Respect for the journey: a survivor-led investigation of undergoing psychotherapy assessment.

PURPOSE: Psychotherapy assessments are key decision points for both clients and services, carrying considerable weight on both sides. Limited research indicates that assessments have immediate and long-term impacts on clients, particularly where trauma has been experienced, affecting engagement with therapy. Understanding assessments from clients' perspectives can inform service development and improve client experience. METHODS: This is a survivor-led exploration of clients' experiences of undergoing assessment for talking therapies. Interviews were conducted with seven people who had undergone assessment for psychological therapies in third sector and NHS services. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically. RESULTS: The core theme was 'respect for the journey' reflecting the need expressed by participants for their life experiences prior to the assessment to be given full respect and consideration. Six sub-themes were identified: trauma and desperation, fear of judgement, search for trust and safety, sharing and withholding (a balancing act), feeling deconstructed, and finding hope. CONCLUSIONS: The findings highlight the heightened emotional power surrounding psychotherapy assessments, reflecting the journey participants had undertaken to reach this point. The dilemma facing clients at the heart of an assessment-how much to share and how much to withhold-demonstrates the importance for services and assessors of treating the journey a client has made to the assessment with care and respect. Findings indicate the value of services and practitioners undertaking a trauma-informed approach to assessment encounters.

The impact of working as a peer worker in mental health services: a longitudinal mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: Peer workers are increasingly employed in mental health services to use their own experiences of mental distress in supporting others with similar experiences. While evidence is emerging of the benefits of peer support for people using services, the impact on peer workers is less clear. There is a lack of research that takes a longitudinal approach to exploring impact on both employment outcomes for peer workers, and their experiences of working in the peer worker role. METHODS: In a longitudinal mixed methods study, 32 peer workers providing peer support for discharge from inpatient to community mental health care - as part of a randomised controlled trial - undertook in-depth qualitative interviews conducted by service user researchers, and completed measures of wellbeing, burnout, job satisfaction and multi-disciplinary team working after completing training, and four and 12 months into the role. Questionnaire data were summarised and compared to outcomes for relevant population norms, and changes in outcomes were analysed using paired t-tests. Thematic analysis and interpretive workshops involving service user researchers were used to analysis interview transcripts. A critical interpretive synthesis approach was used to synthesise analyses of both datasets. RESULTS: For the duration of the study, all questionnaire outcomes were comparable with population norms for health professionals or for the general population. There were small-to-medium decreases in wellbeing and aspects of job satisfaction, and increase in burnout after 4 months, but these changes were largely not maintained at 12 months. Peer workers felt valued, empowered and connected in the role, but could find it challenging to adjust to the demands of the job after initial optimism. Supervision and being part of a standalone peer worker team was supportive, although communication with clinical teams could be improved. CONCLUSIONS: Peer workers seem no more likely to experience negative impacts of working than other healthcare professionals but should be well supported as they settle into post, provided with in-work training and support around job insecurity. Research is needed to optimise working arrangements for peer workers alongside clinical teams.

Survivor-led guidelines for conducting trauma-informed psychological therapy assessments: Development and modified Delphi study.

BACKGROUND: Psychological therapy assessments are a key point at which a person is accepted into a service or referred on. There is evidence of service users experiencing harm, dropping out of services and potentially experiencing poor outcomes because of inadequate assessment practices. Approaches to assessment tend to be developed by individual services, with a lack of research identifying what makes a good assessment. METHODS: This survivor-led study, based in England, aimed to generate guidelines for conducting trauma-informed psychological therapy assessments. The study was guided by a Service User Advisory Group and a Clinician Advisory Group. The study was conducted in three key stages: (i) identifying, modelling and drafting guideline content (ii) modified Delphi study and (iii) guideline finalization. Stage 1 was informed by literature reviews, qualitative research, data workshops with Advisory Groups and an expert consultation. Fifty-nine people with relevant experiences then participated in a single-stage modified Delphi (Stage 2). The guidelines were finalized through an analysis of Delphi open comments and a final expert consultation (Stage 3). RESULTS: The guidelines evolved through each stage of the process, and all items were deemed important by >90% of Delphi participants. The final trauma-informed guidelines contain eight principles, including 'focus on relationships', 'from systems to people' and 'healing environments'. CONCLUSIONS: Experiential knowledge was key in generating the guidelines and conceptualizing content, with a consequent focus on areas, such as recognizing power differentials, understanding oppression as trauma and the relational aspects of assessments. Future research should focus on guideline implementation and investigate whether this impacts service user dropout, engagement with therapy, and outcomes. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This study is an example of survivor research, with several authors, including the study lead, identifying as survivors. We consider the ways in which our identities as survivor researchers impacted the study findings.

'Dignity and respect': An example of service user leadership and co-production in mental health research.

