Interventions to improve social circumstances of people with mental health conditions: a rapid evidence synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Poor social circumstances can induce, exacerbate and prolong symptoms of mental health conditions, while having a mental health condition can also lead to worse social outcomes. Many people with mental health conditions prioritise improvement in social and functional outcomes over reduction in clinical symptoms. Interventions that improve social circumstances in this population should thus be considered a priority for research and policy. METHODS: This rapid evidence synthesis reports on randomised controlled trials of interventions to improve social circumstances across eight social domains (Housing and homelessness; money and basic needs; work and education; social isolation and connectedness; family, intimate and caring relationships; victimisation and exploitation; offending; and rights, inclusion and citizenship) in people with mental health conditions. Economic evaluations were also identified. A comprehensive, stepped search approach of the Cochrane library, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science and Scopus was conducted. RESULTS: One systematic review and 102 randomised controlled trials were included. We did not find RCT evidence for interventions to improve family, intimate and caring relationships and only one or two trials for each of improving money and basic needs, victimisation and exploitation, and rights, inclusion and citizenship. Evidence from successful interventions in improving homelessness (Housing First) and employment (Individual Placement and Support) suggests that high-intensity interventions which focus on the desired social outcome and provide comprehensive multidisciplinary support could influence positive change in social circumstances of people with mental health conditions. Objective social isolation could be improved using a range of approaches such as supported socialisation and social skills training but interventions to reduce offending showed few benefits. Studies with cost and cost-effectiveness components were generally supportive of interventions to improve housing and vocational outcomes. More research is needed to ensure that social circumstances accompanied by high risks of further exacerbation of mental health conditions are adequately addressed. CONCLUSIONS: Although there is a large body of literature examining how to support some aspects of life for people with mental health conditions, more high-quality evidence is required in other social domains. Integration into mental health services of interventions targeting social circumstances could significantly improve a number of social outcomes.

Protesting for public health: a case for medical activism during the climate crisis.

Anthropogenic climate change and its sequelae are de-stabilizing our environmental, social, economical and political systems. Not surprisingly, the direct and indirect effects of disrupting these key determinants of health are profoundly detrimental to mental health and wellbeing. Psychiatrists feel compelled to speak out. However, decades of gentle persuasion have failed to invoke sufficient government action so many have turned to activism. Others doubt whether this is, or should be, within their scope of practice. In this article we present the case for medical activism. History has shown prominent activist medics and psychiatrists have been instrumental in creating social and cultural change. We propose that psychiatrists are well-placed to advocate for health issues that cross socio-politico-environmental boundaries. We suggest that, not only do we have a moral imperative to act for the wider determinants of health, but we are also advantageously positioned as trusted professionals with the necessary skills to articulate the problem and advocate for the most vulnerable in society. We call on our training and regulatory bodies to support health activism.

Implementation of a combined Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Treatment Escalation Plan document in a District General Hospital.

Documentation of appropriate escalation of treatment was identified as a problem for junior doctors and Critical Care Outreach Nurses at Musgrove Park Hospital. An audit of resuscitation and escalation documentation of all wards found that of the patients who were not for Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (and therefore not for full escalation of care), 78.4% had no documentation of the appropriate level of escalation of treatment should they deteriorate. The majority of junior doctors had experienced cases where they felt that inappropriate treatment had been given, where no escalation plan was documented. Using several Plan, Do, Study, Act (PDSA) cycles, drawing tools used in other trusts and departments, and the views of clinicians, we developed a treatment escalation plan (TEP) tool, to be included in the resuscitation form. This included consideration of referral to critical care, ward based non-invasive ventilation, and appropriate use of intravenous or oral antibiotics. This then prompted the responsible clinician to consider and document appropriate escalation of treatment. The CPR-TEP form was trialed using a quasi-experiment design allowing the aim to be tested using two groups - intervention and control. All patients in the intervention group were not for CPR and therefore had their TEP-CPR form filled in fully (n=68). The control group consisted of patients who were not for CPR but who did not have a TEP form filled in (n=36). The appropriateness of OOH (out of hours) treatment in those patients who experienced clinical deterioration was judged by questionnaire-based feedback from the in-hours team the following morning. Levels of inappropriate treatment between the two groups were compared to test the aim. At the end of the study period, questionnaire feedback indicated that 11.1% of patients in the group with the new CPR-TEP document had received inappropriate OOH care compared to 44.4% of patients in the group without the document. Using the TEP alongside resuscitation documentation prompts the responsible clinician to consistently consider and document the appropriate escalation of care for their patient, improving communication with the out of hours team and appropriate escalation of care in the event of patient deterioration.