Impact of a collaborative model on community clinician confidence in child and adolescent mental health care, wellbeing, and access to child psychiatry expertise.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic was associated with an increase in child and adolescent mental health disorders, with subsequent worsening of patient access to specialist mental health care. Clinicians working in the community were faced with increased demands to diagnose and manage pediatric mental health disorders, without always having the confidence and knowledge to do so. We therefore developed COnnecting Mental-health PAediatric Specialists and community Services (COMPASS)-a collaborative model designed to upskill community clinicians in child and adolescent mental health care and provide them with better access to child and adolescent psychiatry expertise. COMPASS comprises (1) an online Community of Practice (CoP) with fortnightly one-hour sessions covering: anxiety; aggression and challenging behaviours; depression; self-harm and suicidality; eating disorders; and autism spectrum disorder/complex cases and (2) primary and secondary consultations for general practitioners and paediatricians with an experienced child psychiatrist. We aimed to assess the impact of COMPASS on community clinician self-reported confidence in: managing common child and adolescent mental health disorders (Objective 1, primary outcome); navigating the mental health care system (i.e. knowing how services are organised, accessed, and how to refer patients, Objective 2); diagnosing conditions (Objective 3); prescribing psychotropic medications (Objective 4) as well as the impact on, clinician practice and wellbeing (Objective 5) and outcomes of patients referred by COMPASS clinicians to the child psychiatrist (Objective 6). METHODS: We evaluated COMPASS in its first year, with COMPASS running from March to July 2021. Participating clinicians completed pre-post surveys evaluating change in Objectives 1 to 4 above, using study-designed measures. A purposive sample of clinicians was then invited to a semi-structured interview to understand their experience of COMPASS and its impacts on practice and wellbeing (Objective 5). We adopted an inductive approach to the qualitative analysis using the Framework Method. This involved selecting five random transcripts which were double coded and categorized, to generate an initial framework against which all subsequent transcripts were analysed. Themes and subthemes were generated from the data set, by reviewing the matrix and making connections within and between clinicians, codes and categories One child psychiatrist completed a 2-week logbook of the nature and outcomes of primary and secondary consultations (Objective 6). FINDINGS: 51 (86%) clinicians attended CoP sessions and completed pre-post surveys, with 92% recommending COMPASS to peers. Clinicians reported increased confidence in the pharmacological and non-pharmacological management of all conditions, most notably for management of self-harm. They also reported increased knowledge of how to navigate the mental health system and prescribe medications. Qualitative analysis (n = 27 interviews) found that COMPASS increased clinician wellbeing and reduced feelings of professional isolation and burnout. Over the 2-week snapshot, the child psychiatrist consulted on 22 patients and referred all back to the community clinician. CONCLUSIONS: COMPASS is associated with improved clinician confidence to manage child and adolescent mental health concerns, navigate the mental health system, improved clinician wellbeing, and reduced need for ongoing mental health care by specialists.

Advancing integrated paediatric care in Australian general practices: Qualitative insights from the SC4C GP-paediatrician model of care.

The Strengthening Care for Children (SC4C) is a general practitioner (GP)-paediatrician integrated model of care that consists of co-consulting sessions and case discussions in the general practice setting, with email and telephone support provided by paediatricians to GPs during weekdays. This model was implemented in 21 general practices in Australia (11 Victoria and 10 New South Wales). Our study aimed to identify the factors moderating the implementation of SC4C from the perspectives of GPs, general practice personnel, paediatricians and families. We conducted a qualitative study as part of the mixed-methods implementation evaluation of the SC4C trial. We collected data through virtual and in-person focus groups at the general practices and phone, virtual and in-person interviews. Data was analysed using an iterative hybrid inductive-deductive thematic analysis. Twenty-one focus groups and thirty-seven interviews were conducted. Overall, participants found SC4C acceptable and suitable for general practices, with GPs willing to learn and expand their paediatric care role. GPs cited improved confidence and knowledge due to the model. Paediatricians reported an enhanced understanding of the general practice context and the strain under which GPs work. GPs and paediatricians reported that this model allowed them to build trust-based relationships with a common goal of improving care for children. Additionally, they felt some aspects, including the lack of remuneration and the work and effort required to deliver the model, need to be considered for the long-term success of the model. Families expressed their satisfaction with the shared knowledge and quality of care jointly delivered by GPs and paediatricians and highlighted that this model of care provides easy access to specialty services without out-of-pocket costs. Future research should focus on finding strategies to ensure the long-term Implementation of this model of care with a particular focus on the individual stressors in general practices.

Protocol for the implementation evaluation of an integrated paediatric and primary care model: Strengthening Care for Children (SC4C).

INTRODUCTION: Implementation evaluations provide insight into how interventions are delivered across varying contexts and why interventions work in some contexts and not in others. This manuscript outlines a detailed protocol of an implementation evaluation embedded in a stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trial of a model of care, Strengthening Care for Children (SC4C), that integrates paediatric care in general practice. The purpose of this manuscript is to describe the pragmatic methods that will be used to capture implementation evaluation process and outcome data within this trial. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Our implementation evaluation will use a mixed methods design, with data collected in the intervention arm of the SC4C trial guided by a logic model developed using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and Proctor and colleague's taxonomy of implementation outcomes. Data collection will be via questionnaires and semistructured interviews with general practitioners, paediatricians, general practice administrative staff and children and families. Each of the 21 general practices recruited into the study will be described in terms of staffing, patient throughput and location, in addition to the nuanced inner and outer contexts, use of the intervention and its acceptability. We will quantify implementation effectiveness in each general practice clinic using the CFIR validated scoring system. Importantly, we have embedded data collection post intervention to enable assessment of the sustainable adoption of the intervention. An inductive approach to the analysis of qualitative data will identify additional emerging themes that may not be covered by the formal frameworks underpinning our analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was granted by the Royal Children's Hospital Ethics Committee in August 2020 (HREC: 65955). Results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals and presented at relevant conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry 12620001299998 on 1 December 2020.

