A qualitative meta-synthesis of service users' and carers' experiences of assessment and involuntary hospital admissions under mental health legislations: a five-year update.

BACKGROUND: Compulsory admissions occur in psychiatric hospitals around the world. They result in coercive and sometimes traumatic experiences for service users and carers. Legal and service reforms in various countries are intended to reduce rates of detention and improve service user experience. We aimed to inform policy and service delivery by providing an up-to-date synthesis of qualitative evidence on service users' and carers' experiences of assessment and detention under mental health legislation, updating previous reviews in which we searched for literature published up to 2018. METHODS: We searched five bibliographic databases for studies published between January 2018 and March 2023. We identified 24 additional studies reporting qualitative investigations of service users' or carers' experiences of assessment or detention under mental health legislation. A team including researchers with relevant personal experience analysed and synthesised data using a thematic synthesis approach. RESULTS: Findings suggest that views on compulsory admissions and assessment varied: many reports highlighted its often negative, traumatic impacts on emotional well-being and self-worth, with fewer accounts of it as an opportunity to access help and support, accompanied by feelings of relief. Experiences of racial discrimination, inequality of access, and dissatisfaction with support before and after hospital stay were more prominent than in our previous reviews. CONCLUSIONS: Increasing service user and carer involvement in treatment decisions, provision of timely information at key stages of the admission process, training of key personnel, addressing the issue of discrimination, and investing in community alternatives of inpatient care may contribute to and lead to better overall treatment experiences. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: The study protocol has been registered in the PROSPERO database on 30th May 2023 (CRD42023423439).

Narrative Matters: Hidden LIVE - Adam's story - a mental health theatre production as an example of participatory principles and practices.

This article presents the co-production principles underpinning the co-creation of a multimedia theatre production on young people's mental health.

What does safety in mental healthcare transitions mean for service users and other stakeholder groups: An open-ended questionnaire study.

BACKGROUND: Historically, safety mental health research has tended to focus on risks of homicide, suicide and deaths. Although wider safety issues are now recognized in regards to mental health services, the safety of mental health transitions, a key research and policy priority according to World Health Organisation, has not been explored. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate perceptions of safety in mental health transitions (hospital to community) amongst five stakeholder groups. DESIGN AND SETTING: An online, international cross-sectional, open-ended questionnaire. PARTICIPANTS: There were five stakeholder participant groups: service users; families/carers; mental health-care professionals; researchers; and end users of research. RESULTS: Ninety-three participants from 12 different countries responded. Three overarching themes emerged: 'individual/clinical', 'systems/services' and 'human, behavioural and social' elements of safe mental health transitions. Whilst there was a great focus on clinical elements from researchers and healthcare professionals, service users and carers considered safety in terms of human, behavioural and social elements of transitional safety (ie loneliness, emotional readiness for discharge) and systems/services (ie inter-professional communication). DISCUSSION: Safety in mental health-care transitions is perceived differently by service users and families compared to healthcare professionals and researchers. Traditional safety indicators for care transitions such as suicide, self-harm and risk of adverse drug events are raised as important. However, service users and families in particular have a much wider perception of transitions safety. CONCLUSION: Future quality and safety research and policy should consider including a service user voice and consider integration of psychosocial elements in discharge interventions.

Evaluation of a research awareness training programme to support research involvement of older people with dementia and their care partners.

BACKGROUND: Best-practice guidelines recommend that appropriate support be provided to public contributors to facilitate their involvement in research. One form of support is research awareness training. Older people with dementia and care partners were involved in four Research User Groups (RUGs) in the UK, France, Cyprus and Greece. We delivered research awareness training (RAT) to the RUGs. The aim of this study was to evaluate the acceptability and perceived outcomes of the training from the perspective of RUG members. METHODS: At the end of each research training session, participants completed the Training Acceptability Rating Scale-section 2, which records the respondent's impressions of the training process and the outcomes of training. Participants were also invited to take part in semi-structured interviews at the end of the programme. RESULTS: Thirty-four RUG members completed the TARS-section 2 with 23 completing semi-structured interviews. Over two-thirds (67%) of participants rated their overall satisfaction with the RAT 'a great deal'. Qualitative responses indicated that participants found group work to be beneficial for learning, the structure of training activities and topics covered appropriate. The type and format of the training materials were viewed as helpful, and they valued the new knowledge gained. CONCLUSIONS: The training contents were applicable, useful and relevant to the participants' role within the research. We highlight the importance of facilitating participation by (a) fostering awareness of relevant research issues and (b) tailoring delivery of training according to the needs of the participants.

