This needs to be a journey that we're actually on together'-the introduction of integrated care systems for children and young people in England: a qualitative study of the views of local system stakeholders during winter 2021/22.

BACKGROUND: Integrated care has become a central feature of health system reform worldwide. In England, Integrated Care Systems (ICS) are intended to improve integration across public health, the National Health Service (NHS), education and social care. By April 2021, England had been divided into 42 geographical areas, each tasked with developing local ICS provision. However, it was not clear how ICSs would address the specific needs of children and young people (CYP). This study elicited the views of senior professional stakeholders in the first year of the ICS national roll out, to learn how integrated care for CYP was being implemented within the ICSs and future plans for service provision. METHODS: A qualitative analysis of in-depth interviews with stakeholders, including healthcare professionals, NHS managers and local authority leaders (n = 25) selected from a diverse sample of ICSs (n = 7) across England, conducted during winter 2021/22. Reflexive thematic analysis involving a collaborative coding approach was used to analyse interview transcripts. RESULTS: Four themes were identified, indicating challenges and opportunities for ICSs in relation to the health of CYP: 1) Best start in life (a more holistic approach to health afforded by integrated care); 2) Local and national contexts (tensions between local and national settings and priorities); 3) Funding and planning (instituting innovative, long-term plans using limited existing CYP funding streams); 4) Organisational complexities (integrating the work of diverse organisations). CONCLUSIONS: The views of stakeholders, provided at the beginning of the journey towards developing local ICS CYP provision, revealed a common aspiration to change focus from provision of acute, largely adult-orientated services towards one with a broader, population health remit, including prevention and early intervention. This would be delivered by integration of a range of local services, including health, education, housing and social care, to set CYP on a life-long path towards improved health and wellbeing. Yet there was an awareness that change would take place over time within existing national policy and funding frameworks, and would require overcoming organisational barriers through further developing local collaborations and partnerships. As ICSs mature, the experiences of stakeholders should continue to be canvassed to identify practical lessons for successful CYP integrated care.

Measurement Instruments for Integration within Children and Young People Healthcare Systems and Networks: A Rapid Review of the International Literature.

Introduction: Robust measures of integration are essential for assessment of the development, design and implementation of integration within healthcare systems. This review aimed to identify measurement instruments for integration within children and young people's (CYP) healthcare systems (PROSPERO registration number CRD42021235383). Methods: We searched electronic databases (PubMED and Ovid Embase) using three main concepts: '(integrated care) AND (child population) AND (measurement)', along with additional searches. Results: Fifteen studies describing 16 measurement instruments were eligible for inclusion. The majority of studies were conducted in the USA. There was a diversity of health conditions included in the studies. The most frequent type of assessment used was a questionnaire (11 identified), but interviews, patient data and healthcare records, and focus groups were also used. Integration outcomes assessed were quality of care coordination, quality of collaboration, continuity of care, completeness of care, structure of care, quality of communication, and local implementation of integrated care. Conclusion: A variety of instruments for the measurement of integration within CYP healthcare systems were identified. Further work on the standardisation of integrated care measures would be valuable; however, it is important that instruments and measures meet the needs of specific settings, populations and conditions being studied.

Clinician perspectives on what constitutes good practice in community services for people with complex emotional needs: A qualitative thematic meta-synthesis.

INTRODUCTION: The need to improve the quality of community mental health services for people with Complex Emotional Needs (CEN) (who may have a diagnosis of 'personality disorder') is recognised internationally and has become a renewed policy priority in England. Such improvement requires positive engagement from clinicians across the service system, and their perspectives on achieving good practice need to be understood. AIM: To synthesise qualitative evidence on clinician perspectives on what constitutes good practice, and what helps or prevents it being achieved, in community mental health services for people with CEN. METHODS: Six bibliographic databases were searched for studies published since 2003 and supplementary citation tracking was conducted. Studies that used any recognised qualitative method and reported clinician experiences and perspectives on community-based mental health services for adults with CEN were eligible for this review, including generic and specialist settings. Meta-synthesis was used to generate and synthesise over-arching themes across included studies. RESULTS: Twenty-nine papers were eligible for inclusion, most with samples given a 'personality disorder' diagnosis. Six over-arching themes were identified: 1. The use and misuse of diagnosis; 2. The patient journey into services: nowhere to go; 3. Therapeutic relationships: connection and distance; 4. The nature of treatment: not doing too much or too little; 5. Managing safety issues and crises: being measured and proactive; 6. Clinician and wider service needs: whose needs are they anyway? The overall quality of the evidence was moderate. DISCUSSION: Through summarising the literature on clinician perspectives on good practice for people with CEN, over-arching priorities were identified on which there appears to be substantial consensus. In their focus on needs such as for a long-term perspective on treatment journeys, high quality and consistent therapeutic relationships, and a balanced approach to safety, clinician priorities are mainly congruent with those found in studies on service user views. They also identify clinician needs that should be met for good care to be provided, including for supervision, joint working and organisational support.