This paper explores the methodological aspects of a user-led study investigating mental health service user experiences of targeted violence and abuse (often called 'hate crime'). 'Keeping Control' was a 16-month qualitative study, undertaken in the context of adult safeguarding reforms in England. By collecting data on service user concepts and experiences, the research sought to address a gap in research and practice knowledge relating to targeted violence, abuse and hostility against people with mental health problems. In this paper, we discuss the significance of the design and methodology used for this study, with a particular focus on the interviews with service users. The research was both user-led and carried out in collaboration with practitioners and academics, a form of research co-production. Our aim is to inform researchers, practitioners and policymakers about the value of user leadership in co-productive research with practitioners, particularly for a highly sensitive and potentially distressing topic.

Recovery-focused mental health care planning and co-ordination in acute inpatient mental health settings: a cross national comparative mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: Involving mental health service users in planning and reviewing their care can help personalised care focused on recovery, with the aim of developing goals specific to the individual and designed to maximise achievements and social integration. We aimed to ascertain the views of service users, carers and staff in acute inpatient wards on factors that facilitated or acted as barriers to collaborative, recovery-focused care. METHODS: A cross-national comparative mixed-methods study involving 19 mental health wards in six service provider sites in England and Wales. This included a survey using established standardised measures of service users (n = 301) and staff (n = 290) and embedded case studies involving interviews with staff, service users and carers (n = 76). Quantitative and qualitative data were analysed within and across sites using descriptive and inferential statistics, and framework method. RESULTS: For service users, when recovery-oriented focus was high, the quality of care was rated highly, as was the quality of therapeutic relationships. For staff, there was a moderate correlation between recovery orientation and quality of therapeutic relationships, with considerable variability. Staff members rated the quality of therapeutic relationships higher than service users did. Staff accounts of routine collaboration contrasted with a more mixed picture in service user accounts. Definitions and understandings of recovery varied, as did views of hospital care in promoting recovery. Managing risk was a central issue for staff, and service users were aware of measures taken to keep them safe, although their involvement in discussions was less apparent. CONCLUSIONS: There is positive practice within acute inpatient wards, with evidence of commitment to safe, respectful, compassionate care. Recovery ideas were evident but there remained ambivalence on their relevance to inpatient care. Service users were aware of efforts taken to keep them safe, but despite measures described by staff, they did not feel routinely involved in care planning or risk management decisions. Research on increasing therapeutic contact time, shared decision making in risk assessment and using recovery focused tools could further promote personalised and recovery-focused care planning. This paper arises from a larger study published by National Institute for Health Research (Simpson A, et al, Health Serv Deliv Res 5(26), 2017).

Ordinary risks and accepted fictions: how contrasting and competing priorities work in risk assessment and mental health care planning.

BACKGROUND: Communication and information sharing are considered crucial to recovery-focused mental health services. Effective mental health care planning and coordination includes assessment and management of risk and safety. OBJECTIVE: Using data from our cross-national mixed-method study of care planning and coordination, we examined what patients, family members and workers say about risk assessment and management and explored the contents of care plans. DESIGN: Thematic analysis of qualitative research interviews (n = 117) with patients, family members and workers, across four English and two Welsh National Health Service sites. Care plans were reviewed (n = 33) using a structured template. FINDINGS: Participants have contrasting priorities in relation to risk. Patients see benefit in discussions about risk, but cast the process as a worker priority that may lead to loss of liberty. Relationships with workers are key to family members and patients; however, worker claims of involving people in the care planning process do not extend to risk assessment and management procedures for fear of causing upset. Workers locate risk as coming from the person rather than social or environmental factors, are risk averse and appear to prioritize the procedural aspects of assessment. CONCLUSIONS: Despite limitations, risk assessment is treated as legitimate work by professionals. Risk assessment practice operates as a type of fiction in which poor predictive ability and fear of consequences are accepted in the interests of normative certainty by all parties. As a consequence, risk adverse options are encouraged by workers and patients steered away from opportunities for ordinary risks thereby hindering the mobilization of their strengths and abilities.

Recovery-focused care planning and coordination in England and Wales: a cross-national mixed methods comparative case study.

BACKGROUND: In the UK, concerns about safety and fragmented community mental health care led to the development of the care programme approach in England and care and treatment planning in Wales. These systems require service users to have a care coordinator, written care plan and regular reviews of their care. Processes are required to be collaborative, recovery-focused and personalised but have rarely been researched. We aimed to obtain the views and experiences of stakeholders involved in community mental health care and identify factors that facilitate or act as barriers to personalised, collaborative, recovery-focused care. METHODS: We conducted a cross-national comparative study employing a concurrent transformative mixed-methods approach with embedded case studies across six service provider sites in England and Wales. The study included a survey of views on recovery, empowerment and therapeutic relationships in service users (n = 448) and recovery in care coordinators (n = 201); embedded case studies involving interviews with service providers, service users and carers (n = 117) and a review of care plans (n = 33). Quantitative and qualitative data were analysed within and across sites using inferential statistics, correlations and framework method. RESULTS: Significant differences were found across sites for scores on therapeutic relationships. Variation within sites and participant groups was reported in experiences of care planning and understandings of recovery and personalisation. Care plans were described as administratively burdensome and were rarely consulted. Carers reported varying levels of involvement. Risk assessments were central to clinical concerns but were rarely discussed with service users. Service users valued therapeutic relationships with care coordinators and others, and saw these as central to recovery. CONCLUSIONS: Administrative elements of care coordination reduce opportunities for recovery-focused and personalised work. There were few common understandings of recovery which may limit shared goals. Conversations on risk appeared to be neglected and assessments kept from service users. A reluctance to engage in dialogue about risk management may work against opportunities for positive risk-taking as part of recovery-focused work. Research to investigate innovative approaches to maximise staff contact time with service users and carers, shared decision-making in risk assessments, and training designed to enable personalised, recovery-focused care coordination is indicated.