Public involvement in health outcomes research: lessons learnt from the development of the recovering quality of life (ReQoL) measures.

BACKGROUND: To provide a model for Public involvement (PI) in instrument development and other research based on lessons learnt in the co-production of a recently developed mental health patient reported outcome measure called Recovering Quality of Life (ReQoL). While service users contributed to the project as research participants, this paper focuses on the role of expert service users as research partners, hence referred to as expert service users or PI. METHODS: At every stage of the development, service users influenced the design, content and face validity of the measure, collaborating with other researchers, clinicians and stakeholders who were central to this research. Expert service users were integral to the Scientific Group which was the main decision-making body, and also provided advice through the Expert Service User Group. RESULTS: During the theme and item generation phase (stage 1) expert service users affirmed the appropriateness of the seven domains of the Patient Reported Outcome Measure (activity, hope, belonging and relationships, self-perception, wellbeing, autonomy, and physical health). Expert service users added an extra 58 items to the pool of 180 items and commented on the results from the face and content validity testing (stage 2) of a refined pool of 88. In the item reduction and scale generation phase (stage 3), expert service users contributed to discussions concerning the ordering and clustering of the themes and items and finalised the measures. Expert service users were also involved in the implementation and dissemination of ReQoL (stage 4). Expert service users contributed to the interpretation of findings, provided inputs at every stage of the project and were key decision-makers. The challenges include additional work to make the technical materials accessible, extra time to the project timescales, including time to achieve consensus from different opinions, sometimes strongly held, and extra costs. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates a successful example of how PI can be embedded in research, namely in instrument development. The rewards of doing so cannot be emphasised enough but there are challenges, albeit surmountable ones. Researchers should anticipate and address those challenges during the planning stage of the project.

The importance of content and face validity in instrument development: lessons learnt from service users when developing the Recovering Quality of Life measure (ReQoL).

PURPOSE: Service user involvement in instrument development is increasingly recognised as important, but is often not done and seldom reported. This has adverse implications for the content validity of a measure. The aim of this paper is to identify the types of items that service users felt were important to be included or excluded from a new Recovering Quality of Life measure for people with mental health difficulties. METHODS: Potential items were presented to service users in face-to-face structured individual interviews and focus groups. The items were primarily taken or adapted from current measures and covered themes identified from earlier qualitative work as being important to quality of life. Content and thematic analysis was undertaken to identify the types of items which were either important or unacceptable to service users. RESULTS: We identified five key themes of the types of items that service users found acceptable or unacceptable; the items should be relevant and meaningful, unambiguous, easy to answer particularly when distressed, do not cause further upset, and be non-judgemental. Importantly, this was from the perspective of the service user. CONCLUSIONS: This research has underlined the importance of service users' views on the acceptability and validity of items for use in developing a new measure. Whether or not service users favoured an item was associated with their ability or intention to respond accurately and honestly to the item which will impact on the validity and sensitivity of the measure.

Patient perspectives on barriers and enablers to the use and effectiveness of de-escalation techniques for the management of violence and aggression in mental health settings.

AIM: Investigate patient perspectives on barriers and enablers to the use and effectiveness of de-escalation techniques for aggression in mental health settings. BACKGROUND: De-escalation techniques are the recommended first-line intervention for the management of aggression in mental health settings internationally, yet use of higher risk restrictive practices persists. This indicates de-escalation techniques are not used at optimum frequency and/or there are important factors limiting their use and effect. DESIGN: Descriptive qualitative research using semi-structured interviews and Framework Analysis. METHODS: Inpatient interviews (N = 26) exploring staff, patient and environmental factors influencing the use and effectiveness of staff de-escalation were conducted mid-2014. Three service user researchers led analysis. RESULTS: Data were synthesized in three deductive themes relating to staff, patient and environmental influences on the use and effectiveness of de-escalation techniques. The dominant view was that restrictive practices, rather than de-escalation techniques, are used in response to escalating patient behaviour. Under-use of de-escalation techniques was attributed to: lack of staff reflection on culture and practice and a need to retain control/dominance over patients. Ward rules, patient factors and a lack of staff respect for patients diluted their effectiveness. Participants identified a systematic process of de-escalation, rule subversion, reduced social distance and staff authenticity as enablers of effective de-escalation. CONCLUSION: This study investigated patient perspectives on staff, patient and environmental influences on the use and effectiveness of de-escalation techniques. Our framework of barriers and enablers provides indicators of organizational/behaviour change targets for interventions seeking to reduce violence and restrictive practices through enhanced de-escalation techniques.

