Search

IntroductionThe need for quantitative criteria to appraise the quality of implementation research has recently been highlighted to improve methodological rigour. The Implementation Science Research development (ImpRes) tool and supplementary guide provide methodological guidance and recommendations on how to design high-quality implementation research. This protocol reports on the development of the Implementation Science Research Project Appraisal Criteria (ImpResPAC) tool, a quantitative appraisal tool, developed based on the structure and content of the ImpRes tool and supplementary guide, to evaluate the conceptual and methodological quality of implementation research.Methods and analysisThis study employs a three-stage sequential mixed-methods design. During stage 1, the research team will map core domains of the ImpRes tool, guidance and recommendations contained in the supplementary guide and within the literature, to ImpResPAC. In stage 2, an international multidisciplinary expert group, recruited through purposive sampling, will inform the refinement of ImpResPAC, including content, scoring system and user instructions. In stage 3, an extensive psychometric evaluation of ImpResPAC, that was created in stage 1 and refined in stage 2, will be conducted. The scaling assumptions (inter-item and item-total correlations), reliability (internal consistency, inter-rater) and validity (construct and convergent validity) will be investigated by applying ImpResPAC to 50 protocols published inImplementation Science. We envisage developing ImpResPAC in this way will provide implementation research stakeholders, primarily grant reviewers and educators, a comprehensive, transparent and fair appraisal of the conceptual and methodological quality of implementation research, increasing the likelihood of funding research that will generate knowledge and contribute to the advancement of the field.Ethics and disseminationThis study will involve human participants. This study has been registered and minimal risk ethical clearance granted by The Research Ethics Office, King’s College London (reference number MRA-20/21-20807). Participants will receive written information on the study via email and will provide e-consent if they wish to participate. We will use traditional academic modalities of dissemination (eg, conferences and publications).

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.

Background Mental health information systems are, in general, inadequate and unreliable in India. We have developed key mental health indicators for measuring mental health service coverage in primary care. This study aims to evaluate the use of these new indicators in seven health care facilities in Sehore District of Madhya Pradesh in India. Methods The study employed a mixed methods approach. We conducted: a qualitative study (n = 26) with health workers, Health Management Information Systems (HMIS) staff, project coordinators and supervisors; a review of case records (n = 61 at time 1 and n = 74 at time 2); and a structured questionnaire (n = 26) with health workers. The performance, user-friendliness, appropriateness, perceived utility and sustainability of the use of new mental health indicators was assessed. Results High levels of completion, and correctness of completion, of the new mental health indicators were found for the case records. The simplicity of the forms, as well as technical support from the project team, contributed to acceptability and feasibility of implementation. Perceived sustainability of the new forms was, however, affected by the overstretched primary care staff. Further work is needed to support the integration of mental health with routine HMIS. Conclusion This study demonstrated that the implementation of key mental health service delivery indicators in Sehore District primary care facilities was feasible. Technical assistance was imperative in maintaining the performance of the indicators over the two studied time points. The integration of mental health indicators in routine health information systems, and political buy-in, are needed to monitor and sustain community mental health programmes in India.

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. Trial Registration PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews CRD42021211025; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021211025

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.

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: Tobacco smoking is highly prevalent among people attending treatment for a substance- use disorder (SUD). In the United Kingdom, specialist support to stop smoking is largely delivered by a national network of stop smoking services, and typically comprises of behavioral support delivered by trained practitioners on an individual (one-to-one) or group basis combined with a pharmacological smoking-cessation aid. We evaluate the cost-effectiveness of these interventions and compare cost-effectiveness for interventions using group- and individual-based support, in populations under treatment for SUD. Methods: Economic modeling was used to evaluate the incremental cost-per-quality-adjusted-lifeyears (QALYs) gained for smoking-cessation interventions compared with alternative methods of quitting for the SUD treatment population. Allowance was made for potentially lower abstinence rates in the SUD population. Results: The incremental cost-per-QALY gained from quit attempts supported through more frequently provided interventions in England ranged from around £4,700 to £12,200. These values are below the maximum cost-effectiveness threshold adopted by policy makers in England for judging whether health programs are a cost-effective use of resources. The estimated cost-per- QALY gained for interventions using group-based behavioral support were estimated to be at least half the magnitude of those using individual support due to lower intervention costs and higher reported quit rates. Conclusions reached regarding the cost-effectiveness of group-based interventions were also found to be more robust to changes in modeling assumptions. Conclusions: Smoking-cessation interventions were found to be cost-effective when applied to the SUD population, particularly when group-based behavioral support is offered alongside pharmacological treatment. Implications: This analysis has shown that smoking-cessation interventions combining pharmacological treatment with behavioral support can offer a cost-effective method for increasing rates of smoking cessation in populations being treated for a substance-use disorder. This is despite evidence of lower comparative success rates in terms of smoking abstinence in populations with SUD. Our evaluation suggests that medication combined with group-based behavioral support may offer better value for money in this population compared with interventions using individual support, though further evidence on the comparative effectiveness and cost of interventions delivered to SUD treatment populations would facilitate a more robust comparison.

