Implementation of Guidelines on Family Involvement for Persons with Psychotic Disorders (IFIP): A Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial.

Family involvement is part of the evidence-based treatment for persons with psychotic disorders, yet is under-implemented despite guideline recommendations. This study assessed whether an implementation support programme increased the adherence to guidelines on family involvement, compared to guideline/manual only. In a cluster randomised design, community mental health centre units in South-East Norway went through stratified allocation to the experimental (n = 7) or control (n = 7) arm. Experimental clusters received an implementation support programme including clinical training and supervision, appointing a family coordinator and an implementation team, a toolkit, and fidelity measurements at baseline, 12, 18, and 24 months with on-site feedback and supervision. Control clusters received no such support and had fidelity measurements at baseline and 24 months without feedback. During fidelity measurements, adherence to the guidelines was measured with the basic family involvement and support scale, the general organizational index, and the family psychoeducation fidelity scale, the latter being the primary outcome. The scales consist of 12-14 items rated from 1 to 5. Data was analysed with an independent samples t-test, linear mixed models, and a tobit regression model. At 24 months, the mean scores were 4.00 or higher on all scales in the experimental arm, and the increase in adherence to the guidelines was significantly greater than in the control arm with p-values < 0.001. Large-scale implementation of guidelines on family involvement for persons with psychotic disorders in community mental health centres may be accomplished, with substantial implementation support.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT03869177. Registered 11.03.19.

The duty of confidentiality during family involvement: ethical challenges and possible solutions in the treatment of persons with psychotic disorders.

BACKGROUND: Family involvement during severe mental illness is still poorly implemented, contrary to evidence-based recommendations. Confidentiality issues are among the most prominent barriers, with mental health professionals facing complex ethical, legal, and practical challenges. However, research focusing on this barrier is very sparse. Nested within a cluster-randomised trial to implement guidelines on family involvement for persons with psychotic disorders in community mental health centres, the aim of this sub-study was to explore ethical challenges related to the duty of confidentiality as experienced by mental health professionals, and to explore key measures that might contribute to improving the handling of such challenges. METHODS: In total 75 participants participated in 21 semi-structured focus groups, including implementation team members at the initial and late phase of the intervention period and clinicians who were not on the implementation teams, at late phase of implementation. We used purposive sampling and manifest content analysis to explore participants' experiences and change processes. RESULTS: Ethical challenges related to the duty of confidentiality included 1) Uncertainty in how to apply the legislation, 2) Patient autonomy versus a less strict interpretation of the duty of confidentiality, 3) Patient alliance and beneficence versus a less strict interpretation of the duty of confidentiality, 4) How to deal with uncertainty regarding what relatives know about the patients' illness, and 5) Relatives' interests versus the duty of confidentiality. Measures to facilitate better handling of the duty of confidentiality included 1) Training and practice in family involvement, and 2) Standardisation of family involvement practices. CONCLUSION: When health professionals gained competence in and positive experiences with family involvement, this led to vital changes in how they interpreted and practiced the duty of confidentiality in their ethical reasoning and in clinical practice. Especially, the need to provide sufficient information to the patients about family involvement became evident during the study. To improve the handling of confidentiality issues, professionals should receive training in family involvement and confidentiality statutes followed by practice. Furthermore, family involvement should be standardised, and confidentiality guidelines should be implemented in the mental health services. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT03869177. Registered 11.03.19.

