Trust, belief and transitions: people's experiences of multidisciplinary inpatient treatment for persistent physical symptoms. A qualitative study.

PURPOSE: People with Persistent Physical Symptoms experience physical symptoms that are not wholly explained by a medical disorder or disease. Multidisciplinary treatment is recommended for people with severe difficulties and is provided in a small number of specialist centres in the UK. Only brief descriptions of this treatment are available, and the experiences of people receiving this treatment as an inpatient have not been explored. This study aimed to explore how people with persistent physical symptoms experience inpatient treatment from a specialist multidisciplinary team, and to identify which factors facilitated their engagement in the rehabilitation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 18 people who had received inpatient multidisciplinary treatment for persistent physical symptoms participated in semi-structured interviews. The transcripts were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Participants' experiences were influenced by whether they felt believed by the healthcare team, and whether they could place their own trust and belief in the staff team and the treatment approach. Their experiences involved a series of transitions; both in environment and understanding. CONCLUSIONS: Improvements are possible for people receiving inpatient multidisciplinary treatment for severe PPS. Trusting relationships between patients and staff members take time to develop but play a major role in patients' experiences of treatment.

People with persistent physical symptoms view the building of trusting relationships with rehabilitation professionals as a vital component of specialist treatmentPatients value the interpersonal style of the professional as much as the content of the intervention delivered.Developing an alliance and a shared understanding of symptoms takes time, high levels of tailoring, and a skilled multidisciplinary teamPatients found abrupt discharge difficult, and desire easier access to appropriate follow up.

Linkage of routinely collected NHS data to evaluate liaison mental health services: challenges and lessons learned.

Background: Liaison mental health services provide mental health care to patients in acute hospital settings. Evaluation of liaison services is challenging due to their heterogeneous organisation and delivery, high case throughput and varied patient case mix. We aimed to link routinely collected National Health Service data from secondary care settings, chosen for their service characteristics, to data from primary care to evaluate hospital-based liaison mental health services in England. Methods: We planned to compare patients referred to hospital-based liaison services with comparable patients in the same hospital not referred to liaison services and comparable patients in hospitals without any liaison services. We designed and enacted a methodology to link data from: (1) Hospital Episode Statistics, a database controlled by the National Health Service Digital and (2) ResearchOne, a primary care database controlled by The Phoenix Partnership. Results: Obtaining approvals for the steps prespecified in the methodological protocol took 907 days. Enactment following approvals took 385 days. Data supplied from Hospital Episode Statistics contained 181,063 patients from 6 hospitals (mean = 30,177, standard deviation = 28,875.86) who matched the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data supplied from ResearchOne contained 33,666 (18.6%) of these patients from the 6 hospitals (mean = 5611, standard deviation = 5206.59). Discussion: Time required for approvals and enactment was attributable to slowness of data handling processes within each data holder and to resolution of technical and organisational queries between them. Variation in number of patients for which data was supplied between databases and between hospitals was attributable to coding inconsistencies and to the limited intersection of patient populations between databases and variation in recording practices between hospitals. Conclusion: Although it is technically feasible to link primary and secondary care data, the current system is challenging, complicated, unnecessarily bureaucratic, time consuming and costly. This limits the number of studies that could be conducted with these rich data sources. Funding: This article presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme as award number 13/58/08.

Liaison mental health services are based in acute general hospitals and provide assessment and treatment for people who have both physical and mental health problems. Our aim was to use routinely collected National Health Service data to find out whether general hospital patients referred to liaison mental health services have improved outcomes, compared with patients not referred to liaison services, and comparable patients in hospitals where there are no liaison services. The main outcomes were less time spent in hospital and fewer re-admissions to hospital following discharge. We tried to link data from routine National Health Service sources for hospital and primary care, to compare patients referred to liaison mental health services with similar people in each hospital who had not been referred, and similar people in hospitals without any liaison services at all. We planned to find out how long these people stayed in hospital, whether they were re-admitted and how much was their healthcare cost was. We experienced significant difficulties in being able to link the National Health Service data from the different organisations we approached. The whole process was extremely complex, and a delay in one part of the process resulted delays in other parts. We eventually had to abandon the research without obtaining any meaningful data, although the lessons we learnt will be useful for other researchers, so they can avoid experiencing similar problems. Routinely collected National Health Service data from primary care and secondary care can be linked using the approaches we tried, but we were unable to complete the process within the time frame of the research programme, even with time extensions. Current processes need to be streamlined and standardised with designated clear response times for the different organisations.

Experiences of people seen in an acute hospital setting by a liaison mental health service: responses from an online survey.

