Potential strategies for supporting mental health and mitigating the risk of burnout among healthcare professionals: insights from the COVID-19 pandemic.

Healthcare professionals (HCPs) experienced prolonged stressful conditions during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, and the global situation (particularly in the United Kingdom) meant that they continue to sustain mental stress related to the subsequent cost-of-living and healthcare budgeting crises. The psychological toll on HCPs may lead to increased staff attrition, adversely impacting the quality of patient care and work security. To help mitigate this psychological impact, the current evidence is strongly supportive of healthcare providers consistently adopting programmes fostering improvement in coping and resilience, facilitating healthy lifestyle, and allocating some resources for therapeutic strategies (e.g. cognitive behavioural therapy-based strategies and other strategies specified to trauma-related issues) which can be delivered by trained professionals. We stress that some approaches are not a one-size-fits-all strategy, and we also highlight the need to encourage treatment-seeking among those who need it. These strategies are highly relevant to healthcare employers and policymakers to support all HCPs in settings marked by prolonged periods of stress. The investment in these strategies are expected not only to reduce staff attrition in the long-term, but are likely to add to the cost-effectiveness of overall healthcare budgetary allocation.

Study protocol for a pragmatic randomised controlled trial of comparing enhanced acceptance and commitment therapy plus (+) added to usual aftercare versus usual aftercare only, in patients living with or beyond cancer: SUrvivors' Rehabilitation Evaluation after CANcer (SURECAN) trial.

BACKGROUND: Two million people in the UK are living with or beyond cancer and a third of them report poor quality of life (QoL) due to problems such as fatigue, fear of cancer recurrence, and concerns about returning to work. We aimed to develop and evaluate an intervention based on acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT), suited to address the concerns of cancer survivors and in improving their QoL. We also recognise the importance of exercise and vocational activity on QoL and therefore will integrate options for physical activity and return to work/vocational support, thus ACT Plus (+). METHODS: We will conduct a multi-centre, pragmatic, theory driven, randomised controlled trial. We will assess whether ACT+ including usual aftercare (intervention) is more effective and cost-effective than usual aftercare alone (control). The primary outcome is QoL of participants living with or beyond cancer measured using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy: General scale (FACT-G) at 52 weeks. We will recruit 344 participants identified from secondary care sites who have completed hospital-based treatment for cancer with curative intent, with low QoL (determined by the FACT-G) and randomise with an allocation ratio of 1:1 to the intervention or control. The intervention (ACT+) will be delivered by NHS Talking Therapies, specialist services, and cancer charities. The intervention consists of up to eight sessions at weekly or fortnightly intervals using different modalities of delivery to suit individual needs, i.e. face-to-face sessions, over the phone or skype. DISCUSSION: To date, there have been no robust trials reporting both clinical and cost-effectiveness of an ACT based intervention for people with low QoL after curative cancer treatment in the UK. We will provide high quality evidence of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of adding ACT+ to usual aftercare provided by the NHS. If shown to be effective and cost-effective then commissioners, providers and cancer charities will know how to improve QoL in cancer survivors and their families. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN: ISRCTN67900293 . Registered on 09 December 2019. All items from the World Health Organization Trial Registration Data Set for this protocol can be found in Additional file 2 Table S1.

Qualitative study of experience of acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT+) amongst Survivors' Rehabilitation Evaluation after Cancer (SURECAN) trial participants and therapists: A protocol.

Background: This interview study forms part of a mixed methods process evaluation of the Survivors' Rehabilitation Evaluation after Cancer (SURECAN) trial to understand the experiences of participants (who are living with and beyond cancer) in receiving a form of acceptance and commitment therapy, and therapists providing the intervention. SURECAN is a multi-centre, pragmatic, individual participant randomised controlled trial of an intervention based on acceptance and commitment therapy supplemented by support for return to meaningful work and/or physical activity (ACT+). This qualitative study addresses the ways in which participants believe they benefit from ACT+ (or not), and how the ACT+ intervention might best be implemented into routine National Health Service (NHS) care. Methods: The study investigates experiences of ACT+ by different participants to understand how we can optimise the ACT+ intervention and its delivery (assuming the intervention is successful). We will conduct individual interviews with participants who have taken part in the active arm of the SURECAN trial to understand their experiences of engaging with and receiving ACT+, their perceptions of the impact of the therapy, and relevant contextual factors influencing these experiences. In particular, we will focus on comparing our interview findings between those trial participants who improved and those who failed to improve (or worsened), in terms of quality of life following ACT+. Additionally, we will conduct individual interviews with therapists who have delivered ACT+ as part of the SURECAN trial, to understand their experiences of delivering ACT+. Conclusions: Consistent with other qualitative protocols, this protocol is not registered. Instead, it is shared as a means of documenting ahead of time, how we are endeavouring to understand the ways in which a newly trialled talking therapy is received by patients and therapists, and how (if successful) it might be incorporated into the NHS.

Critical Psychiatry Debates; A Neglected Tool in Undergraduate Medical Education.

This article was migrated. The article was marked as recommended. Background: Healthcare professionals must adapt to everyday clinical controversies using their critical thinking and communication skills. Educational debates nurture these skills producing a well-rounded clinician. Their value is well established in healthcare education, yet they are not commonly employed, and there is no literature on their use in undergraduate Psychiatry teaching. Methods: We planned and implemented a one-off educational debate lesson as part of the teaching program of fourth-year medical students on their Psychiatry clinical placements. We collected and analyzed the students' feedback. Results: Although most students had no experience of debates, 79% found the learning event positive. The students also reported improvement in their confidence (58%), oral presentation skills (37%), critical thinking skills (71%) and the ability to cope with conflict (54%). In addition, there was a positive shift in their attitude towards Psychiatry (71%) and the chances of choosing it as a future speciality (33%). Conclusion: Our results showcase the benefit of using debates in shaping future doctors' non-clinical skills and practice attitudes. In this paper, we discuss a thematic analysis of students' feedback comments and reflect on several points in the planning and delivering educational debates. We also include practical recommendations for future applications.