Objectives The Coalition Government's Public Health Responsibility Deal (RD) was launched in England in 2011 as a public–private partnership designed to improve public health in the areas of food, alcohol, health at work and physical activity. As part of a larger evaluation, we explored informants’ experiences and views about the RD's development, implementation and achievements. Methods We conducted 44 semi-structured interviews with 50 interviewees, purposively sampled from: RD partners (businesses, public sector and non-governmental organisations); individuals with formal roles in implementing the RD; and non-partners and former partners. Data were analysed thematically: NVivo (10) software was employed to manage the data. Results Key motivations underpinning participation were corporate social responsibility and reputational enhancement. Being a partner often involved making pledges related to work already underway or planned before joining the RD, suggesting limited ‘added value’ from the RD, although some pledge achievements (e.g., food reformulation) were described. Benefits included access to government, while drawbacks included resource implications and the risk of an ‘uneven playing field’ between partners and non-partners. Conclusions To ensure that voluntary agreements like the RD produce gains to public health that would not otherwise have occurred, government needs to: increase participation and compliance through incentives and sanctions, including those affecting organisational reputation; create greater visibility of voluntary agreements; and increase scrutiny and monitoring of partners’ pledge activities.

Around 110,000 people spend time in critical care units in England and Wales each year. The transition of care from the intensive care unit to the general ward exposes patients to potential harms from changes in healthcare providers and environment. Nurses working on general wards report anxiety and uncertainty when receiving patients from critical care. An innovative form of enhanced capability critical care outreach called ‘iMobile’ is being provided at King’s College Hospital (KCH). Part of the remit of iMobile is to review patients who have been transferred from critical care to general wards. The iMobile team wished to improve the quality of critical care discharge summaries. A collaborative evidence-based quality improvement project was therefore undertaken by the iMobile team at KCH in conjunction with researchers from King9s Improvement Science (KIS). Plan, Do, Study, Act (PDSA) methodology was used. Three PDSA cycles were undertaken. Methods adopted comprised: a scoping literature review to identify relevant guidelines and research evidence to inform all aspects of the quality improvement project; a process mapping exercise; informal focus groups / interviews with staff; patient story-telling work with people who had experienced critical care and subsequent discharge to a general ward; and regular audits of the quality of both medical and nursing critical care discharge summaries. The following behaviour change interventions were adopted, taking into account evidence of effectiveness from published systematic reviews and considering the local context: regular audit and feedback of the quality of discharge summaries, feedback of patient experience, and championing and education delivered by local opinion leaders. The audit results were mixed across the trajectory of the project, demonstrating the difficulty of sustaining positive change. This was particularly important as critical care bed occupancy and through-put fluctuates which then impacts on work-load, with new cohorts of staff regularly passing through critical care. In addition to presenting the results of this quality improvement project, we also reflect on the lessons learned and make suggestions for future projects.

Background\ud There has been evidence in recent years that people with intellectual disabilities in acute hospitals are at risk of preventable deterioration due to failures of the healthcare services to implement the reasonable adjustments they need. The aim of this paper is to explore the challenges in monitoring and preventing patient safety incidents involving people with intellectual disabilities, to describe patient safety issues faced by patients with intellectual disabilities in NHS acute hospitals, and investigate underlying contributory factors.\ud \ud Methods\ud This was a 21-month mixed-method study involving interviews, questionnaires, observation and monitoring of incident reports to assess the implementation of recommendations designed to improve care provided for patients with intellectual disabilities and explore the factors that compromise or promote patient safety. Six acute NHS Trusts in England took part. Data collection included: questionnaires to clinical hospital staff (n = 990); questionnaires to carers (n = 88); interviews with: hospital staff including senior managers, nurses and doctors (n = 68) and carers (n = 37); observation of in-patients with intellectual disabilities (n = 8); monitoring of incident reports (n = 272) and complaints involving people with intellectual disabilities.\ud \ud Results\ud Staff did not always readily identify patient safety issues or report them. Incident reports focused mostly around events causing immediate or potential physical harm, such as falls. Hospitals lacked effective systems for identifying patients with intellectual disabilities within their service, making monitoring safety incidents for this group difficult.\ud \ud The safety issues described by the participants were mostly related to delays and omissions of care, in particular: inadequate provision of basic nursing care, misdiagnosis, delayed investigations and treatment, and non-treatment decisions and Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) orders.\ud \ud Conclusions\ud The events leading to avoidable harm for patients with intellectual disabilities are not always recognised as safety incidents, and may be difficult to attribute as causal to the harm suffered. Acts of omission (failure to give care) are more difficult to recognise, capture and monitor than acts of commission (giving the wrong care). In order to improve patient safety for this group, the reasonable adjustments needed by individual patients should be identified, documented and monitored.

