Asking about self-harm during risk assessment in psychosocial assessments in the emergency department: questions that facilitate and deter disclosure of self-harm.

BACKGROUND: Emergency departments are key settings for suicide prevention. Most people are deemed to be at no or low risk in final contacts before death. AIM: To micro-analyse how clinicians ask about suicidal ideation and/or self-harm in emergency department psychosocial assessments and how patients respond. METHOD: Forty-six psychosocial assessments between mental health clinicians and people with suicidal ideation and/or self-harm were video-recorded. Verbal and non-verbal features of 55 question-answer sequences about self-harm thoughts and/or actions were micro-analysed using conversation analysis. Fisher's exact test was used to test the hypothesis that question type was associated with patient disclosure. RESULTS: (a) Eighty-four per cent of initial questions (N = 46/55) were closed yes/no questions about self-harm thoughts and/or feelings, plans to self-harm, potential for future self-harm, predicting risk of future self-harm and being okay or keeping safe. Patients disclosed minimal information in response to closed questions, whereas open questions elicited ambivalent and information rich responses. (b) All closed questions were leading, with 54% inviting no and 46% inviting yes. When patients were asked no-inviting questions, the disclosure rate was 8%, compared to 65% when asked yes-inviting questions (P < 0.05 Fisher's exact test). (c) Patients struggled to respond when asked to predict future self-harm or guarantee safety. (d) Half of closed questions had a narrow timeframe (e.g. at the moment, overnight) or were tied to possible discharge. CONCLUSION: Across assessments, there is a bias towards not uncovering thoughts and plans of self-harm through the cumulative effect of leading questions that invite a no response, their narrow timeframe and tying questions to possible discharge. Open questions, yes-inviting questions and asking how people feel about the future facilitate disclosure.

Longitudinal realist evaluation of the Dementia PersonAlised Care Team (D-PACT) intervention: protocol.

BACKGROUND: Different dementia support roles exist but evidence is lacking on which aspects are best, for whom, and in what circumstances, and on their associated costs and benefits. Phase 1 of the Dementia PersonAlised Care Team programme (D-PACT) developed a post-diagnostic primary care-based intervention for people with dementia and their carers and assessed the feasibility of a trial. AIM: Phase 2 of the programme aims to 1) refine the programme theory on how, when, and for whom the intervention works; and 2) evaluate its value and impact. DESIGN & SETTING: A realist longitudinal mixed-methods evaluation will be conducted in urban, rural, and coastal areas across South West and North West England where low-income or ethnic minority populations (for example, South Asian) are represented. Design was informed by patient, public, and professional stakeholder input and phase 1 findings. METHOD: High-volume qualitative and quantitative data will be collected longitudinally from people with dementia, carers, and practitioners. Analyses will comprise the following: 1) realist longitudinal case studies; 2) conversation analysis of recorded interactions; 3) statistical analyses of outcome and experience questionnaires; 4a) health economic analysis examining costs of delivery; and 4b) realist economic analysis of high-cost events and 'near misses'. All findings will be synthesised using a joint display table, evidence appraisal tool, triangulation, and stakeholder co-analysis. CONCLUSION: The realist evaluation will describe how, why, and for whom the intervention does or does not lead to change over time. It will also demonstrate how a non-randomised design can be more appropriate for complex interventions with similar questions or populations.

Clinical- and cost-effectiveness of a technology-supported and solution-focused intervention (DIALOG+) in treatment of patients with chronic depression-study protocol for a multi-site, cluster randomised controlled trial [TACK].

