The Resilience Hub approach for addressing mental health of health and social care workers during the COVID-19 pandemic: a mixed-methods evaluation.

Background: Resilience Hubs provide mental health screening, facilitation of access and direct provision of psychosocial support for health and social care keyworkers in England affected by the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Aim: To explore implementation of the Hubs, including characteristics of staff using the services, support accessed, costing data and a range of stakeholder perspectives on the barriers and enablers to Hub use and implementation of staff well-being support within the context of the pandemic. Design: Mixed-methods evaluation. Setting: Four Resilience Hubs. Methods: Findings were integrated via mixed-method case studies, including: analyses of Hub mental health screening (N = 1973); follow-up questionnaire data (N = 299) on service use and health status of Hub clients; economic information provided by the Hubs; 63 interviews with Hub staff, wider stakeholders, Hub clients and keyworkers who did not use the Hubs. Results: Findings were consistent across Hubs and workstreams. Most Hub clients were NHS staff. Under-represented groups included men, keyworkers from minority ethnic communities, care homes and emergency services staff. Clients reported comorbid mental health needs across multiple domains (anxiety; depression; post-traumatic stress; alcohol use; functioning). Their health status was lower than population norms and relevant pre-pandemic data. Several factors predicted higher needs, but having pre-pandemic emotional well-being concerns was one of the most robust predictors of higher need. Sixty per cent of participants who completed follow-up questionnaires reported receiving mental health support since Hub screening, most of which was directly or indirectly due to Hub support. High levels of satisfaction were reported. As in many services, staffing was the central component of Hub cost. Hubs were predominantly staffed by senior clinicians; this staffing model was consistent with the generally severe difficulties experienced by clients and the need for systemic/team-based working. Costs associated with health and social care use for Hub clients were low, which may be due to barriers to accessing support in general. Enablers to accessing Hubs included: a clear understanding of the Hubs, how to self-refer, and managerial support. Barriers included confusion between Hubs and other support; unhelpful beliefs about job roles, unsupportive managers, negative workplace cultures and difficulties caused by systemic issues. Some keyworkers highlighted a perceived need for further diversity and cultural competency training to improve reach to under-represented communities. Other barriers for these groups included prior negative experiences of services, structural inequalities and stigma. Some wider stakeholders had concerns around growing waiting times for Hub-provided therapy, and insufficient data on Hub usage and outcomes. Feedback was otherwise very positive. Limitations: Main limitations included lack of comparative and pre-pandemic/baseline data, small numbers from under-represented groups limiting fine-grained analysis, and participant self-selection. Conclusions: Findings highlighted the value of the Hub model of outreach, screening, support navigation and provision of direct support during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, and as a potential model to respond to future crises. The research provided recommendations to improve Hub promotion, equality/diversity/inclusion access issues, management of specialist resources and collection of relevant data on Hub outcomes and activities. Broader recommendations for the primary prevention of mental health difficulties across the health and care system are made, as individual support offers should be an adjunct to, not a replacement for, resolutions to systemic challenges. Research recommendations are made to conduct more robust evaluations of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the Hubs, using larger data sets and comparative data. Study registration: This study is registered as researchregistry6303. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR132269) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 29. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Many health and social care staff struggled with mental health difficulties during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. The study evaluated new National Health Service services ('Resilience Hubs') that were set up to help these keyworkers. We worked with four Hubs to: (1) look at who accessed the Hubs and what difficulties they had; (2) ask Hub 'clients' which support they used, and how helpful they found the Hubs; (3) look at what resources are needed to run the Hubs, to understand their 'value for money'; (4) interview people who worked with or used the Hubs (e.g. Hub staff, Hub clients, but also keyworkers who did not use the Hubs) to have their feedback. We used this information to make recommendations for the Hubs and the organisations that work with them. We found that Hub clients were mainly National Health Service staff. Many had several mental health difficulties, including anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder. Few men, staff from minority ethnic communities, care home workers and emergency service staff used the Hubs. People were generally happy with the support they had from the Hubs; clients who completed a follow-up questionnaire rated the helpfulness of support provided by Hubs as 92 out of 100 on average. Staffing was the main cost, as Hubs were mainly staffed by experienced clinicians. Things that made it easier for people to use the Hubs were clear understandings of Hub support and how to access it, and the support of their managers/employers. Some keyworkers from minority ethnic communities wanted greater diversity in the Hub teams. Some had concerns around waiting times and about not knowing enough about how well these services worked. Feedback was otherwise very positive. Our recommendations included how to: better promote the Hubs; improve inclusion of and support for individuals from minority groups; get better data on how well and for whom they work; and for employers to pay more attention to the mental health and well-being of keyworkers beyond the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.