Understanding experiences of and preferences for service user and carer involvement in physical health care discussions within mental health care planning.

BACKGROUND: People with severe mental illness suffer more physical comorbidity than the general population, which can require a tailored approach to physical health care discussions within mental health care planning. Although evidence pertaining to service user and carer involvement in mental health care planning is accumulating, current understanding of how physical health is prioritised within this framework is limited. Understanding stakeholder experiences of physical health discussions within mental health care planning, and the key domains that underpin this phenomena is essential to improve quality of care. Our study aimed to explore service user, carer and professional experiences of and preferences for service user and carer involvement in physical health discussions within mental health care planning, and develop a conceptual framework of effective user-led involvement in this aspect of service provision. METHODS: Six focus groups and four telephone interviews were carried out with twelve service users, nine carers, three service users with a dual service user and carer role, and ten mental health professionals recruited from one mental health Trust in the United Kingdom. Data was analysed utilising a thematic approach, analysed separately for each stakeholder group, and combined to aid comparisons. RESULTS: No service users or carers recalled being explicitly involved in physical health discussions within mental health care planning. Six prerequisites for effective service user and carer involvement in physical care planning were identified. Three themes confirmed general mental health care planning requirements: tailoring a collaborative working relationship, maintaining a trusting relationship with a professional, and having access to and being able to edit a living document. Three themes were novel to feeling involved in physical health care planning discussions: valuing physical health equally with mental health; experiencing coordination of care between physical-mental health professionals, and having a physical health discussion that is personalised. CONCLUSIONS: High quality physical health care discussions within the care planning process demands action at multiple levels. A conceptual framework is presented which provides an evidence-based foundation for service level improvement. Further work is necessary to develop a new patient reported outcome measure to enable meaningful quantification of health care quality and patient experience.

Evaluation of a novel co-designed and co-delivered training package to de-escalate violence and aggression in UK acute inpatient, PICU and forensic mental health settings.

WHAT IS KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT?: Clinical guidelines and staff training recommend using de-escalation over restrictive practices, such as restraint and seclusion Evidence suggests that restrictive practices continue to be used frequently despite training This suggests a lack of impact of existing staff de-escalation training. WHAT DOES THIS PAPER ADD TO EXISTING KNOWLEDGE?: The features of de-escalation training that are acceptable to staff and perceived to be impactful A co-designed and co-delivered training session on a trauma-informed approach to de-escalation on mental health wards was acceptable and perceived to be impactful Those attending training particularly valued how lived experience was incorporated into the training content and co-delivery The organizational and team context may need more consideration in adapting the training. WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE?: De-escalation training that adopts a trauma-informed approach and considers the context of ward environments is acceptable to staff Co-delivery models of training to tackle restrictive practice can be acceptable and impactful Further research will show how clinically effective this training is in improving outcomes for service users in ward contexts. ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests a discrepancy between recommended and routine practice in de-escalation in mental health settings, suggesting a lack of impact of existing training. AIM: To investigate the acceptability and perceived impact of a co-designed/delivered training intervention on a trauma-informed approach to de-escalation on mental health wards. METHODS: Trainees were invited to complete the Training Acceptability Rating Scale (TARS) post-training. Responses to the quantitative items were summarized using descriptive statistics, and open-text responses were coded using content analysis. RESULTS: Of 214 trainees, 211 completed the TARS. The trainees rated the training favourably (median overall TARS = 55/63), as acceptable (median 33/36) and impactful (median 23/27). There were five qualitative themes: modules of interest; multiple perspectives; modes of delivery; moulding to context; and modifying other elements. DISCUSSION: The EDITION training was found to be acceptable and impactful, with trainees particularly valuing the co-delivery model. Trainees suggested several ways in which the training could be improved, particularly around the need for further moulding of the intervention to the specific ward contexts/teams. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: We recommend co-designing and co-delivering staff training to mental health professionals that tackles restrictive practices. RELEVANCE STATEMENT: This research is relevant to lived experience practitioners who want to be involved in training mental health professionals around restrictive practices, demonstrating the value and importance of their voice. It is relevant to current providers of de-escalation training, and to staff receiving training, outlining a novel, but acceptable and impactful, form of training on a key area of mental health practice. It is relevant to anyone with an interest in reducing restrictive practice via co-delivered training.