Barriers and facilitators when implementing family involvement for persons with psychotic disorders in community mental health centres - a nested qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The uptake of family involvement in health care services for patients with psychotic disorders is poor, despite a clear evidence base, socio-economic and moral justifications, policy, and guideline recommendations. To respond to this knowledge-practice gap, we established the cluster randomised controlled trial: Implementation of guidelines on Family Involvement for persons with Psychotic disorders in community mental health centres (IFIP). Nested in the IFIP trial, this sub-study aims to explore what organisational and clinical barriers and facilitators local implementation teams and clinicians experience when implementing family involvement in mental health care for persons with psychotic disorders. METHODS: We performed 21 semi-structured focus groups, including 75 participants in total. Implementation team members were interviewed at the initial and middle phases of the intervention period, while clinicians who were not in the implementation team were interviewed in the late phase. A purposive sampling approach was used to recruit participants with various engagement in the implementation process. Data were analysed using manifest content analysis. RESULTS: Organisational barriers to involvement included: 1) Lack of shared knowledge, perceptions, and practice 2) Lack of routines 3) Lack of resources and logistics. Clinical barriers included: 4) Patient-related factors 5) Relative-related factors 6) Provider-related factors. Organisational facilitators for involvement included: 1) Whole-ward approach 2) Appointed and dedicated roles 3) Standardisation and routines. Clinical facilitators included: 4) External implementation support 5) Understanding, skills, and self-efficacy among mental health professionals 6) Awareness and attitudes among mental health professionals. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing family involvement in health care services for persons with psychotic disorders is possible through a whole-ward and multi-level approach, ensured by organisational- and leadership commitment. Providing training in family psychoeducation to all staff, establishing routines to offer a basic level of family involvement to all patients, and ensuring that clinicians get experience with family involvement, reduce or dissolve core barriers. Having access to external implementation support appears decisive to initiate, promote and evaluate implementation. Our findings also point to future policy, practice and implementation developments to offer adequate treatment and support to all patients with severe mental illness and their families. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT03869177. Registered 11.03.19.

Family involvement practices for persons with psychotic disorders in community mental health centres - a cross-sectional fidelity-based study.

BACKGROUND: Family involvement for persons with psychotic disorders is supported by scientific evidence, as well as legal and ethical considerations, and recommended in clinical practice guidelines. This article reports a cross-sectional measurement of the level of implementation of such guidelines in fifteen community mental health centre units in Norway, and presents a novel fidelity scale to measure basic family involvement and support. The aim was to investigate current family involvement practices comprehensively, as a basis for targeted quality improvement. METHODS: We employed three fidelity scales, with 12-14 items, to measure family involvement practices. Items were scored from 1 to 5, where 1 equals no implementation and 5 equals full implementation. Data was analysed using descriptive statistics, a non-parametric test, and calculation of interrater reliability for the scales. RESULTS: The mean score was 2.33 on the fidelity scale measuring basic family involvement and support. Among patients with psychotic disorders, only 4% had received family psychoeducation. On the family psychoeducation fidelity assessment scale, measuring practice and content, the mean score was 2.78. Among the eight units who offered family psychoeducation, it was 4.34. On the general organizational index scale, measuring the organisation and implementation of family psychoeducation, the mean score was 1.78. Among the units who offered family psychoeducation, it was 2.46. As a measure of interrater reliability, the intra-class correlation coefficient was 0.99 for the basic family involvement and support scale, 0.93 for the family psychoeducation fidelity assessment scale and 0.96 for the general organizational index scale. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation level of the national guidelines on family involvement for persons with psychotic disorders was generally poor. The quality of family psychoeducation was high, but few patients had received this evidence-based treatment. Our novel fidelity scale shows promising psychometric properties and may prove a useful tool to improve the quality of health services. There is a need to increase the implementation of family involvement practices in Norway, to reach a larger percentage of patients and relatives. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT03869177 . Registered 11.03.19.

Implementation of guidelines on family involvement for persons with psychotic disorders in community mental health centres (IFIP): protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Family involvement for persons with psychotic disorders is under-implemented in mental health care, despite its firm scientific, economic, legal and moral basis. This appears to be the case in Norway, despite the presence of national guidelines providing both general recommendations on family involvement and support in the health- and care services, and specific guidance on family interventions for patients with psychotic disorders. The aim of this project is to improve mental health services and the psychosocial health of persons with psychotic disorders and their relatives, by implementing selected recommendations from the national guidelines in community mental health centres, and to evaluate this process. METHODS: The trial is cluster randomised, where 14 outpatient clusters from community mental health centres undergo stratified randomisation with an allocation ratio of 1:1. The seven intervention clusters will receive implementation support for 18 months, whereas the control clusters will receive the same support after this implementation period. The intervention consists of: 1. A basic level of family involvement and support. 2. Family psychoeducation in single-family groups. 3. Training and guidance of health care personnel. 4. A family coordinator and 5. Other implementation measures. Fidelity to the intervention will be measured four times in the intervention arm and two times in the control arm, and the differences in fidelity changes between the arms constitute the primary outcomes. In each arm, we aim to include 161 patients with psychotic disorders and their closest relative to fill in questionnaires at inclusion, 6 months and 12 months, measuring psychosocial health and satisfaction with services. Clinicians will contribute clinical data about patients at inclusion and 12 months. Use of health and welfare services and work participation, for both patients and relatives, will be retrieved from national registries. We will also perform qualitative interviews with patients, relatives, health care personnel and leaders. Finally, we will conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis and a political economy analysis. DISCUSSION: This project, with its multilevel and mixed methods approach, may contribute valuable knowledge to the fields of family involvement, mental health service research and implementation science. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT03869177 . Registered 11.03.19.