Clinicians' perspectives on retraumatisation during trauma-focused interventions for post-traumatic stress disorder: A survey of UK mental health professionals.

Concerns regarding retraumatisation have been identified as a barrier to delivering trauma-focused therapy for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). We explored clinicians' understanding of what constitutes potential signs of retraumatisation (PSoR), reported incidences of witnessing retraumatisation, use of (and confidence in) therapies for PTSD, fear of retraumatisation during therapy for PTSD, and whether having witnessed retraumatisation was associated with these variables. We surveyed 348 clinicians. There was variation in what clinicians viewed as PSoR. Retraumatisation was reported by clinicians in 3.4 % of patients undergoing trauma-focused therapy for PTSD. A variety of trauma-focused and non-trauma-focused therapies were routinely used, yet 14.4 % reported not using trauma-focused therapy. There was a significant negative correlation between participants' highest reported confidence in trauma-focused therapy and endorsement of PSoR (r = -.25) and fear of retraumatisation (r = -.28). Mean fear of retraumatisation was 30.3 (SD=23.4; a score we derived from asking participants out of 100 how much they worry about trauma-focused therapy being harmful in its own right/leading to a worsening of PTSD symptoms). Participants who had witnessed retraumatisation reported significantly greater endorsement of PSoR (d=.69 [95 % CI .37, 1.02]) and fear of retraumatisation (d=.94 [95 % CI .61, 1.26]). Confidence in using therapies for PTSD was varied and related to how clinicians understood retraumatisation. Retraumatisation is uncommon, but there is variability in clinicians' interpretation of what retraumatisation is, and its utility warrants research.

A service mapping exercise of four health and social care staff mental health and wellbeing services, Resilience Hubs, to describe health service provision and interventions.

BACKGROUND: NHS England funded 40 Mental Health and Wellbeing Hubs to support health and social care staff affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to document variations in how national guidance was adapted to the local contexts of four Hubs in the North of England. METHODS: We used a modified version of Price's (2019) service mapping methodology. Service level data were used to inform the analysis. A mapping template was adapted from a range of tools, including the European Service Mapping Schedule, and reviewed by Hub leads. Key data included service model; staffing; and interventions. Data were collected between March 2021 - March 2022 by site research assistants. Findings were accuracy-checked by Hub leads, and a logic model developed to theorise how the Hubs may effect change. RESULTS: Hub goals and service models closely reflected guidance; offering: proactive outreach; team-based support; clinical assessment; onward referral, and rapid access to mental health support (in-house and external). Implementation reflected a service context of a client group with high mental health need, and high waiting times at external mental health services. Hubs were predominantly staffed by experienced clinicians, to manage these mental health presentations and organisational working. Formulation-based psychological assessment and the provision of direct therapy were not core functions of the NHS England model, however all Hubs incorporated these adaptations into their service models in response to local contexts, such as extensive waiting lists within external services, and/or client presentations falling between gaps in existing service provision. Finally, a standalone clinical records system was seen as important to reassure Hub users of confidentiality. Other more nuanced variation depended on localised contexts. CONCLUSION: This study provides a map for setting up services, emphasising early understandings of how new services will integrate within existing systems. Local and regional contexts led to variation in service configuration. Whilst additional Hub functions are supported by available literature, further research is needed to determine whether these functions should comprise essential components of staff wellbeing services moving forward. Future research should also determine the comparative effectiveness of service components, and the limits of permissible variation. STUDY REGISTRATION: researchregistry6303.

