Evaluation of intensive community care services for young people with psychiatric emergencies: study protocol for a multi-centre parallel-group, single-blinded randomized controlled trial with an internal pilot phase.

BACKGROUND: Over 3000 young people under the age of 18 are admitted to Tier 4 Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) inpatient units across the UK each year. The average length of hospital stay for young people across all psychiatric units in the UK is 120 days. Research is needed to identify the most effective and efficient ways to care for young people (YP) with psychiatric emergencies. This study aims to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of intensive community care service (ICCS) compared to treatment as usual (TAU) for young people with psychiatric emergencies. METHODS: This is a multicentre two-arm randomized controlled trial (RCT) with an internal pilot phase. Young people aged 12 to < 18 considered for admission at participating NHS organizations across the UK will be randomized 1:1 to either TAU or ICCS. The primary outcome is the time to return to or start education, employment, or training (EET) at 6 months post-randomization. Secondary outcomes will include evaluations of mental health and overall well-being and patient satisfaction. Service use and costs and cost-effectiveness will also be explored. Intention-to-treat analysis will be adopted. The trial is expected to be completed within 42 months, with an internal pilot phase in the first 12 months to assess the recruitment feasibility. A process evaluation using visual semi-structured interviews will be conducted with 42 young people and 42 healthcare workers. DISCUSSION: This trial is the first well-powered randomized controlled trial evaluating the clinical and cost-effectiveness of ICCS compared to TAU for young people with psychiatric emergencies in Great Britain. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN ISRCTN42999542, Registration on April 29, 2020.

Should junior doctors strike?

An impasse in negotiations between the Department of Health (DoH) and the British Medical Association in November this year led to an overwhelming vote for industrial action (IA) by junior doctors. At the time of writing, a last minute concession by DoH led to a deferment of IA to allow further negotiations mediated by the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service. However, IA by junior doctors remains a possibility if these negotiations stall again. Would the proposed action be ethically justifiable? Furthermore, is IA by doctors ever ethically defendable? Building on previous work, we explore important ethical considerations for doctors considering IA. The primary moral objection to doctors striking is often claimed to be risk of harm to patients. Other common arguments against IA by doctors include breaching their vocational responsibilities and possible damage to their relationship with patients and the public in general. These positions are in turn countered by claims of a greater long-term good and the legal and moral rights of employees to strike. Absolute restrictions appear to be hard to justify in the modern context, as does an unrestricted right to IA. We review these arguments, find that some common moral objections to doctors striking may be less relevant to the current situation, that a stronger contemporary objection to IA might be from a position of social justice and suggest criteria for ethically permissible doctor IA.