Strengthening Care for Children (SC4C): protocol for a stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled trial of an integrated general practitioner-paediatrician model of primary care.

INTRODUCTION: Australia's current healthcare system for children is neither sustainable nor equitable. As children (0-4 years) comprise the largest proportion of all primary care-type emergency department presentations, general practitioners (GPs) report feeling undervalued as an integral member of a child's care, and lacking in opportunities for support and training in paediatric conditions. This Strengthening Care for Children (SC4C) randomised trial aims to evaluate a novel, integrated GP-paediatrician model of care, that, if effective, will improve GP quality of care, reduce burden to hospital services and ensure children receive the right care, at the right time, closer to home. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: SC4C is a stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) of 22 general practice clinics in Victoria and New South Wales, Australia. General practice clinics will provide control period data before being exposed to the 12-month intervention which will be rolled out sequentially each month (one clinic per state) until all 22 clinics receive the intervention. The intervention comprises weekly GP-paediatrician co-consultation sessions; monthly case discussions; and phone and email paediatrician support, focusing on common paediatric conditions. The primary outcome of the trial is to assess the impact of the intervention as measured by the proportion of children's (0-<18 years) GP appointments that result in a hospital referral, compared with the control period. Secondary outcomes include GP quality of care; GP experience and confidence in providing paediatric care; family trust in and preference for GP care; and the sustainability of the intervention. An implementation evaluation will assess the model to inform acceptability, adaptability, scalability and sustainability, while a health economic evaluation will measure the cost-effectiveness of the intervention. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Human research ethics committee (HREC) approval was granted by The Royal Children's Hospital Ethics Committee in August 2020 (Project ID: 65955) and site-specific HRECs. The investigators (including Primary Health Network partners) will communicate trial results to stakeholders and participating GPs and general practice clinics via presentations and publications. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry 12620001299998.

Impact of a behavioural sleep intervention on symptoms and sleep in children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and parental mental health: randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether behavioural strategies designed to improve children's sleep problems could also improve the symptoms, behaviour, daily functioning, and working memory of children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and the mental health of their parents. DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial. SETTING: 21 general paediatric practices in Victoria, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: 244 children aged 5-12 years with ADHD attending the practices between 2010 and 2012. INTERVENTION: Sleep hygiene practices and standardised behavioural strategies delivered by trained psychologists or trainee paediatricians during two fortnightly consultations and a follow-up telephone call. Children in the control group received usual clinical care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: At three and six months after randomisation: severity of ADHD symptoms (parent and teacher ADHD rating scale IV-primary outcome), sleep problems (parent reported severity, children's sleep habits questionnaire, actigraphy), behaviour (strengths and difficulties questionnaire), quality of life (pediatric quality of life inventory 4.0), daily functioning (daily parent rating of evening and morning behavior), working memory (working memory test battery for children, six months only), and parent mental health (depression anxiety stress scales). RESULTS: Intervention compared with control families reported a greater decrease in ADHD symptoms at three and six months (adjusted mean difference for change in symptom severity -2.9, 95% confidence interval -5.5 to -0.3, P=0.03, effect size -0.3, and -3.7, -6.1 to -1.2, P=0.004, effect size -0.4, respectively). Compared with control children, intervention children had fewer moderate-severe sleep problems at three months (56% v 30%; adjusted odds ratio 0.30, 95% confidence interval 0.16 to 0.59; P<0.001) and six months (46% v 34%; 0.58, 0.32 to 1.0; P=0.07). At three months this equated to a reduction in absolute risk of 25.7% (95% confidence interval 14.1% to 37.3%) and an estimated number needed to treat of 3.9. At six months the number needed to treat was 7.8. Approximately a half to one third of the beneficial effect of the intervention on ADHD symptoms was mediated through improved sleep, at three and six months, respectively. Intervention families reported greater improvements in all other child and family outcomes except parental mental health. Teachers reported improved behaviour of the children at three and six months. Working memory (backwards digit recall) was higher in the intervention children compared with control children at six months. Daily sleep duration measured by actigraphy tended to be higher in the intervention children at three months (mean difference 10.9 minutes, 95% confidence interval -19.0 to 40.8 minutes, effect size 0.2) and six months (9.9 minutes, -16.3 to 36.1 minutes, effect size 0.3); however, this measure was only completed by a subset of children (n=54 at three months and n=37 at six months). CONCLUSIONS: A brief behavioural sleep intervention modestly improves the severity of ADHD symptoms in a community sample of children with ADHD, most of whom were taking stimulant medications. The intervention also improved the children's sleep, behaviour, quality of life, and functioning, with most benefits sustained to six months post-intervention. The intervention may be suitable for use in primary and secondary care.Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN68819261.