Trauma-focused therapy in early psychosis: results of a feasibility randomized controlled trial of EMDR for psychosis (EMDRp) in early intervention settings.

BACKGROUND: Trauma is prevalent amongst early psychosis patients and associated with adverse outcomes. Past trials of trauma-focused therapy have focused on chronic patients with psychosis/schizophrenia and comorbid Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). We aimed to determine the feasibility of a large-scale randomized controlled trial (RCT) of an Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing for psychosis (EMDRp) intervention for early psychosis service users. METHODS: A single-blind RCT comparing 16 sessions of EMDRp + TAU v. TAU only was conducted. Participants completed baseline, 6-month and 12-month post-randomization assessments. EMDRp and trial assessments were delivered both in-person and remotely due to COVID-19 restrictions. Feasibility outcomes were recruitment and retention, therapy attendance/engagement, adherence to EMDRp treatment protocol, and the 'promise of efficacy' of EMDRp on relevant clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Sixty participants (100% of the recruitment target) received TAU or EMDR + TAU. 83% completed at least one follow-up assessment, with 74% at 6-month and 70% at 12-month. 74% of EMDRp + TAU participants received at least eight therapy sessions and 97% rated therapy sessions demonstrated good treatment fidelity. At 6-month, there were signals of promise of efficacy of EMDRp + TAU v. TAU for total psychotic symptoms (PANSS), subjective recovery from psychosis, PTSD symptoms, depression, anxiety, and general health status. Signals of efficacy at 12-month were less pronounced but remained robust for PTSD symptoms and general health status. CONCLUSIONS: The trial feasibility criteria were fully met, and EMDRp was associated with promising signals of efficacy on a range of valuable clinical outcomes. A larger-scale, multi-center trial of EMDRp is feasible and warranted.

Implementing psychological support for health and social care staff affected by the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative exploration of staff well-being hubs ('Resilience Hubs') using normalisation process theory.

OBJECTIVES: Evaluate the implementation of Hubs providing access to psychological support for health and social care keyworkers affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: Qualitative interviews informed by normalisation process theory to understand how the Hub model became embedded into normal practice, and factors that disrupted normalisation of this approach. SETTING: Three Resilience Hubs in the North of England. PARTICIPANTS: Hub staff, keyworkers who accessed Hub support (Hub clients), keyworkers who had not accessed a Hub, and wider stakeholders involved in the provision of staff support within the health and care system (N=63). RESULTS: Hubs were generally seen as an effective way of supporting keyworkers, and Hub clients typically described very positive experiences. Flexibility and adaptability to local needs were strongly valued. Keyworkers accessed support when they understood the offer, valuing a confidential service that was separate from their organisation. Confusion about how Hubs differed from other support prevented some from enrolling. Beliefs about job roles, unsupportive managers, negative workplace cultures and systemic issues prevented keyworkers from valuing mental health support. Lack of support from managers discouraged keyworker engagement with Hubs. Black, Asian and minority ethnic keyworkers impacted by racism felt that the Hubs did not always meet their needs. CONCLUSIONS: Hubs were seen as a valuable, responsive and distinct part of the health and care system. Findings highlight the importance of improving promotion and accessibility of Hubs, and continuation of confidential Hub support. Policy implications for the wider health and care sector include the central importance of genuine promotion of and value placed on mental health support by health and social care management, and the creation of psychologically safe work environments. Diversity and cultural competency training is needed to better reach under-represented communities. Findings are consistent with the international literature, therefore, likely to have applicability outside of the current context.

Can a new role, the (Trainee) Associate Psychological Practitioner (T/APP), add value in General Practice? Results from the pilot year evaluation.