BACKGROUND: Many with an acute depressive disorder go on to develop chronic depression, despite ongoing care. There are few specifically designed interventions to treat chronic depression. DIALOG+, a technology-assisted intervention based on the principles of solution-focused therapy, may be beneficial. It has been shown to be effective as a treatment for patients with psychotic disorders, especially in regards to increasing quality of life. DIALOG+ was designed to be flexibly applied and not diagnosis-specific, aiming to structure communication and generate a personally-tailored care plan. This cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) is part of a programme of research to adapt and test DIALOG+ for patients with chronic depression. METHODS: Patients will be eligible for the trial, if they have exhibited symptoms of depression or non-psychotic low mood for at least 2 years, have regular contact with a clinician and have a low subjective quality of life and moderate depressive symptoms. Clinicians, who routinely see eligible patients, will be recruited from a number of sites across NHS England. Clusters will have between 1 and 6 patients per clinician and will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to either the intervention (DIALOG+) or active control group (treatment as usual + DIALOG scale). Clinicians in the intervention group are trained and asked to deliver the intervention regularly for 12 months. Active control participants receive treatment as usual and are asked to rate their satisfaction with areas of life and treatment on the DIALOG scale at the end of the clinical session. Approximately 112 clinician clusters will be recruited to reach a total patient sample size of 376. Clinical and social outcomes including costs are assessed at baseline and 3, 6 and 12 months post randomisation. The primary outcome will be subjective quality of life at 12 months. DISCUSSION: This definitive multi-site, cluster RCT aims to evaluate the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of DIALOG+ for people with chronic depression. If shown to be effective for this patient population it could be used to improve outcomes of mental health care on a larger scale, ensuring that patients with complex and co-morbid diagnoses can benefit. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN11301686 . Registered on 13 Jun 2019.

Experience-based investigation and codesign of approaches to prevent and reduce Mental Health Act use (CO-PACT): a protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The Independent Review of the Mental Health Act (MHA) in England and Wales confirmed increasing levels of compulsory detentions, especially for racialised communities. This research aims to: (a) understand the causes of and propose preventive opportunities to reduce the disproportionate use of the MHA, (b) use an adapted form of experience-based codesign (EBCD) to facilitate system-wide changes and (c) foreground the voices of service users at risk of detention to radically reform policy and implement new legislation to ensure the principles of equity are retained. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a qualitative study, using a comparative case study design. This study is composed of five work packages; photovoice workshops will be conducted in eight local systems with service users and healthcare professionals separately (WP1); a series of three EBCD workshops in each local system to develop approaches that reduce detentions and improve the experience of people from racialised communities. This will inform a comparative analysis and national knowledge exchange workshop (WP2); an evaluation led by the patient and public involvement group to better understand what it is like for people to participate in photovoice, codesign and participatory research (WP3); an economic evaluation (WP4) and dissemination strategy (WP5). The impact of the involvement of patients and public will be independently evaluated. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study is sponsored by the University of Oxford and granted ethical approval from the NHS Research Ethics Committee and Health Research Authority (21/SC/0204). The outputs from this study will be shared through several local and national channels.

Psychosocial Assessment in the Emergency Department.

Background: In the United Kingdom, suicide risk is assessed in the emergency department (ED) in a face-to-face assessment with psychiatric liaison practitioners. This study aimed to explore patient experiences of psychosocial assessment after presenting with self-harm/suicidality. Method: A total of 28 patients were interviewed within 2 weeks of ED attendance for self-harm/suicidality. Interviews were transcribed and analyzed using inductive thematic analysis. Results: People described two different experiences. A therapeutic interaction was about the "person" and made people feel their life mattered and instilled hope for the future. This was characterized by: unscripted conversation; warmth promoting disclosure; psychological exploration of feelings; validation of distress; and a coproduced care plan. A formulaic assessment was about the "risk" and made people feel their life did not matter and hopeless about the future. This was characterized by: feeling judged and not worthy of help; a focus on risk and form filling; a trivial treatment plan; and loss of trust in services. Limitations: Our study comprised a single ED and used a non-diverse sample. Conclusion: Psychosocial assessment in the ED impacts on hope for people in crisis. A focus on therapeutic communication that is about the person, as well as the risk, improves patient experience, decreases distress, and instills hope that life is worth living.

An engaged approach to exploring issues around poverty and mental health: A reflective evaluation of the research process from researchers and community partners involved in the DeStress study.

