Such treatments can take up to 1 year to show an effect, but no trials of suitable duration have been done. We investigated the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of outpatient-based, specialist depression services (SDS) versus treatment as usual (TAU) on depression symptoms and function. Methods We did a multicentre, single-blind, patient-level, parallel, randomised controlled trial (RCT), as part of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) study, in three mental health outpatient settings in England. Eligible participants were in secondary care, were older than 18 years, had unipolar depression (with a current major depressive episode, a 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale [HDRS 17 ] score of ≥16, and a Global Assessment of Function [GAF] score of ≤60), and had not responded to 6 months or more of treatment for depression. Randomisation was stratified by site with allocation conveyed to a trial administrator, with research assessors masked to outcome. Patients were randomised (1:1) using a computer-generated pseudo-random code with random permuted blocks of varying sizes of two, four, or six to either SDS (collaborative care approach between psychiatrists and cognitive behavioural therapists for 12 months, followed by graduated transfer of care up to 15 months) or to the TAU group. Intention-to-treat primary outcome measures were changes in HDRS 17 and GAF scores between baseline and 6, 12, and 18 months' follow-up. We will separately publish follow-up outcomes for months 24 and 36. Clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness were examined from health and social care persp ectives at 18 months, as recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01047124) and the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN10963342); the trial has ended. Findings 307 patients were assessed for eligibility between Dec 21, 2009, and Oct 31, 2012. 94 patients were assigned to TAU and 93 patients to SDS, and were included in intention-to-treat analyses. The changes from baseline to 6 months in HDRS 17 and GAF scores did not significantly differ between treatment groups (mean change difference in HDRS 17 score −1·01 [95% CI −3·30 to 1·28], p=0·385; and in GAF score 1·33 [–2·92 to 5·57], p=0·538). Primary outcome data were available for 134 (72%) patients at 12 months. We noted no differences at 12 months' follow-up between SDS and TAU for mean HDRS 17 score (14·8 [SD 7·9] in the SDS group vs 17·2 [7·3] in the TAU group, p=0·056) or GAF score (60·4 [11·7] vs 55·8 [12·7], p=0·064), and the changes from baseline to 12 months in HDRS 17 and GAF scores did not significantly differ between treatment groups (mean change difference in HDRS 17 score −2·45 [95% CI −5·04 to 0·14], p=0·064; and in GAF score 4·12 [–0·11 to 8·35], p=0·056). The mean change in HDRS 17 score from baseline to 18 months was significantly improved in the SDS group compared with the TAU group (13·6 [SD 8·8] in the SDS group vs 16·1 [6·6] in the TAU group; mean change difference −2·96 [95% CI −5·33 to −0·59], p=0·015), but the GAF scores showed no significant differences between the groups (61·2 [SD 13·0] vs 57·7 [11·9]; mean change difference 3·82 [–9·3 to 8·57], p=0·113). We reported no deaths, but one (1%) patient was admitted to hospital for myocardial infarction, and three episodes of self-harm were reported in three (2%) patients (two receiving TAU, one receiving SDS care). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of SDS versus TAU was £43 603 per quality-adjusted life-year. Interpretation Compared with usual specialist mental health secondary care, SDS might improve depression symptoms for patients with persistent moderate to severe depression, but functional outcomes and economic benefits are equivocal. Funding National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care, UK Medical Research Council, Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, Derbyshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust, University of Nottingham.

Background. We assess claims that the documented rise in psychiatric morbidity during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries was associated with an increasing incidence of schizophrenia.Method. Cross-sectional epidemiological comparison of the incidence of schizophrenia in one urban, industrialized community at three points over more than 100 years using new data from 1881–1902 and two pre-existing datasets, 1978–1980 and 1992–1994. For 1881–1902, 34 cases of schizophrenia were obtained through retrospective diagnosis, using Research Diagnostic Criteria, of a random 14·5% sample of first admissions to Nottingham Asylum (n=330). Inter-rater reliability and leakage analyses were performed. The administrative incidence for all three studies was directly standardized against 1991 census data. Local statistics on total psychiatric morbidity in Nottingham were taken from the asylum superintendent's register and recent data from the Office of National Statistics.Results. Official local and national rates of total psychiatric morbidity increased exponentially. There was no significant change in the incidence of schizophrenia over the 114-year period 1881–1994.Conclusions. The rise in both local and national official statistics of psychiatric morbidity 1881–1994 was not associated with a significant increase in the incidence of schizophrenia. Stability in the epidemiology of schizophrenia at a geographical level is found despite important demographic changes.

Background Around 40 per cent of patients with unipolar depressive disorder who are treated in secondary care mental health services do not respond to first or second line treatments for depression. Such patients have 20 times the suicide rate of the general population and treatment response becomes harder to achieve and sustain the longer they remain depressed. Despite this there are no randomised controlled trials of community based service delivery interventions delivering both algorithm based pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy for patients with chronic depressive disorder in secondary care mental health services who remain moderately or severely depressed after six months treatment. Without such trials evidence based guidelines on services for such patients cannot be derived. Methods/design Single blind individually randomised controlled trial of a specialist depression disorder team (psychiatrist and psychotherapist jointly assessing and providing algorithm based drug and psychological treatment) versus usual secondary care treatment. We will recruit 174 patients with unipolar depressive disorder in secondary mental health services with a Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) score ≥ 16 and global assessment of function (GAF) ≤ 60 after ≥ 6 months treatment. The primary outcome measures will be the HDRS and GAF supplemented by economic analysis incuding the EQ5 D and analysis of barriers to care, implementation and the process of care. Audits to benchmark both treatment arms against national standards of care will aid the interpretation of the results of the study. Discussion This trial will be the first to assess the effectiveness and implementation of a community based specialist depression disorder team. The study has been specially designed as part of the CLAHRC Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and Lincolnshire joint collaboration between university, health and social care organisations to provide information of direct relevance to decisions on commissioning, service provision and implementation. Trial registration Clinical trials.gov identifier NCT01047124