BACKGROUND: The deployment of (Trainee) Associate Psychological Practitioners (T/APPs) to deliver brief psychological interventions focusing on preventing mental health deterioration and promoting emotional wellbeing in General Practice settings is a novel development in the North West of England. As the need and demand for psychological practitioners increases, new workforce supply routes are required to meet this growth. AIMS: To evaluate the clinical impact and efficacy of the mental health prevention and promotion service, provided by the T/APPs and the acceptability of the role from the perspective of the workforce and the role to T/APPs, patients and services. METHODS: A mixed-methods design was used. To evaluate clinical outcomes, patients completed measures of wellbeing (WEMWBS), depression (PHQ-9), anxiety (GAD-7) and resilience (BRS) at the first session, final session and at a 4-6 week follow-up. Paired-samples t-tests were conducted comparing scores from session 1 and session 4, and session 1 and follow-up for each of the four outcome measures. To evaluate acceptability, questionnaires were sent to General Practice staff, T/APPs and patients to gather qualitative and quantitative feedback on their views of the T/APP role. Quantitative responses were collated and summarised. Qualitative responses were analysed using inductive summative content analysis to identify themes. RESULTS: T-test analysis revealed clinically and statistically significant reductions in depression and anxiety and elevations in wellbeing and resiliency between session 1 and session 4, and at follow-up. Moderate-large effect sizes were recorded. Acceptability of the T/APP role was established across General Practice staff, T/APPs and patients. Content analysis revealed two main themes: positive feedback and constructive feedback. Positive sub-themes included accessibility of support, type of support, patient benefit and primary care network benefit. Constructive sub-themes included integration of the role and limitations to the support. CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of T/APPs into General Practice settings to deliver brief mental health prevention and promotion interventions is both clinically effective and acceptable to patients, General Practice staff and psychology graduates.

The effectiveness of psychological support interventions for those exposed to mass infectious disease outbreaks: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Mass outbreaks such as pandemics are associated with mental health problems requiring effective psychological interventions. Although several forms of psychological interventions may be advocated or used, some may lack strong evidence of efficacy and some may not have been evaluated in mass infectious disease outbreaks. This paper reports a systematic review of published studies (PROSPERO CRD:42020182094. Registered: 24.04.2020) examining the types and effectiveness of psychological support interventions for the general population and healthcare workers exposed to mass infectious disease outbreaks. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted. Randomised Controlled Trials (RCT) were identified through searches of electronic databases: Medline (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), PsycINFO (EBSCO) and the Cochrane Library Database from inception to 06.05.2021 using an agreed search strategy. Studies were included if they assessed the effectiveness of interventions providing psychological support to the general population and / or healthcare workers exposed to mass infectious disease outbreaks. Studies were excluded if they focused on man-made or natural disasters or if they included armed forces, police, fire-fighters or coastguards. RESULTS: Twenty-two RCTs were included after screening. Various psychological interventions have been used: therapist-guided therapy (n = 1); online counselling (n = 1); 'Emotional Freedom Techniques' (n = 1); mobile phone apps (n = 2); brief crisis intervention (n = 1); psychological-behavioural intervention (n = 1); Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (n = 3); progressive muscle relaxation (n = 2); emotional-based directed drawing (n = 1); psycho-educational debriefing (n = 1); guided imagery (n = 1); Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) (n = 1); expressive writing (n = 2); tailored intervention for patients with a chronic medical conditions (n = 1); community health workers (n = 1); self-guided psychological intervention (n = 1), and a digital behaviour change intervention (n = 1). Meta-analyses showed that psychological interventions had a statistically significant benefit in managing depression (Standardised Mean Difference [SMD]: -0.40; 95% Confidence Interval [CI]: - 0.76 to - 0.03), and anxiety (SMD: -0.72; 95% CI: - 1.03 to - 0.40). The effect on stress was equivocal (SMD: 0.16; 95% CI: - 0.19 to 0.51). The heterogeneity of studies, studies' high risk of bias, and the lack of available evidence means uncertainty remains. CONCLUSIONS: Further RCTs and intervention studies involving representative study populations are needed to inform the development of targeted and tailored psychological interventions for those exposed to mass infectious disease outbreaks.

A survey of psychological practitioner workplace well-being.