BackgroundThere has been consistent evidence that people with learning disabilities experience health inequalities and poor NHS health-care provision, leading to avoidable harm and premature, avoidable death.ObjectivesTo describe the factors in NHS hospitals that promote or compromise a safe environment for patients with learning disabilities, in the light of national recommendations that hospitals should (1) identify patients with learning disabilities, (2) provide reasonably adjusted services, (3) involve carers as partners in care and (4) include patient and carer views in service development.DesignA 21-month mixed-method study carried out between 2011 and 2013, using questionnaire surveys, interviews, observation and monitoring of safety incidents.SettingSix NHS hospitals in the south of England.MethodsThe study employed mixed methodologies in three stages. Stage I involved mapping the systems and structural changes within each hospital site, with senior strategic managers asked to provide data on relevant policies. Stage II examined the effectiveness of implemented measures. Methods for this stage included an electronic questionnaire survey sent to all clinical staff (n = 990); face-to-face semi-structured interviews with clinical staff and strategic hospital managers (n = 68); semi-structured face-to-face interviews with adults with learning disabilities who had used the hospital in a 12-month period (n = 33); questionnaire survey (n = 88) and semi-structured interviews (n = 37) with carers of patients with learning disabilities who had been a patient during the 12-month period; and participant observation with patients (n = 8). Stage III assessed generalisability to other vulnerable patient groups and involved expert panel discussions with senior managers and senior clinicians at four sites (n = 42).ResultsExamples of good practice were not consistently replicated hospital-wide. The most common safety issues were delays and omissions of treatment and basic care. The main barriers to better and safer hospital care for people with learning disabilities were (1) the invisibility of patients with learning disabilities within hospitals, owing to a lack of effective flagging systems and a lack of staff knowledge and willingness to flag this group; (2) poor staff understanding of the specific vulnerabilities of people with learning disabilities, the reasonable adjustments to services that these patients may need and the Mental Capacity Act (Great Britain.Mental Capacity Act 2005. Chapter 9. London: The Stationery Office; 2005); (3) a lack of consistent and effective carer involvement and misunderstanding by staff of the carer role; and (4) a lack of clear lines of responsibility and accountability for the care of each patient with learning disabilities. The main enablers were the learning disability liaison nurse (LDLN), provided that this role was properly supported by senior management and carried sufficient authority to change practice; and ward managers who facilitated a positive ward culture and ensured consistent implementation of reasonable adjustments.ConclusionsThe vulnerabilities of people with learning disabilities can, and do, lead to compromised patient safety in NHS hospitals. Further research is needed as follows: (1) identifying the most frequently needed reasonable adjustments within the hospital care pathways of people with learning disabilities and their cost implications; (2) identifying the most effective structures for ensuring clear lines of responsibility and accountability for the care of patients with learning disabilities, including support needed by ward managers in order to carry day-to-day accountability; (3) investigating practical and effective ways of flagging patients with learning disabilities across NHS services and within NHS hospitals; (4) investigating, implementing and evaluating protocols for shared care; (5) evaluating LDLN posts nationwide; and (6) extending research recommendations (1) and (3) to patients with dementia and those with mental health problems.Study registrationComprehensive Clinical Research Network Portfolio, 10998; Integrated Research Application System Coordinated System for gaining NHS Permission, 74907.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

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.

Background There is a significant treatment gap in provision of effective treatment for people with mental disorders globally. In some Low and Middle Income Countries (LMICs) this gap is 90% or more in terms of untreated cases. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are one tool to improve health care provision. The aim of this review is to examine studies of the effectiveness of evidence-based CPG implementation across physical and mental health care, to inform mental healthcare provision in low and middle income countries (LMICs), and to identify transferable lessons from other non-communicable diseases to mental health. Methods A systematic literature review employing narrative synthesis and utilising the tools developed by the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) group was conducted. Experimental studies of CPG implementation relating to non-communicable diseases, including mental disorders, in LMICs were retrieved and synthesised. Results Few (six) studies were identified. Four cluster randomised controlled trials (RCTs) related to the introduction of CPGs for non-communicable diseases in physical health; one cluster-RCT included CPGs for both a non-communicable disease in physical health and mental health, and one uncontrolled before and after study described the introduction of a CPG for mental health. All of the included studies adopted multi-faceted CPG implementation strategies and used education as part of this strategy. Components of the multi-faceted strategies were sometimes poorly described. Results of the studies included generally show statistically significant improvement on some, but not all, outcomes. Conclusion Evidence for the effectiveness of interventions to improve uptake of, and compliance with, evidence-based CPGs in LMICs for mental disorders and for other non-communicable diseases is at present limited. The sparse literature does, however, suggest that multifaceted CPG implementation strategies that involve an educational component may be an effective way of improving guideline adherence and therefore of improving clinical outcomes. Further work is needed to examine cost-effectiveness of CPG implementation strategies in LMICs and to draw conclusions on the transferability of implementation experience in physical health care to mental health practice settings. Strategies to ensure that CPGs are developed with clear guidance for implementation, and with explicit, methods to evaluate them should be a priority for mental health researchers and for international agencies. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13033-016-0115-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.