Development and evaluation of a de-escalation training intervention in adult acute and forensic units: the EDITION systematic review and feasibility trial.

Background: Containment (e.g. physical restraint and seclusion) is used frequently in mental health inpatient settings. Containment is associated with serious psychological and physical harms. De-escalation (psychosocial techniques to manage distress without containment) is recommended to manage aggression and other unsafe behaviours, for example self-harm. All National Health Service staff are trained in de-escalation but there is little to no evidence supporting training's effectiveness. Objectives: Objectives were to: (1) qualitatively investigate de-escalation and identify barriers and facilitators to use across the range of adult acute and forensic mental health inpatient settings; (2) co-produce with relevant stakeholders an intervention to enhance de-escalation across these settings; (3) evaluate the intervention's preliminary effect on rates of conflict (e.g. violence, self-harm) and containment (e.g. seclusion and physical restraint) and understand barriers and facilitators to intervention effects. Design: Intervention development informed by Experience-based Co-design and uncontrolled pre and post feasibility evaluation. Systematic reviews and qualitative interviews investigated contextual variation in use and effects of de-escalation. Synthesis of this evidence informed co-design of an intervention to enhance de-escalation. An uncontrolled feasibility trial of the intervention followed. Clinical outcome data were collected over 24 weeks including an 8-week pre-intervention phase, an 8-week embedding and an 8-week post-intervention phase. Setting: Ten inpatient wards (including acute, psychiatric intensive care, low, medium and high secure forensic) in two United Kingdom mental health trusts. Participants: In-patients, clinical staff, managers, carers/relatives and training staff in the target settings. Interventions: Enhancing de-escalation techniques in adult acute and forensic units: Development and evaluation of an evidence-based training intervention (EDITION) interventions included de-escalation training, two novel models of reflective practice, post-incident debriefing and feedback on clinical practice, collaborative prescribing and ward rounds, practice changes around admission, shift handovers and the social and physical environment, and sensory modulation and support planning to reduce patient distress. Main outcome measures: Outcomes measured related to feasibility (recruitment and retention, completion of outcome measures), training outcomes and clinical and safety outcomes. Conflict and containment rates were measured via the Patient-Staff Conflict Checklist. Clinical outcomes were measured using the Attitudes to Containment Measures Questionnaire, Attitudes to Personality Disorder Questionnaire, Violence Prevention Climate Scale, Capabilities, Opportunities, and Motivation Scale, Coercion Experience Scale and Perceived Expressed Emotion in Staff Scale. Results: Completion rates of the proposed primary outcome were very good at 68% overall (excluding remote data collection), which increased to 76% (excluding remote data collection) in the post-intervention period. Secondary outcomes had high completion rates for both staff and patient respondents. Regression analyses indicated that reductions in conflict and containment were both predicted by study phase (pre, embedding, post intervention). There were no adverse events or serious adverse events related to the intervention. Conclusions: Intervention and data-collection procedures were feasible, and there was a signal of an effect on the proposed primary outcome. Limitations: Uncontrolled design and self-selecting sample. Future work: Definitive trial determining intervention effects. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN12826685 (closed to recruitment). Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 16/101/02) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 3. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information. Context: Conflict (a term used to describe a range of potentially unsafe events including violence, self-harm, rule-breaking, medication refusal, illicit drug and alcohol use and absconding) in mental health settings causes serious physical and psychological harm. Containment interventions which are intended to minimise harm from violence (and other conflict behaviours) such as restraint, seclusion and rapid tranquilisation can result in serious injuries to patients and, occasionally, death. Involvement in physical restraint is the most common cause of serious physical injury to National Health Service mental health staff in the United Kingdom. Violence to staff results in substantial costs to the health service in sickness and litigation payments. Containment interventions are also expensive (e.g. physical restraint costs mental health services £6.1 million and enhanced observations £88 million per annum). Despite these harms, recent findings indicate containment interventions such as seclusion and physical restraint continue to be used frequently in mental health settings. Clinical trials have demonstrated that interventions can reduce containment without increasing violence and other conflict behaviours (e.g. verbal aggression, self-harm). Substantial cost-savings result from reducing containment use. De-escalation, as an intervention to manage aggression and potential violence without restrictive practices, is a core intervention. 'De-escalation' is a collective term for a range of psychosocial techniques designed to reduce distress and anger without the need to use 'containment' interventions (measures to prevent harm through restricting a person's ability to act independently, such as physical restraint and seclusion). Evidence indicates that de-escalation involves ensuring conditions for safe intervention and effective communication are established, clarifying and attempting to resolve the patient's concern, conveyance of respect and empathy and regulating unhelpful emotions such as anxiety and anger. Despite featuring prominently in clinical guidelines and training policy domestically and internationally and being a component of mandatory National Health Service training, there is no evidence-based model on which to base training. A systematic review of de-escalation training effectiveness and acceptability conducted in 2015 concluded: (1) no model of training has demonstrated effectiveness in a sufficiently rigorous evaluation, (2) the theoretical underpinning of evaluated models was often unclear and (3) there has been inadequate investigation of the characteristics of training likely to enhance acceptability and uptake. Despite all National Health Service staff being trained in de-escalation there have been no high-quality trials evaluating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of training. Feasibility studies are needed to establish whether it is possible to conduct a definitive trial that can determine the clinical, safety and cost-effectiveness of this intervention.