The well-being of the psychological workforce is an area of concern. However, it has been sparsely studied in a holistic manner encompassing workplace well-being as well as burnout. This study reports a survey of 1,678 psychological practitioners accessed through professional networks. The short Warwick Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (SWEMWBS) and the Psychological Practitioner Workplace Well-being Measure (PPWWM) were administered with a demographic questionnaire. The mean for the SWEMWBS was below that of a national population survey. The intercorrelation of these tests was .61. Subgroup analyses showed significant differences: assistant psychologists, counsellors and psychological well-being practitioners demonstrated better than average workplace well-being. But for general well-being (SWEMWBS), trainee clinical psychologists and assistant psychologists showed lower than average well-being, whereas psychological well-being practitioners were higher than average. Other factors associated with well-being were contract type-both measures (higher workplace well-being in those with temporary contracts and the self-employed); employment sector-for PPWWM only (private organisation/independent workers and third sector/charitable organisation workers scored above the PPWWM mean); ethnicity-for both measures (Asian groups except Chinese had higher well-being than average for the PPWWM and SWEMWBS) and disability was strongly associated with lower well-being on both measures. Harassment, feeling depressed or a failure and wanting to leave the National Health Service (NHS) were associated with lower well-being. Greater age, pay and years of service were negatively correlated with well-being. A five-factor structure was obtained with this sample. The results confirmed psychological practitioners as an at-risk group and identified a number of factors associated with workplace well-being.

Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing therapy for psychosis (EMDRp): Protocol of a feasibility randomized controlled trial with early intervention service users.

AIM: Traumatic events are involved in the development and maintenance of psychotic symptoms. There are few trials exploring trauma-focused treatments as interventions for psychotic symptoms, especially in individuals with early psychosis. This trial will evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of conducting a definitive trial of Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing for psychosis (EMDRp) in people with early psychosis. METHODS: Sixty participants with first episode psychosis and a history of a traumatic/adverse life event(s)will be recruited from early intervention services in the North West of England and randomized to receive16 sessions of EMDRp + Treatment as Usual (TAU) or TAU alone. Participants will be assessed at baseline, 6 and 12 months post-randomization using several measures of psychotic symptoms, trauma symptoms, anxiety, depression, functioning, service-user defined recovery, health economics indicators and quality of life. Two nested qualitative studies to assess participant feedback of therapy and views of professional stakeholders on the implementation of EMDRp into services will also be conducted. The feasibility of a future definitive efficacy and cost-effectiveness evaluation of EMDRp will be tested against several outcomes, including ability to recruit and randomize participants, trial retention at 6- and 12-month follow-up assessments, treatment engagement and treatment fidelity. CONCLUSIONS: If it is feasible to deliver a multi-site trial of this intervention, it will be possible to evaluate whether EMDRp represents a beneficial treatment to augment existing evidence-based care of individuals with early psychosis supported by early intervention services.

Cost-effectiveness of psychological treatments for post-traumatic stress disorder in adults.

BACKGROUND: Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a severe and disabling condition that may lead to functional impairment and reduced productivity. Psychological interventions have been shown to be effective in its management. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of a range of interventions for adults with PTSD. METHODS: A decision-analytic model was constructed to compare costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of 10 interventions and no treatment for adults with PTSD, from the perspective of the National Health Service and personal social services in England. Effectiveness data were derived from a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Other model input parameters were based on published sources, supplemented by expert opinion. RESULTS: Eye movement desensitisation and reprocessing (EMDR) appeared to be the most cost-effective intervention for adults with PTSD (with a probability of 0.34 amongst the 11 evaluated options at a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000/QALY), followed by combined somatic/cognitive therapies, self-help with support, psychoeducation, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), trauma-focused cognitive behavioural therapy (TF-CBT), self-help without support, non-TF-CBT and combined TF-CBT/SSRIs. Counselling appeared to be less cost-effective than no treatment. TF-CBT had the largest evidence base. CONCLUSIONS: A number of interventions appear to be cost-effective for the management of PTSD in adults. EMDR appears to be the most cost-effective amongst them. TF-CBT has the largest evidence base. There remains a need for well-conducted studies that examine the long-term clinical and cost-effectiveness of a range of treatments for adults with PTSD.