BACKGROUND: In recent years the UK has expanded the provision of liaison mental health services (LMHS). Little work has been undertaken to explore first-hand experiences of them. AIMS: The aim of this study was to gain insights into the experiences of users of LMHS in both emergency departments and acute inpatient wards in the UK. METHODS: This cross-sectional internet survey was initially advertised from May-July 2017 using the social media platform Facebook. Due to a paucity of male respondents, it was re-run from November 2017-February 2018, specifically targeting male respondents. The survey featured a structured questionnaire divided into three categories: the profile of the respondent, perceived professionalism of LMHS and overall opinion of the service. ANALYSIS: Responses to the structured questionnaire were analysed using descriptive statistics and latent class analysis. Free-text responses were transcribed verbatim and interpreted using thematic analysis. RESULTS: 184 people responded to the survey. 147 were service users and 37 were partners, friends or family members of service users. Only 31% of service users and 27% of close others found their overall contact helpful. Latent class analysis identified three clusters - 46% of service users generally disliked their contact, 36% had an overall positive experience, and 18% did not answer most questions about helpfulness or usefulness. Features most frequently identified as important were the provision of a 24/7 service, assessment by a variety of healthcare professionals and national standardisation of services. Respondents indicated that the least important feature was the provision of a separate service for older people. They desired faster assessments following referral from the parent team, clearer communication about next steps and greater knowledge of local services and third sector organisations. CONCLUSIONS: This survey identified mixed responses, but overall experiences were more negative than indicated in the limited previous research. The evaluation and adaptation of LMHS along the lines suggested in our survey should be prioritised to enhance their inherent therapeutic value and to improve engagement with treatment and future psychiatric care.

The nature and activity of liaison mental services in acute hospital settings: a multi-site cross sectional study.

BACKGROUND: To describe the clinical activity patterns and nature of interventions of hospital-based liaison psychiatry services in England. METHODS: Multi-site, cross-sectional survey. 18 acute hospitals across England with a liaison psychiatry service. All liaison staff members, at each hospital site, recorded data on each patient they had face to face contact with, over a 7 day period. Data included location of referral, source of referral, main clinical problem, type of liaison intervention employed, staff professional group and grade, referral onto other services, and standard assessment measures. RESULTS: A total of 1475 face to face contacts from 18 hospitals were included in the analysis, of which approximately half were follow-up reviews. There was considerable variation across sites, related to the volume of Emergency Department (ED) attendances, number of hospital admissions, and work hours of the team but not to the size of the hospital (number of beds). The most common clinical problems were co-morbid physical and psychiatric symptoms, self-harm and cognitive impairment. The main types of intervention delivered were diagnosis/formulation, risk management and advice. There were differences in the type of clinical problems seen by the services between EDs and wards, and also differences between the work conducted by doctors and nurses. Almost half of the contacts were for continuing care, rather than assessment. Eight per cent of all referrals were offered follow up with the LP team, and approximately 37% were referred to community or other services. CONCLUSIONS: The activity of LP services is related to the flow of patients through an acute hospital. In addition to initial assessments, services provide a wide range of differing interventions, with nurses and doctors carrying out distinctly different roles within the team. The results show the volume and diversity of LP work. While much clinical contact is acute and confined to the inpatient episode, the LP service is not defined solely by an assessment and discharge function; cases are often complex and nearly half were referred for follow up including liaison team follow up.

The effect of a hospital liaison psychiatry service on inpatient lengths of stay: interrupted time series analysis using routinely collected NHS hospital episode statistics.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of the study was to determine whether establishment of a specific liaison psychiatry service designed to offer a rapid response with facilitated hospital discharge led to reduced acute hospital length of inpatient stay. METHODS: We used interrupted time series based upon routine NHS data from secondary care service in two acute general hospitals, for all adult (16+ years) inpatient admissions (114,029 inpatient spells representing 70,575 individual patients) over 3 years. RESULTS: Length of stay reduced over time in both hospitals. Against a background of falling length of stay across the study period, there was no discernible effect of the rapid access/early discharge liaison service on length of stay, either as a step change or linear decline. This finding held for all patients and for those over 65 years and those discharged with a mental health diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Using routine NHS data for a whole hospital it was not possible to replicate a previous report that a rapid access liaison psychiatry service for inpatients produces substantial reductions in length of stay, and commissioners of services should be cautious of claims to the contrary. Further research to determine if there is an effect for sub-groups will require major improvements in the way co-morbid mental disorders are coded in NHS practice.