BACKGROUND: Involving patients, service users, carers and members of the public in research has been part of health policy and practice in the UK for the last 15 years. However, low-income communities tend to remain marginalized from the co-design and delivery of mental health research, perpetuating the potential for health inequalities. Greater understanding is therefore needed on how to meaningfully engage low-income communities in mental health research. OBJECTIVES: To explore and articulate whether and how an engaged research approach facilitated knowledge coproduction relating to poverty and mental distress. SETTING: A reflective evaluation of community and researcher engagement in the DeStress study that took place in two low-income areas of South-west England. DESIGN: Reflective evaluation by the authors through on-going feedback, a focus group and first-person writing and discussion on experiences of working with the DeStress project, and how knowledge coproduction was influenced by an engaged research approach. RESULTS: An engaged research approach influenced the process and delivery of the DeStress project, creating a space where community partners felt empowered to coproduce knowledge relating to poverty-related mental distress, treatment and the training of health professionals that would otherwise have been missed. We examine motivations for involvement, factors sustaining engagement, how coproduction influenced research analysis, findings and dissemination of outputs, and what involvement meant for different stakeholders. CONCLUSION: Engaged research supported the coproduction of knowledge in mental health research with low-income communities which led to multiple impacts.

'Not at the diagnosis point': Dealing with contradiction in autism assessment teams.

Social science literature has documented how the concept of diagnosis can be seen as an interactive process, imbued with uncertainty and contradiction, which undermines a straightforward notion of diagnosis as a way to identify underlying biological problems that cause disease. We contribute to this body of work by examining the process of resolving contradiction in autism diagnosis for adults and adolescents. Autism is a useful case study as diagnosis can be a complex and protracted process due to the heterogeneity of symptoms and the necessity to interpret behaviours that may be ambiguous. We audio-recorded and transcribed 18 specialist clinical assessment meetings in four teams in England, covering 88 cases in two adult, one child and one adolescent (14+) setting. We undertook a qualitative analysis of discursive processes and narrative case-building structure utilised by clinicians to counteract contradiction.We identified a three-part interactional pattern which allows clinicians to forward evidence for and against a diagnosis, facilitates their collaborative decision-making process and enables them to build a plausible narrative which accounts for the diagnostic decision. Pragmatism was found to operate as a strategy to help assign diagnosis within a condition which, diagnostically, is permeated by uncertainty and contradiction. Resolution of contradiction from different aspects of the assessment serves to create a narratively-coherent, intelligible clinical entity that is autism.

Drawing a line in the sand: affect and testimony in autism assessment teams in the UK.

Diagnosis of autism in the UK is generally made within a multidisciplinary team setting and is primarily based on observation and clinical interview. We examined how clinicians diagnose autism in practice by observing post-assessment meetings in specialist autism teams. Eighteen meetings across four teams based in the south of England and covering 88 cases were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed using thematic analysis. We drew out two themes, related to the way in which clinicians expressed their specialist disciplinary knowledge to come to diagnostic consensus: Feeling Autism in the Encounter; and Evaluating Testimonies of Non-present Actors. We show how clinicians produce objective accounts through their situated practices and perform diagnosis as an act of interpretation, affect and evaluation to meet the institutional demands of the diagnostic setting. Our study contributes to our understanding of how diagnosis is accomplished in practice.

Interventions to improve therapeutic communications between Black and minority ethnic patients and professionals in psychiatric services: systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Communication may be an influential determinant of inequality of access to, engagement with and benefit from psychiatric services. AIMS: To review the evidence on interventions designed to improve therapeutic communications between Black and minority ethnic patients and clinicians who provide care in psychiatric services. METHOD: Systematic review and evidence synthesis (PROSPERO registration: CRD42011001661). Data sources included the published and the 'grey' literature. A survey of experts and a consultation with patients and carers all contributed to the evidence synthesis, interpretation and recommendations. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies were included in our analysis. The trials showed benefits mainly for depressive symptoms, experiences of care, knowledge, stigma, adherence to prescribed medication, insight and alliance. The effect sizes were smaller for better-quality trials (range of d 0.18-0.75) than for moderate- or lower-quality studies (range of d 0.18-4.3). The review found only two studies offering weak economic evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Culturally adapted psychotherapies, and ethnographic and motivational assessment leading to psychotherapies were effective and favoured by patients and carers. Further trials are needed from outside of the UK and USA, as are economic evaluations and studies of routine psychiatric care practices.