Psychological treatments for post-traumatic stress disorder in adults: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a potentially chronic and disabling disorder affecting a significant minority of people exposed to trauma. Various psychological treatments have been shown to be effective, but their relative effects are not well established. METHODS: We undertook a systematic review and network meta-analyses of psychological interventions for adults with PTSD. Outcomes included PTSD symptom change scores post-treatment and at 1-4-month follow-up, and remission post-treatment. RESULTS: We included 90 trials, 6560 individuals and 22 interventions. Evidence was of moderate-to-low quality. Eye movement desensitisation and reprocessing (EMDR) [standardised mean difference (SMD) -2.07; 95% credible interval (CrI) -2.70 to -1.44], combined somatic/cognitive therapies (SMD -1.69; 95% CrI -2.66 to -0.73), trauma-focused cognitive behavioural therapy (TF-CBT) (SMD -1.46; 95% CrI -1.87 to -1.05) and self-help with support (SMD -1.46; 95% CrI -2.33 to -0.59) appeared to be most effective at reducing PTSD symptoms post-treatment v. waitlist, followed by non-TF-CBT, TF-CBT combined with a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI), SSRIs, self-help without support and counselling. EMDR and TF-CBT showed sustained effects at 1-4-month follow-up. EMDR, TF-CBT, self-help with support and counselling improved remission rates post-treatment. Results for other interventions were either inconclusive or based on limited evidence. CONCLUSIONS: EMDR and TF-CBT appear to be most effective at reducing symptoms and improving remission rates in adults with PTSD. They are also effective at sustaining symptom improvements beyond treatment endpoint. Further research needs to explore the long-term comparative effectiveness of psychological therapies for adults with PTSD and also the impact of severity and complexity of PTSD on treatment outcomes.

A measure to assess the workplace well-being of psychological practitioners.

The well-being of psychological practitioners is a key factor in the effective delivery of psychological therapies and the effectiveness of mental health services. Despite this, there are no measures of well-being for this professional group. The 26-item psychological practitioner workplace well-being measure (PPWWM) measures psychological well-being for psychological practitioners and was informed by a qualitative study. Items were generated and then verified by groups of practitioners using sorting tasks. The items reflect a broad range of issues relevant to the workplace well-being of psychological practitioners. The PPWWM was validated with a sample of 400 psychological practitioners recruited through professional networks. Internal consistency (α = .92) and test-retest reliability (r = .94) were high. Construct validity was indicated by positive correlations with the Health and Safety Executive Management Standards Indicator Tool and Satisfaction with Life Scale and negative correlation with the General Health Questionnaire. Exploratory factor analysis produced six factors, explaining 61.2% of the variance: professional and organizational; support and flexibility; professional role; physical environment; clinical supervision; and external personal. PPWWM scores were not significantly associated with a range of demographic variables (gender, health/disability, profession, and type of organization), but it did correlate significantly and negatively with age. The PPWWM has potential application as a brief measure, suitable for large-scale surveys that specifically measures workplace well-being in psychological practitioners. Future research could include cross validation with new samples and validation with subgroups of psychological practitioners.

Physician heal thyself (Luke 4:23).

The performance culture of the health service means that the psychological well-being of staff is becoming paramount in maintaining the workforce and in sustaining psychological health and morale. A Charter for Psychological Staff Wellbeing and Resilience is introduced that puts the onus on us and on employers to make the necessary adjustments to their workplace cultures and encourage professionals - us - to break through the barrier of stigma.

Early detection of mental health problems in older people.

A survey of the mental health needs of older adults, conducted in 1996 by the Mental Health Services of Salford NHS Trust (Watts et al, 1996), confirmed earlier research findings that mental health problems in older adults are under-recognized and under-treated. This article reports on this survey, the aims of which were to identify within an inner city area in northwest England the extent and method by which primary care staff detect mild to moderate mental health problems in later life, and the best way to support the teams to detect and manage these issues effectively. As a result, this 11-week survey was conducted which sought to interview all attendees aged 65 years and above at a general practice. Given the high levels of psychological distress and low levels of identification, education/training was provided for practice staff, enabling them to develop the use of appropriate screening tools. The article concludes by discussing how the evaluation of the project by the primary healthcare teams involved has demonstrated that primary healthcare nurses can be trained in brief assessment tools and management techniques suitable for primary healthcare settings.