Exploring the experiences and perceptions of trainees undertaking a critical incident debrief training programme: A qualitative study.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Critical incident debriefing is an occupational health tool for supporting healthcare workers following critical incidents. Demand for debriefing has increased following the Covid-19 pandemic. There is now a need for more trained debrief facilitators to meet demand, but there is a dearth of literature regarding how best to train facilitators. This study addressed this by exploring participant experiences of an online critical incident debrief training programme. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 14 individuals who received a 5-day training programme based on the Critical Incident Stress Management model. Participants were recruited from a range of professional disciplines including psychology, nursing and human resources within one British healthcare system. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: The analysis produced three themes. Managing trainee experiences and expectations suggested that disciplinary heterogeneity in training groups supported inter-participant knowledge exchange. However, this variation also meant that training materials did not meet the learning needs of all participants. Modality of training suggested that while online learning was acceptable for some, others experienced screen fatigue and found it hard to build rapport with other participants. Systematic and organisational obstacles to training access and delivery suggested that lack of managerial support and organisational mental health stigma may be barriers to accessing training. CONCLUSION: A 5-day online CISM-based training programme was acceptable to participants. Organisations implementing critical incident debrief training may benefit from (1) offering both in-person and online training options, and (2) tailoring course materials according to the disciplinary make-up of groups.

Barriers and enablers to accessing support services offered by staff wellbeing hubs: A qualitative study.

Background: International efforts have been made to develop appropriate interventions to support the mental health needs of healthcare professionals in response to COVID-19. However, fewer staff have accessed these than expected, despite experiencing elevated levels of mental distress since the onset of the pandemic. Consequently, we aimed to examine the barriers and enablers for healthcare professionals in accessing interventions offered by a Staff Mental Health and Wellbeing Hub. Methods: Twenty-five semi-structured interviews were conducted with healthcare, social care and voluntary, community and social enterprise (VCSE) sector staff. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. Results: Four key themes were identified: (1) Environment and Atmosphere in the Workplace; (2) The Impacts of COVID-19; (3) Confidentiality; and (4) Awareness and Communication of Resources. Organisational environments were perceived as an important enabler of accessing the hub services for mental health and wellbeing support. This included the importance of recognising and responding to the ongoing pressures of COVID-19- specific challenges. Ensuring and communicating aspects of confidentiality, and ensuring clear and consistent communication of the benefits of the Hub may encourage help-seeking for mental health challenges among healthcare professionals. Discussion: Our findings highlight important considerations to increase uptake and engagement with services to support the mental health and wellbeing of healthcare professionals and associated staff and volunteers. Organisations aiming to increase employee uptake of these services should regularly circulate consistent and clear emails about what these services offer, provide training and information for managers so they can support staff to access these services and ensure access is confidential.

A pragmatic randomized controlled trial of a guided self-help intervention versus a waiting list control in a routine primary care mental health service.

OBJECTIVES. To evaluate the effectiveness of a two session guided self-help (GSH) intervention provided by primary care graduate mental health workers (PCGMHWs) in a primary care mental health service. DESIGN. Pragmatic randomized trial, with a wait list control design. METHOD. Patients presenting with significant anxiety and depression problems were given one or more self-help booklets at screening and randomly allocated to an immediate (ITG) or delayed treatment group (DTG). Following this, a two-session GSH intervention was provided by one of two PCGMHWs, with a review session to decide on the need for further intervention. The DTG began the intervention 8 weeks after the screening and the primary outcome was Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation - Outcome Measure (CORE-OM) scores after 8 weeks. RESULTS. A total of 63 patients were allocated to the ITG, 59 to the DTG. Analysis of covariance, carried out on an intention to treat basis, showed a significant treatment effect, F(1,98) = 15, p < .001, and a comparison of means at 8 weeks showed a significant difference, t(116) = 2.1 (95% CI [1.1, 5.9]), p= .042 with an effect size, d= 0.375. Taking the two groups together, CORE-OM scores for patients who completed the intervention reduced between screening and the review session by an average of 7.9 (95% CI [6.3, 9.5]), effect size of 1.2. Between screening and the review session, 47% showed a reliable and clinically significant improvement. CONCLUSIONS. The study provides some support for the effectiveness of a two-session GSH intervention and a stepped-care service model.