Liaison psychiatry-measurement and evaluation of service types, referral patterns and outcomes (LP-MAESTRO): a protocol.

INTRODUCTION: We describe the protocol for a project that will use linkage of routinely collected NHS data to answer a question about the nature and effectiveness of liaison psychiatry services in acute hospitals in England. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The project will use three data sources: (1) Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), a database controlled by NHS Digital that contains patient data relating to emergency department (ED), inpatient and outpatient episodes at hospitals in England; (2) ResearchOne, a research database controlled by The Phoenix Partnership (TPP) that contains patient data relating to primary care provided by organisations using the SystmOne clinical information system and (3) clinical databases controlled by mental health trusts that contain patient data relating to care provided by liaison psychiatry services. We will link patient data from these sources to construct care pathways for patients who have been admitted to a particular hospital and determine those patients who have been seen by a liaison psychiatry service during their admission.Patient care pathways will form the basis of a matched cohort design to test the effectiveness of liaison intervention. We will combine healthcare utilisation within care pathways using cost figures from national databases. We will compare the cost of each care pathway and the impact of a broad set of health-related outcomes to obtain preliminary estimates of cost-effectiveness for liaison psychiatry services. We will carry out an exploratory incremental cost-effectiveness analysis from a whole system perspective. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Individual patient consent will not be feasible for this study. Favourable ethical opinion has been obtained from the NHS Research Ethics Committee (North of Scotland) (REF: 16/NS/0025) for Work Stream 2 (phase 1) of the Liaison psychiatry-measurement and evaluation of service types, referral patterns and outcomes study. The Confidentiality Advisory Group at the Health Research Authority determined that Section 251 approval under Regulation 5 of the Health Service (Control of Patient Information) Regulations 2002 was not required for the study 'on the basis that there is no disclosure of patient identifiable data without consent' (REF: 16/CAG/0037).Results of the study will be published in academic journals in health services research and mental health. Details of the study methodology will also be published in an academic journal. Discussion papers will be authored for health service commissioners.

Integrated liaison psychiatry services in England: a qualitative study of the views of liaison practitioners and acute hospital staffs from four distinctly different kinds of liaison service.

BACKGROUND: Liaison psychiatry services provide mental health care for patients in physical healthcare (usually acute hospital) settings including emergency departments. Liaison work involves close collaboration with acute hospital staff so that high quality care can be provided. Services however are patchy, relatively underfunded, heterogeneous and poorly integrated into acute hospital care pathways. METHODS: We carried out in-depth semi-structured interviews with 73 liaison psychiatry and acute hospital staff from 11 different acute hospitals in England. The 11 hospitals were purposively sample to represent hospitals in which four different types of liaison services operated. Staff were identified to ensure diversity according to professional background, sub-specialism within the team, and whether they had a clinical or managerial focus. All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. The data were analysed using a best-fit framework analysis. RESULTS: Several key themes emerged in relation to facilitators and barriers to the effective delivery of integrated services. There were problems with continuity of care across the secondary-primary interface; a lack of mental health resources in primary care to support discharge; a lack of shared information systems; a disproportionate length of time spent recording information as opposed to face to face patient contact; and a lack of a shared vision of care. Relatively few facilitators were identified although interviewees reported a focus on patient care. Similar problems were identified across different liaison service types. CONCLUSIONS: The problems that we have identified need to be addressed by both liaison and acute hospital teams, managers and funders, if high quality integrated physical and mental health care is to be provided in the acute hospital setting.

Organisation and delivery of liaison psychiatry services in general hospitals in England: results of a national survey.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the current provision of hospital-based liaison psychiatry services in England, and to determine different models of liaison service that are currently operating in England. DESIGN: Cross-sectional observational study comprising an electronic survey followed by targeted telephone interviews. SETTING: All 179 acute hospitals with an emergency department in England. PARTICIPANTS: 168 hospitals that had a liaison psychiatry service completed an electronic survey. Telephone interviews were conducted for 57 hospitals that reported specialist liaison services additional to provision for acute care. MEASURES: Data included the location, service structures and staffing, working practices, relations with other mental health service providers, policies such as response times and funding. Model 2-based clustering was used to characterise the services. Telephone interviews identified the range of additional liaison psychiatry services provided. RESULTS: Most hospitals (141, 79%) reported a 7-day service responding to acute referrals from the emergency department and wards. However, under half of hospitals had 24 hours access to the service (78, 44%). One-third of hospitals (57, 32%) provided non-acute liaison work including outpatient clinics and links to specialist hospital services. 156 hospitals (87%) had a multidisciplinary service including a psychiatrist and mental health nurses. We derived a four-cluster model of liaison psychiatry using variables resulting from the electronic survey; the salient features of clusters were staffing numbers, especially nursing; provision of rapid response 24 hours 7-day acute services; offering outpatient and other non-acute work, and containing age-specific teams for older adults. CONCLUSIONS: This is the most comprehensive study to date of liaison psychiatry in England and demonstrates the wide availability of such services nationally. Although all services provide an acute assessment function, there is no uniformity about hours of coverage or expectation of response times. Most services were better characterised by the model we developed than by current classification systems for liaison psychiatry.

