The Resilience Hub approach for addressing mental health of health and social care workers during the COVID-19 pandemic: a mixed-methods evaluation.

Background: Resilience Hubs provide mental health screening, facilitation of access and direct provision of psychosocial support for health and social care keyworkers in England affected by the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Aim: To explore implementation of the Hubs, including characteristics of staff using the services, support accessed, costing data and a range of stakeholder perspectives on the barriers and enablers to Hub use and implementation of staff well-being support within the context of the pandemic. Design: Mixed-methods evaluation. Setting: Four Resilience Hubs. Methods: Findings were integrated via mixed-method case studies, including: analyses of Hub mental health screening (N = 1973); follow-up questionnaire data (N = 299) on service use and health status of Hub clients; economic information provided by the Hubs; 63 interviews with Hub staff, wider stakeholders, Hub clients and keyworkers who did not use the Hubs. Results: Findings were consistent across Hubs and workstreams. Most Hub clients were NHS staff. Under-represented groups included men, keyworkers from minority ethnic communities, care homes and emergency services staff. Clients reported comorbid mental health needs across multiple domains (anxiety; depression; post-traumatic stress; alcohol use; functioning). Their health status was lower than population norms and relevant pre-pandemic data. Several factors predicted higher needs, but having pre-pandemic emotional well-being concerns was one of the most robust predictors of higher need. Sixty per cent of participants who completed follow-up questionnaires reported receiving mental health support since Hub screening, most of which was directly or indirectly due to Hub support. High levels of satisfaction were reported. As in many services, staffing was the central component of Hub cost. Hubs were predominantly staffed by senior clinicians; this staffing model was consistent with the generally severe difficulties experienced by clients and the need for systemic/team-based working. Costs associated with health and social care use for Hub clients were low, which may be due to barriers to accessing support in general. Enablers to accessing Hubs included: a clear understanding of the Hubs, how to self-refer, and managerial support. Barriers included confusion between Hubs and other support; unhelpful beliefs about job roles, unsupportive managers, negative workplace cultures and difficulties caused by systemic issues. Some keyworkers highlighted a perceived need for further diversity and cultural competency training to improve reach to under-represented communities. Other barriers for these groups included prior negative experiences of services, structural inequalities and stigma. Some wider stakeholders had concerns around growing waiting times for Hub-provided therapy, and insufficient data on Hub usage and outcomes. Feedback was otherwise very positive. Limitations: Main limitations included lack of comparative and pre-pandemic/baseline data, small numbers from under-represented groups limiting fine-grained analysis, and participant self-selection. Conclusions: Findings highlighted the value of the Hub model of outreach, screening, support navigation and provision of direct support during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, and as a potential model to respond to future crises. The research provided recommendations to improve Hub promotion, equality/diversity/inclusion access issues, management of specialist resources and collection of relevant data on Hub outcomes and activities. Broader recommendations for the primary prevention of mental health difficulties across the health and care system are made, as individual support offers should be an adjunct to, not a replacement for, resolutions to systemic challenges. Research recommendations are made to conduct more robust evaluations of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the Hubs, using larger data sets and comparative data. Study registration: This study is registered as researchregistry6303. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR132269) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 29. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Many health and social care staff struggled with mental health difficulties during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. The study evaluated new National Health Service services ('Resilience Hubs') that were set up to help these keyworkers. We worked with four Hubs to: (1) look at who accessed the Hubs and what difficulties they had; (2) ask Hub 'clients' which support they used, and how helpful they found the Hubs; (3) look at what resources are needed to run the Hubs, to understand their 'value for money'; (4) interview people who worked with or used the Hubs (e.g. Hub staff, Hub clients, but also keyworkers who did not use the Hubs) to have their feedback. We used this information to make recommendations for the Hubs and the organisations that work with them. We found that Hub clients were mainly National Health Service staff. Many had several mental health difficulties, including anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder. Few men, staff from minority ethnic communities, care home workers and emergency service staff used the Hubs. People were generally happy with the support they had from the Hubs; clients who completed a follow-up questionnaire rated the helpfulness of support provided by Hubs as 92 out of 100 on average. Staffing was the main cost, as Hubs were mainly staffed by experienced clinicians. Things that made it easier for people to use the Hubs were clear understandings of Hub support and how to access it, and the support of their managers/employers. Some keyworkers from minority ethnic communities wanted greater diversity in the Hub teams. Some had concerns around waiting times and about not knowing enough about how well these services worked. Feedback was otherwise very positive. Our recommendations included how to: better promote the Hubs; improve inclusion of and support for individuals from minority groups; get better data on how well and for whom they work; and for employers to pay more attention to the mental health and well-being of keyworkers beyond the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.

A service mapping exercise of four health and social care staff mental health and wellbeing services, Resilience Hubs, to describe health service provision and interventions.