Mental health hospitals are stressful places for patients and staff. Patients are often detained against their will, in places that are noisy, unfamiliar and frightening. Violence and self-injury happen quite frequently. Sometimes staff physically restrain patients or isolate patients in locked rooms (called seclusion). While these measures might sometimes be necessary to maintain safety, they are psychologically and physically harmful. To help reduce the use of these unsafe measures, staff are trained in communication skills designed to reduce anger and distress without using physical force. Professionals call these skills 'de-escalation'. Although training in de-escalation is mandatory, there is no good evidence to say whether it works or not, or what specific techniques staff should be trained in. The Enhancing de-escalation techniques in adult acute and forensic units: Development and evaluation of an evidence-based training intervention (EDITION) project aimed to develop and evaluate a de-escalation training programme informed by research evidence. We interviewed over one hundred people who either worked in or received treatment in a mental health hospital. These people were clear that the training should target key sources of interpersonal and environmental stress that prevent de-escalation from working. We also reviewed all the scientific studies on de-escalation and training, aiming to identify the elements of training that are most likely to increase use of de-escalation. Then, in partnership with current mental health service users and clinical staff, we developed the training programme. Training was delivered to more than 270 staff working in 10 different wards in mental health hospitals. We measured rates of violence, self-injury and use of physical restraint and seclusion 8 weeks before staff received training and 16 weeks after they received training (24 weeks of data collection in total). Analysis of these data showed that these unsafe events were occurring significantly less frequently after training than they were before training, which raised the possibility that the training was helping to reduce harm.

Evaluating a co-designed care bundle to improve patient safety at discharge from adult and adolescent mental health services (SAFER-MH and SAFER-YMH): protocol for a non-randomised feasibility study.

INTRODUCTION: Patients being discharged from inpatient mental wards often describe safety risks in terms of inadequate information sharing and involvement in discharge decisions. Through stakeholder engagement, we co-designed, developed and adapted two versions of a care bundle intervention, the SAFER Mental Health care bundle for adult and youth inpatient mental health settings (SAFER-MH and SAFER-YMH, respectively), that look to address these concerns through the introduction of new or improved processes of care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Two uncontrolled before-and-after feasibility studies, where all participants will receive the intervention. We will examine the feasibility and acceptability of the SAFER-MH in inpatient mental health settings in patients aged 18 years or older who are being discharged and the feasibility and acceptability of the SAFER-YMH intervention in inpatient mental health settings in patients aged between 14 and 18 years who are being discharged. The baseline period and intervention periods are both 6 weeks. SAFER-MH will be implemented in three wards and SAFER-YMH in one or two wards, ideally across different trusts within England. We will use quantitative (eg, questionnaires, completion forms) and qualitative (eg, interviews, process evaluation) methods to assess the acceptability and feasibility of the two versions of the intervention. The findings will inform whether a main effectiveness trial is feasible and, if so, how it should be designed, and how many patients/wards should be included. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained from the National Health Service Cornwall and Plymouth Research Ethics Committee and Surrey Research Ethics Committee (reference: 22/SW/0096 and 22/LO/0404). Research findings will be disseminated with participating sites and shared in various ways to engage different audiences. We will present findings at international and national conferences, and publish in open-access, peer-reviewed journals.