A programme theory for liaison mental health services in England.

BACKGROUND: Mechanisms by which liaison mental health services (LMHS) may bring about improved patient and organisational outcomes are poorly understood. A small number of logic models have been developed, but they fail to capture the complexity of clinical practice. METHOD: We synthesised data from a variety of sources including a large national survey, 73 in-depth interviews with acute and liaison staff working in hospitals with different types of liaison mental health services, and relevant local, national and international literature. We generated logic models for two common performance indicators used to assess organisational outcomes for LMHS: response times in the emergency department and hospital length of stay for people with mental health problems. RESULTS: We identified 8 areas of complexity that influence performance, and 6 trade-offs which drove the models in different directions depending upon the balance of the trade-off. The logic models we developed could only be captured by consideration of more than one pass through the system, the complexity in which they operated, and the trade-offs that occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings are important for commissioners of liaison services. Reliance on simple target setting may result in services that are unbalanced and not patient-centred. Targets need to be reviewed on a regular basis, together with other data that reflect the wider impact of the service, and any external changes in the system that affect the performance of LMHS, which are beyond their control.

The development of an outcome measure for liaison mental health services.

Aims and methodTo develop and pilot a clinician-rated outcome scale to evaluate symptomatic outcomes in liaison psychiatry services. Three hundred and sixty patient contacts with 207 separate individuals were rated using six subscales (mood, psychosis, cognition, substance misuse, mind-body problems and behavioural disturbance) plus two additional items (side-effects of medication and capacity to consent for medical treatment). Each item was rated on a five-point scale from 0 to 5 (nil, mild, moderate, severe and very severe). RESULTS: The liaison outcome measure was acceptable and easy to use. All subscales showed acceptable interrater reliability, with the exception of the mind-body subscale. Overall, the measure appears to show stability and sensitivity to change.Clinical implicationsThe measure provides a useful and robust way to determine symptomatic change in a liaison mental health setting, although the mind-body subscale requires modification.Declaration of interestNone.

A multidimensional Framework for Routine Outcome Measurement in Liaison Psychiatry (FROM-LP).

In the field of liaison psychiatry, as in all areas of healthcare, there is an essential need for well-organised and consistent collection of information on outcomes, from a range of perspectives. This special article introduces, and describes the development of, the multidimensional Framework for Routine Outcome Measurement in Liaison Psychiatry (FROM-LP). This was challenging owing to the variety of service settings and types of intervention which characterise liaison psychiatry. Similar challenges may be faced by other specialties and this, along with the direct relevance of much of the eventual content of the framework, will broaden the interest of this article.

Munchausen's syndrome presenting as rectal foreign body insertion: a case report.

BACKGROUND: This case report shows that Munchausen's syndrome can present as rectal foreign body insertion. Although the presentation of rectal foreign bodies has frequently been described in the medical literature, the insertion of foreign bodies into the rectum for reasons other than sexual gratification has rarely been considered. CASE PRESENTATION: A 30 year old, unmarried Caucasian male presented with a history of having been sexually assaulted five days earlier in a nearby city by a group of unknown males. He reported that during the assault a glass bottle was forcibly inserted into his rectum and the bottle neck broke. On examination, there was no evidence of external injury to the patient. Further assessment lead to a diagnosis of Munchausen's syndrome. The rationale for this is explained. A description and summary of current knowledge about the condition is also provided, including appropriate treatment approaches. CONCLUSION: This case report is important because assumptions regarding the motivation for insertion of foreign bodies into the rectum may lead to the diagnosis of Munchausen's syndrome being missed. This would result in the appropriate course of action, with regard to treatment, not being followed. It is suggested that clinicians consider the specific motivation for the behaviour in all cases of rectal foreign body insertion, including the possibility of factitious disorder such as Munchausen's syndrome, and avoid any assumption that it has been carried out for the purpose of sexual gratification. Early involvement of psychiatrists is recommended. Cases of Munchausen's syndrome presenting as rectal foreign body insertion may be identified and addressed more effectively using the approach described.