BACKGROUND: NHS England funded 40 Mental Health and Wellbeing Hubs to support health and social care staff affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to document variations in how national guidance was adapted to the local contexts of four Hubs in the North of England. METHODS: We used a modified version of Price's (2019) service mapping methodology. Service level data were used to inform the analysis. A mapping template was adapted from a range of tools, including the European Service Mapping Schedule, and reviewed by Hub leads. Key data included service model; staffing; and interventions. Data were collected between March 2021 - March 2022 by site research assistants. Findings were accuracy-checked by Hub leads, and a logic model developed to theorise how the Hubs may effect change. RESULTS: Hub goals and service models closely reflected guidance; offering: proactive outreach; team-based support; clinical assessment; onward referral, and rapid access to mental health support (in-house and external). Implementation reflected a service context of a client group with high mental health need, and high waiting times at external mental health services. Hubs were predominantly staffed by experienced clinicians, to manage these mental health presentations and organisational working. Formulation-based psychological assessment and the provision of direct therapy were not core functions of the NHS England model, however all Hubs incorporated these adaptations into their service models in response to local contexts, such as extensive waiting lists within external services, and/or client presentations falling between gaps in existing service provision. Finally, a standalone clinical records system was seen as important to reassure Hub users of confidentiality. Other more nuanced variation depended on localised contexts. CONCLUSION: This study provides a map for setting up services, emphasising early understandings of how new services will integrate within existing systems. Local and regional contexts led to variation in service configuration. Whilst additional Hub functions are supported by available literature, further research is needed to determine whether these functions should comprise essential components of staff wellbeing services moving forward. Future research should also determine the comparative effectiveness of service components, and the limits of permissible variation. STUDY REGISTRATION: researchregistry6303.

Implementing psychological support for health and social care staff affected by the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative exploration of staff well-being hubs ('Resilience Hubs') using normalisation process theory.

OBJECTIVES: Evaluate the implementation of Hubs providing access to psychological support for health and social care keyworkers affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: Qualitative interviews informed by normalisation process theory to understand how the Hub model became embedded into normal practice, and factors that disrupted normalisation of this approach. SETTING: Three Resilience Hubs in the North of England. PARTICIPANTS: Hub staff, keyworkers who accessed Hub support (Hub clients), keyworkers who had not accessed a Hub, and wider stakeholders involved in the provision of staff support within the health and care system (N=63). RESULTS: Hubs were generally seen as an effective way of supporting keyworkers, and Hub clients typically described very positive experiences. Flexibility and adaptability to local needs were strongly valued. Keyworkers accessed support when they understood the offer, valuing a confidential service that was separate from their organisation. Confusion about how Hubs differed from other support prevented some from enrolling. Beliefs about job roles, unsupportive managers, negative workplace cultures and systemic issues prevented keyworkers from valuing mental health support. Lack of support from managers discouraged keyworker engagement with Hubs. Black, Asian and minority ethnic keyworkers impacted by racism felt that the Hubs did not always meet their needs. CONCLUSIONS: Hubs were seen as a valuable, responsive and distinct part of the health and care system. Findings highlight the importance of improving promotion and accessibility of Hubs, and continuation of confidential Hub support. Policy implications for the wider health and care sector include the central importance of genuine promotion of and value placed on mental health support by health and social care management, and the creation of psychologically safe work environments. Diversity and cultural competency training is needed to better reach under-represented communities. Findings are consistent with the international literature, therefore, likely to have applicability outside of the current context.

The Acceptability of a Recovery Group Intervention in Acute Inpatient Mental Health Wards.

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the feasibility and explore the service user experience of a recovery-focused group intervention delivered in acute inpatient wards in a National Health Service (NHS) Trust in England, United Kingdom. Feedback from the Recovery Group Questionnaire given to patients who had attended the Recovery Group whilst admitted to acute inpatient wards was collated and analysed. The results suggest that patients found the group useful and supportive, as well as easy to follow. Themes which emerged from the content analysis included, value, challenges, support and understanding. The feedback also showed that patients found having an Expert by Experience co-facilitating was beneficial. The Recovery Group is an acceptable and feasible group intervention for those who are admitted to acute inpatient wards. Further research examining the clinical effectiveness of the intervention may be considered, however there are some barriers to doing so given the open-access format of the group.

Group CBT for psychosis: a longitudinal, controlled trial with inpatients.

Individual cognitive behaviour therapy for psychosis (CBTp) is a recommended treatment in the acute phase and beyond. However, less is known about the effectiveness of group CBTp in acute care. This mixed methods study explored the implementation and effectiveness of brief group CBTp with inpatients. This prospective trial compared inpatients who received either a four week group CBTp program or treatment as usual (TAU). Participants (n = 113 at baseline) completed self-report measures of distress, confidence and symptoms of psychosis at baseline, post-intervention and one month follow up. CBTp group participants also completed a brief open-ended satisfaction questionnaire. Using complete case analysis participants who received CBTp showed significantly reduced distress at follow up compared to TAU and significantly increased confidence across the study and follow up period. However, these effects were not demonstrated using a more conservative intention-to-treat analysis. Qualitative analysis of the satisfaction data revealed positive feedback with a number of specific themes. The study suggests that brief group CBTp with inpatients may improve confidence and reduce distress in the longer term. Participants report that the groups are acceptable and helpful. However, given the methodological limitations involved in this 'real world' study more robust evidence is needed.

The Queen and I: neural correlates of altered self-related cognitions in major depressive episode.

BACKGROUND: Pervasive negative thoughts about the self are central to the experience of depression. Brain imaging studies in the general population have localised self-related cognitive processing to areas of the medial pre-frontal cortex. AIMS: To use fMRI to compare the neural correlates of self-referential processing in depressed and non-depressed participants. METHOD: Cross-sectional comparison of regional activation using Blood Oxygen Level Dependent (BOLD) fMRI in 13 non-medicated participants with major depressive episode and 14 comparison participants, whilst carrying out a self-referential cognitive task. RESULTS: Both groups showed significant activation of the dorsomedial pre-frontal cortex and posterior cingulate cortex in the 'self-referent' condition. The depressed group showed significantly greater activation in the medial superior frontal cortex during the self-referent task. No difference was observed between groups in the 'other-referent' condition. CONCLUSIONS: Major depressive episode is associated with specific neurofunctional changes related to self-referential processing.