Study protocol: cross-national comparative case study of recovery-focused mental health care planning and coordination (COCAPP).

BACKGROUND: The collaborative care planning study (COCAPP) is a cross-national comparative study of care planning and coordination in community mental healthcare settings. The context and delivery of mental health care is diverging between the countries of England and Wales whilst retaining points of common interest, hence providing a rich geographical comparison for research. Across England the key vehicle for the provision of recovery-focused, personalised, collaborative mental health care is the care programme approach (CPA). The CPA is a form of case management introduced in England in 1991, then revised in 2008. In Wales the CPA was introduced in 2003 but has now been superseded by The Mental Health (Care Co-ordination and Care and Treatment Planning) (CTP) Regulations (Mental Health Measure), a new statutory framework. In both countries, the CPA/CTP requires providers to: comprehensively assess health/social care needs and risks; develop a written care plan (which may incorporate risk assessments, crisis and contingency plans, advanced directives, relapse prevention plans, etc.) in collaboration with the service user and carer(s); allocate a care coordinator; and regularly review care. The overarching aim of this study is to identify and describe the factors that ensure CPA/CTP care planning and coordination is personalised, recovery-focused and conducted collaboratively. METHODS/DESIGN: COCAPP will employ a concurrent transformative mixed methods approach with embedded case studies. Phase 1 (Macro-level) will consider the national context through a meta-narrative mapping (MNM) review of national policies and the relevant research literature. Phase 2 (Meso-level and Micro-level) will include in-depth micro-level case studies of everyday 'frontline' practice and experience with detailed qualitative data from interviews and reviews of individual care plans. This will be nested within larger meso-level survey datasets, senior-level interviews and policy reviews in order to provide potential explanations and understanding. DISCUSSION: COCAPP will help identify the key components that support and hinder the provision of personalised, recovery-focused care planning and provide an informed rationale for a future planned intervention and evaluation.

Predictors of engagement with peer support: analysis of data from a randomised controlled trial of one-to-one peer support for discharge from inpatient psychiatric care.

BACKGROUND: A range of evidence for the effectiveness of one-to-one peer support in mental health services is emerging. Levels of engagement with peer support vary with limited studies showing few individual participant characteristics predicting engagement. Implementation factors that might predict engagement have not been considered. METHODS: Data were analysed from the intervention arm of the ENRICH trial of one-to-one peer support for discharge from acute psychiatric inpatient care. Two outcomes were considered: (1) a measure of 'engaged with peer worker'; (2) number of face-to-face contacts with peer worker post-discharge. Two sets of independent variables were analysed against each outcome: (1) pre-randomisation participant characteristics; (2) implementation factors measured pre-discharge. Analyses used logistic and zero-inflated negative binomial regression models according to outcome structure. RESULTS: Data were analysed for 265 participants randomised to peer support who had a known peer worker. Non-heterosexual participants had increased odds of engaging with peer support compared to heterosexual participants, OR = 4.38 (95% CI: 1.13, 16.9, p = .032). Longer duration of first contact with peer worker (OR = 1.03, 95% CI: 1.00, 1.04, p < .001) and more relationship building activities in the first contact (OR = 1.4, 95% CI: 1.13, 1.85, p = .004) were associated with greater odds of engaging with peer support. Analysis of number of contacts post-discharge showed consistent findings. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of peer support should include a focus on relationship building in the first session of peer support. The potential for peer support to break down barriers to accessing mental health services experienced by people from marginalised communities warrants further investigation.

The social underpinnings of mental distress in the time of COVID-19 - time for urgent action.

We argue that predictions of a 'tsunami' of mental health problems as a consequence of the pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and the lockdown are overstated; feelings of anxiety and sadness are entirely normal reactions to difficult circumstances, not symptoms of poor mental health.  Some people will need specialised mental health support, especially those already leading tough lives; we need immediate reversal of years of underfunding of community mental health services.  However, the disproportionate effects of COVID-19 on the most disadvantaged, especially BAME people placed at risk by their social and economic conditions, were entirely predictable. Mental health is best ensured by urgently rebuilding the social and economic supports stripped away over the last decade. Governments must pump funds into local authorities to rebuild community services, peer support, mutual aid and local community and voluntary sector organisations.  Health care organisations must tackle racism and discrimination to ensure genuine equal access to universal health care.  Government must replace highly conditional benefit systems by something like a universal basic income. All economic and social policies must be subjected to a legally binding mental health audit. This may sound unfeasibly expensive, but the social and economic costs, not to mention the costs in personal and community suffering, though often invisible, are far greater.