Development and delivery cost of digital health technologies for mental health: Application to the Narrative Experiences Online Intervention.

Background: The increasing development and use of digital health interventions requires good quality costing information to inform development and commissioning choices about resource allocation decisions. The Narrative Experiences Online (NEON) Intervention is a web-application that delivers recorded mental health recovery narratives to its users. Two randomized controlled trials are testing the NEON Intervention in people with experience of psychosis (NEON) and people experiencing non-psychosis mental health problems (NEON-O). Aim: This study describes and estimates the cost components and total cost of developing and delivering the NEON Intervention. Materials and methods: Total costs for the NEON Trial (739 participants) and NEON-O Trial (1,024 participants) were estimated by: identifying resource use categories involved in intervention development and delivery; accurate measurement or estimation of resource use; and a valuation of resource use to generate overall costs, using relevant unit costs. Resource use categories were identified through consultation with literature, costing reporting standards and iterative consultation with health researchers involved in NEON Intervention development and delivery. Sensitivity analysis was used to test assumptions made. Results: The total cost of developing the NEON Intervention was £182,851. The largest cost components were software development (27%); Lived Experience Advisory Panel workshops (23%); coding the narratives (9%); and researchers' time to source narratives (9%). The total cost of NEON Intervention delivery during the NEON Trial was £118,663 (£349 per NEON Intervention user). In the NEON-O Trial, the total delivery cost of the NEON Intervention was £123,444 (£241 per NEON Intervention user). The largest cost components include updating the narrative collection (50%); advertising (19%); administration (14%); and software maintenance (11%). Uncertainty in the cost of administration had the largest effect on delivery cost estimates. Conclusion: Our work shows that developing and delivering a digital health intervention requires expertise and time commitment from a range of personnel. Teams developing digital narrative interventions need to allocate substantial resources to curating narrative collections. Implications for practice: This study identifies the development and delivery resource use categories of a digital health intervention to promote the consistent reporting of costs and informs future decision-making about the costs of delivering the NEON Intervention at scale. Trial registration: NEON Trial: ISRCTN11152837, registered 13 August 2018, http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN11152837. NEON-O Trial: ISRCTN63197153, registered 9 January 2020, http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN63197153.

Effects of the first COVID-19 lockdown on quality and safety in mental healthcare transitions in England.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic forced the rapid implementation of changes to practice in mental health services, in particular transitions of care. Care transitions pose a particular threat to patient safety. AIMS: This study aimed to understand the perspectives of different stakeholders about the impact of temporary changes in practice and policy of mental health transitions as a result of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on perceived healthcare quality and safety. METHOD: Thirty-four participants were interviewed about quality and safety in mental health transitions during May and June 2020 (the end of the first UK national lockdown). Semi-structured remote interviews were conducted to generate in-depth information pertaining to various stakeholders (patients, carers, healthcare professionals and key informants). Results were analysed thematically. RESULTS: The qualitative data highlighted six overarching themes in relation to practice changes: (a) technology-enabled communication; (b) discharge planning and readiness; (c) community support and follow-up; (d) admissions; (e) adapting to new policy and guidelines; (f) health worker safety and well-being. The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated some quality and safety concerns such as tensions between teams, reduced support in the community and increased threshold for admissions. Also, several improvement interventions previously recommended in the literature, were implemented locally. DISCUSSION: The practice of mental health transitions has transformed during the COVID-19 pandemic, affecting quality and safety. National policies concerning mental health transitions should concentrate on converting the mostly local and temporary positive changes into sustainable service quality improvements and applying systematic corrective policies to prevent exacerbations of previous quality and safety concerns.