Interventions to improve social circumstances of people with mental health conditions: a rapid evidence synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Poor social circumstances can induce, exacerbate and prolong symptoms of mental health conditions, while having a mental health condition can also lead to worse social outcomes. Many people with mental health conditions prioritise improvement in social and functional outcomes over reduction in clinical symptoms. Interventions that improve social circumstances in this population should thus be considered a priority for research and policy. METHODS: This rapid evidence synthesis reports on randomised controlled trials of interventions to improve social circumstances across eight social domains (Housing and homelessness; money and basic needs; work and education; social isolation and connectedness; family, intimate and caring relationships; victimisation and exploitation; offending; and rights, inclusion and citizenship) in people with mental health conditions. Economic evaluations were also identified. A comprehensive, stepped search approach of the Cochrane library, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science and Scopus was conducted. RESULTS: One systematic review and 102 randomised controlled trials were included. We did not find RCT evidence for interventions to improve family, intimate and caring relationships and only one or two trials for each of improving money and basic needs, victimisation and exploitation, and rights, inclusion and citizenship. Evidence from successful interventions in improving homelessness (Housing First) and employment (Individual Placement and Support) suggests that high-intensity interventions which focus on the desired social outcome and provide comprehensive multidisciplinary support could influence positive change in social circumstances of people with mental health conditions. Objective social isolation could be improved using a range of approaches such as supported socialisation and social skills training but interventions to reduce offending showed few benefits. Studies with cost and cost-effectiveness components were generally supportive of interventions to improve housing and vocational outcomes. More research is needed to ensure that social circumstances accompanied by high risks of further exacerbation of mental health conditions are adequately addressed. CONCLUSIONS: Although there is a large body of literature examining how to support some aspects of life for people with mental health conditions, more high-quality evidence is required in other social domains. Integration into mental health services of interventions targeting social circumstances could significantly improve a number of social outcomes.

Service user experiences and views regarding telemental health during the COVID-19 pandemic: A co-produced framework analysis.

BACKGROUND: The prominence of telemental health, including providing care by video call and telephone, has greatly increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, there are clear variations in uptake and acceptability, and concerns that digital exclusion may exacerbate previous inequalities in access to good quality care. Greater understanding is needed of how service users experience telemental health, and what determines whether they engage and find it acceptable. METHODS: We conducted a collaborative framework analysis of data from semi-structured interviews with a sample of people already experiencing mental health problems prior to the pandemic. Data relevant to participants' experiences and views regarding telemental health during the pandemic were identified and extracted. Data collection and analysis used a participatory, coproduction approach where researchers with relevant lived experience, contributed to all stages of data collection, analysis and interpretation of findings alongside clinical and academic researchers. FINDINGS: The experiences and preferences regarding telemental health care of the forty-four participants were dynamic and varied across time and settings, as well as between individuals. Participants' preferences were shaped by reasons for contacting services, their relationship with care providers, and both parties' access to technology and their individual preferences. While face-to-face care tended to be the preferred option, participants identified benefits of remote care including making care more accessible for some populations and improved efficiency for functional appointments such as prescription reviews. Participants highlighted important challenges related to safety and privacy in online settings, and gave examples of good remote care strategies they had experienced, including services scheduling regular phone calls and developing guidelines about how to access remote care tools. DISCUSSION: Participants in our study have highlighted advantages of telemental health care, as well as significant limitations that risk hindering mental health support and exacerbate inequalities in access to services. Some of these limitations are seen as potentially removable, for example through staff training or better digital access for staff or service users. Others indicate a need to maintain traditional face-to-face contact at least for some appointments. There is a clear need for care to be flexible and individualised to service user circumstances and preferences. Further research is needed on ways of minimising digital exclusion and of supporting staff in making effective and collaborative use of relevant technologies.

Early impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health care and on people with mental health conditions: framework synthesis of international experiences and responses.

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic has many potential impacts on people with mental health conditions and on mental health care, including direct consequences of infection, effects of infection control measures and subsequent societal changes. We aimed to map early impacts of the pandemic on people with pre-existing mental health conditions and services they use, and to identify individual and service-level strategies adopted to manage these. METHODS: We searched for relevant material in the public domain published before 30 April 2020, including papers in scientific and professional journals, published first person accounts, media articles, and publications by governments, charities and professional associations. Search languages were English, French, German, Italian, Spanish, and Mandarin Chinese. Relevant content was retrieved and summarised via a rapid qualitative framework synthesis approach. RESULTS: We found 872 eligible sources from 28 countries. Most documented observations and experiences rather than reporting research data. We found many reports of deteriorations in symptoms, and of impacts of loneliness and social isolation and of lack of access to services and resources, but sometimes also of resilience, effective self-management and peer support. Immediate service challenges related to controlling infection, especially in inpatient and residential settings, and establishing remote working, especially in the community. We summarise reports of swiftly implemented adaptations and innovations, but also of pressing ethical challenges and concerns for the future. CONCLUSION: Our analysis captures the range of stakeholder perspectives and experiences publicly reported in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic in several countries. We identify potential foci for service planning and research.