Implementation of guidelines on Family Involvement for persons with Psychotic disorders: a pragmatic cluster randomized trial. Effect on relatives' outcomes and family interventions received.

Background: Family interventions (FI) are recommended as part of the treatment for psychotic disorders, but the implementation in mental health services is generally poor. Recently, The Implementation of guidelines on Family Involvement for persons with Psychotic disorders (IFIP) trial, demonstrated significant improvements in implementation outcomes at cluster-level. This sub-study aims to examine the effectiveness of the IFIP intervention on relatives' outcomes and received FI. Methods: A cluster randomized controlled trial, was conducted in 15 Norwegian Community Mental Health Center (CMHC) units that were randomized to either the IFIP intervention, including implementation interventions and clinical interventions, or treatment as usual (TAU). The clinical interventions consisted of FI: basic family involvement and support (BFIS) to all patients and family psychoeducation (FPE) to as many as possible. Patients with psychotic disorders and their closest relative were invited to fill in questionnaires at inclusion and 6 months and 12 months follow-up. Received FI was reported by both relatives and clinicians. The relatives' primary outcome was satisfaction with health service support, measured by the Carer well-being and support questionnaire part B (CWS-B). The relatives' secondary outcomes were caregiver experiences, expressed emotions and quality of life. Patients' outcomes will be reported elsewhere. Results: In total 231 patient/relative pairs from the CMHC units were included (135 intervention; 96 control).The relatives in the intervention arm received an increased level of BFIS (p=.007) and FPE (p < 0.05) compared to the relatives in the control arm, including involvement in crisis planning. The primary outcome for relatives' satisfaction with health service support, showed a non-significant improvement (Cohen's d = 0.22, p = 0.08). Relatives experienced a significant reduced level of patient dependency (Cohen's d = -0.23, p = 0.03). Conclusion: The increased support from clinicians throughout FI reduced the relatives' perceived level of patient dependency, and may have relieved the experience of responsibility and caregiver burden. The COVID-19 pandemic and the complex and pioneering study design have weakened the effectiveness of the IFIP intervention, underscoring possible potentials for further improvement in relatives' outcomes. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT03869177.

Clinicians' perceptions of family involvement in the treatment of persons with psychotic disorders: a nested qualitative study.

Background: Family involvement in mental health care ranges from basic practices to complex interventions such as Family psychoeducation, the latter being a well-documented treatment for psychotic disorders. The aim of this study was to explore clinicians' perceptions of the benefits and disadvantages of family involvement, including possible mediating factors and processes. Methods: Nested in a randomised trial, which purpose was to implement Basic family involvement and support and Family psychoeducation in Norwegian community mental health centres during 2019-2020, this qualitative study is based on eight focus groups with implementation teams and five focus groups with ordinary clinicians. Using a purposive sampling strategy and semi-structured interview guides, focus groups were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed with reflexive thematic analysis. Results: Four main themes were identified as perceived benefits: (1) Family psychoeducation-a concrete framework, (2) Reducing conflict and stress, (3) A triadic understanding, and (4) Being on the same team. Themes 2-4 formed an interconnected triad of mutually reinforcing elements and were further linked to three important clinician-facilitated sub-themes: a space for relatives' experiences, emotions and needs; a space for patients and relatives to discuss sensitive topics and an open line of communication between clinician and relative. Although far less frequent, three main themes were identified as perceived disadvantages or challenges: (1) Family psychoeducation-occasional poor model fit or difficulties following the framework, (2) Getting more involved than usual, and (3) Relatives as a potentially negative influence-important nonetheless. Conclusions: The findings contribute to the understanding of the beneficial processes and outcomes of family involvement, as well as the critical role of the clinician in achieving these and possible challenges. They could also be used to inform future quantitative research on mediating factors and implementation efforts.