Recorded Mental Health Recovery Narratives as a Resource for People Affected by Mental Health Problems: Development of the Narrative Experiences Online (NEON) Intervention.

BACKGROUND: The internet enables sharing of narratives about health concerns on a substantial scale, and some digital health narratives have been integrated into digital health interventions. Narratives describing recovery from health problems are a focus of research, including those presented in recorded (eg, invariant) form. No clinical trial has been conducted on a web-based intervention providing access to a collection of Recorded Recovery Narratives (RRNs). OBJECTIVE: This study presents knowledge produced through the development of the Narrative Experiences Online (NEON) Intervention, a web-based intervention incorporating the algorithmic recommendation of RRNs. METHODS: Knowledge was gathered through knowledge integration (KI) activities. KI1 synthesized previous studies to produce the NEON Impact Model describing how accessing RRNs produces health-related outcomes. KI2 developed curation principles for the NEON Collection of RRNs through consultation with the NEON Lived Experience Advisory Panel and the curation of a preliminary collection. KI3 identified harm minimization strategies for the NEON Intervention through consultation with the NEON International Advisory Board and Lived Experience Advisory Panel. The NEON Intervention was finalized through 2 research studies (RS). In RS1, mental health service users (N=40) rated the immediate impact of randomly presented narratives to validate narrative feedback questions used to inform the recommendation algorithm. In RS2, mental health service users (n=25) were interviewed about their immediate response to a prototype of the NEON Intervention and trial procedures and then were interviewed again after 1 month of use. The usability and acceptability of the prototype and trial procedures were evaluated and refinements were made. RESULTS: KI1 produced the NEON Impact Model, which identifies moderators (recipient and context), mechanisms of connection (reflection, comparison, learning, and empathy), processes (identification of change from narrative structure or content and internalization of observed change), and outcomes (helpful and unhelpful). KI2 identified 22 curation principles, including a mission to build a large, heterogeneous collection to maximize opportunities for connection. KI3 identified seven harm minimization strategies, including content warnings, proactive and reactive blocking of narratives, and providing resources for the self-management of emotional distress. RS1 found variation in the impact of narratives on different participants, indicating that participant-level feedback on individual narratives is needed to inform a recommender system. The order of presentation did not predict narrative feedback. RS2 identified amendments to web-based trial procedures and the NEON Intervention. Participants accessed some narratives multiple times, use reduced over the 4-week period, and narrative feedback was provided for 31.8% (105/330) of narrative accesses. CONCLUSIONS: RRNs can be integrated into web-based interventions. Evaluating the NEON Intervention in a clinical trial is feasible. The mixed methods design for developing the NEON Intervention can guide its extension to other clinical populations, the design of other web-based mental health interventions, and the development of narrative-based interventions in mental health.

Developing a core outcome set for interventions to improve discharge from mental health inpatient services: a survey, Delphi and consensus meeting with key stakeholder groups.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a core set of outcomes to be used in all future studies into discharge from acute mental health services to increase homogeneity of outcome reporting. DESIGN: We used a cross-sectional online survey with qualitative responses to derive a comprehensive list of outcomes, followed by two online Delphi rounds and a face-to-face consensus meeting. SETTING: The setting the core outcome set applies to is acute adult mental health. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were recruited from five stakeholder groups: service users, families and carers, researchers, healthcare professionals and policymakers. INTERVENTIONS: The core outcome set is intended for all interventions that aim to improve discharge from acute mental health services to the community. RESULTS: Ninety-three participants in total completed the questionnaire, 69 in Delphi round 1 and 68 in round 2, with relatively even representation of groups. Eleven participants attended the consensus meeting. Service users, healthcare professionals, researchers, carers/families and end-users of research agreed on a four-item core outcome set: readmission, suicide completed, service user-reported psychological distress and quality of life. CONCLUSION: Implementation of the core outcome set in future trials research will provide a framework to achieve standardisation, facilitate selection of outcome measures, allow between-study comparisons and ultimately enhance the relevance of trial or research findings to healthcare professionals, researchers, policymakers and service users.

Codesigning a Mental Health Discharge and Transitions of Care Intervention: A Modified Nominal Group Technique.