Interventions designed to improve therapeutic communications between black and minority ethnic people and professionals working in psychiatric services: a systematic review of the evidence for their effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: Black and minority ethnic (BME) people using psychiatric services are at greater risk of non-engagement, dropout from care and not receiving evidence-based interventions than white British people. OBJECTIVES: To identify effective interventions designed to improve therapeutic communications (TCs) for BME patients using psychiatric services in the UK, to identify gaps in the research literature and to recommend future research. PARTICIPANTS: Black African, black Caribbean, black British, white British, Pakistani and Bangladeshi patients in psychiatric services in the UK, or recruited from the community to enter psychiatric care. Some studies from the USA included Hispanic, Latino, Chinese, Vietnamese, Cambodian and African American people. INTERVENTIONS: Any that improve TCs between BME patients and staff in psychiatric services. DATA SOURCES: The published literature, 'grey' literature, an expert survey, and patients' and carers' perspectives on the evidence base. Databases were searched from their inception to 4 February 2013. Databases included MEDLINE, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, The Cochrane Library, Social Science Citation Index, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, EMBASE, The Campbell Collaboration and ProQuest for dissertations. REVIEW METHODS: Studies were included if they reported evaluation data about interventions designed to improve therapeutic outcomes by improving communication between BME patients and psychiatric professionals. Qualitative studies and reports in the grey literature were included only if they gave a critical evaluative statement. Two members of the team selected studies against pre-established criteria and any differences were resolved by consensus or by a third reviewer, if necessary. Data were extracted independently by two people and summarised in tables by specific study designs. Studies were subjected to a narrative synthesis that included a thematic analysis contrasting populations, countries and the strength of evidence for any intervention. The components of the interventions were compared. Patient perspectives on acceptability were considered alongside quality scores and methodological strengths and weaknesses. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies (19 from the published literature and two from the grey literature) met the inclusion criteria. There were 12 trials, two observational quantitative studies, three case series, a qualitative study and three descriptive case studies. Only two studies, one a pilot trial and one a case series, included economic data; in both, a favourable but weak economic case could be made for the intervention. The trials tested interventions to prepare patients for therapeutic interventions, variable levels of ethnic matching (of professional to patient), cultural adaptation of therapies, and interventions that included social community systems in order to facilitate access to services. Empowering interventions favoured by patients and carers included adapted cognitive-behavioural therapy, assessments of explanatory models, cultural consultation, ethnographic and motivational interviews, and a telepsychiatry intervention. LIMITATIONS: Studies tended to have small sample sizes or to be pilot studies, and to use proxy rather than direct measures for TCs. CONCLUSIONS: Empowering interventions should be further researched and brought to the attention of commissioners. Several promising interventions need further evaluative research and economic evaluations are needed. STUDY REGISTRATION: The study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42011001661. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Financial incentives to improve adherence to anti-psychotic maintenance medication in non-adherent patients - a cluster randomised controlled trial (FIAT).

BACKGROUND: Various interventions have been tested to achieve adherence to anti-psychotic maintenance medication in non-adherent patients with psychotic disorders, and there is no consistent evidence for the effectiveness of any established intervention. The effectiveness of financial incentives in improving adherence to a range of treatments has been demonstrated; no randomised controlled trial however has tested the use of financial incentives to achieve medication adherence for patients with psychotic disorders living in the community. METHODS/DESIGN: In a cluster randomised controlled trial, 34 mental health teams caring for difficult to engage patients in the community will be randomly allocated to either the intervention group, where patients will be offered a financial incentive for each anti-psychotic depot medication they receive over a 12 month period, or the control group, where all patients will receive treatment as usual. We will recruit 136 patients with psychotic disorders who use these services and who have problems adhering to antipsychotic depot medication, although all conventional methods to achieve adherence have been tried. The primary outcome will be adherence levels, and secondary outcomes are global clinical improvement, number of voluntary and involuntary hospital admissions, number of attempted and completed suicides, incidents of physical violence, number of police arrests, number of days spent in work/training/education, subjective quality of life and satisfaction with medication. We will also establish the cost effectiveness of offering financial incentives. DISCUSSION: The study aims to provide new evidence on the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of offering financial incentives to patients with psychotic disorders to adhere to antipsychotic maintenance medication. If financial incentives improve adherence and lead to better health and social outcomes, they may be recommended as one option to improve the treatment of non-adherent patients with psychotic disorders. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current controlled trials ISRCTN77769281.