BACKGROUND: Discharge from acute mental health services has long been associated with mortality, risk, and related adverse outcomes for patients. Many of the interventions that currently aim to reduce adverse outcomes focus on a single group of healthcare professionals within a single healthcare setting. A recent systematic review highlights very few robust interventions that specifically aim to improve communication across services. However the importance of promoting interagency working and improving information flow between services is continually highlighted as a key priority. METHODS: Using a novel codesign and experience based approach we worked with a multistakeholder group to develop possible solutions to reduce the adverse outcomes commonly associated with discharge from acute mental health services. This utilized a modified Nominal Group Technique and creative problem solving method to follow a four-stage process: Problem Identification, Solution Generation, Decision-Making, Prioritization and Implementation. Thirty-two healthcare professionals and an expert by lived experienced engaged with the process that took place over two stakeholder events. RESULTS: Stakeholders at the first event identified and agreed upon 24 potential ideas to improve discharge from acute mental health services. These were refined at the second event to four elements of an interagency intervention: a multiagency 'Discharge Team' (with designated discharge coordinator), inclusive technology enabled team meetings, universal documentation and a patient generated discharge plan. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to codesign an interagency mental health discharge intervention based around a discharge team. We developed a model for working that places a greater focus on a patient generated discharge plan, interagency working, and information flow. A pilot of the proposed intervention is now needed to test the feasibility and effectiveness in reducing adverse outcomes.

Embedding shared decision-making in the care of patients with severe and enduring mental health problems: The EQUIP pragmatic cluster randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Severe mental illness is a major driver of worldwide disease burden. Shared decision-making is critical for high quality care, and can enhance patient satisfaction and outcomes. However, it has not been translated into routine practice. This reflects a lack of evidence on the best way to implement shared decision-making, and the challenges of implementation in routine settings with limited resources. Our aim was to test whether we could deliver a practical and feasible intervention in routine community mental health services to embed shared decision-making for patients with severe mental illness, by improving patient and carer involvement in care planning. METHODS: We cluster randomised community mental health teams to the training intervention or usual care, to avoid contamination. Training was co-delivered to a total of 350 staff in 18 teams by clinical academics, working alongside patients and carers. The primary outcome was the Health Care Climate Questionnaire, a self-report measure of 'autonomy support'. Primary and secondary outcomes were collected by self-report, six months after allocation. FINDINGS: In total, 604 patients and 90 carers were recruited to main trial cohort. Retention at six months was 82% (n = 497). In the main analysis, results showed no statistically significant difference in the primary outcome between the intervention and usual care at 6 months (adjusted mean difference -0.064, 95% CI -0.343 to 0.215, p = 0.654). We found significant effects on only 1 secondary outcome. CONCLUSIONS: An intervention to embed shared decision-making in routine practice by improving involvement in care planning was well attended and acceptable to staff, but had no significant effects on patient outcomes. Enhancing shared decision-making may require considerably greater investment of resources and effects may only be apparent over the longer term.

A cluster randomised controlled trial and process evaluation of a training programme for mental health professionals to enhance user involvement in care planning in service users with severe mental health issues (EQUIP): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Involving service users in planning their care is at the centre of policy initiatives to improve mental health care quality in England. Whilst users value care planning and want to be more involved in their own care, there is substantial empirical evidence that the majority of users are not fully involved in the care planning process. Our aim is to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of training for mental health professionals in improving user involvement with the care planning processes. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a cluster randomised controlled trial of community mental health teams in NHS Trusts in England allocated either to a training intervention to improve user and carer involvement in care planning or control (no training and care planning as usual). We will evaluate the effectiveness of the training intervention using a mixed design, including a 'cluster cohort' sample, a 'cluster cross-sectional' sample and process evaluation. Service users will be recruited from the caseloads of care co-ordinators. The primary outcome will be change in self-reported involvement in care planning as measured by the validated Health Care Climate Questionnaire. Secondary outcomes include involvement in care planning, satisfaction with services, medication side-effects, recovery and hope, mental health symptoms, alliance/engagement, well-being and quality of life. Cost- effectiveness will also be measured. A process evaluation informed by implementation theory will be undertaken to assess the extent to which the training was implemented and to gauge sustainability beyond the time-frame of the trial. DISCUSSION: It is hoped that the trial will generate data to inform mental health care policy and practice on care planning. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN16488358 (14 May 2014).