Health and social care delivery research最新文献

{"title":"Causes and solutions to workplace psychological ill-health for nurses, midwives and paramedics: the Care Under Pressure 2 realist review.","authors":"Jill Maben, Cath Taylor, Justin Jagosh, D. Carrieri, Simon Briscoe, Naomi Klepacz, K. Mattick","doi":"10.3310/TWDU4109","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3310/TWDU4109","url":null,"abstract":"Background\u0000Nurses, midwives and paramedics are the largest collective group of clinical staff in the National Health Service and have some of the highest prevalence of psychological ill-health. Existing literature tends to be profession-specific and focused on individual interventions that place responsibility for good psychological health with nurses, midwives and paramedics themselves.\u0000\u0000\u0000Aim\u0000To improve understanding of how, why and in what contexts nurses, midwives and paramedics experience work-related psychological ill-health; and determine which high-quality interventions can be implemented to minimise psychological ill-health in these professions.\u0000\u0000\u0000Methods\u0000Realist synthesis methodology consistent with realist and meta-narrative evidence syntheses: evolving standards' reporting guidelines.\u0000\u0000\u0000Data sources\u0000First round database searching in Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online Database ALL (via Ovid), cumulative index to nursing and allied health literature database (via EBSCO) and health management information consortium database (via Ovid), was undertaken between February and March 2021, followed by supplementary searching strategies (e.g. hand searching, expert solicitation of key papers). Reverse chronology screening was applied, aimed at retaining 30 relevant papers in each profession. Round two database searches (December 2021) targeted COVID-19-specific literature and literature reviews. No date limits were applied.\u0000\u0000\u0000Results\u0000We built on seven key reports and included 75 papers in the first round (26 nursing, 26 midwifery, 23 paramedic) plus 44 expert solicitation papers, 29 literature reviews and 49 COVID-19 focused articles in the second round. Through the realist synthesis we surfaced 14 key tensions in the literature and identified five key findings, supported by 26 context mechanism and outcome configurations. The key findings identified the following: (1) interventions are fragmented, individual-focused and insufficiently recognise cumulative chronic stressors; (2) it is difficult to promote staff psychological wellness where there is a blame culture; (3) the needs of the system often override staff well-being at work ('serve and sacrifice'); (4) there are unintended personal costs of upholding and implementing values at work; and (5) it is challenging to design, identify and implement interventions to work optimally for diverse staff groups with diverse and interacting stressors.\u0000\u0000\u0000Conclusions\u0000Our realist synthesis strongly suggests the need to improve the systemic working conditions and the working lives of nurses, midwives and paramedics to improve their psychological well-being. Individual, one-off psychological interventions are unlikely to succeed alone. Psychological ill-health is highly prevalent in these staff groups (and can be chronic and cumulative as well as acute) and should be anticipated and prepared for, indeed normalised and expected. Healthcare organisations need to (1) rebalance the working e","PeriodicalId":73204,"journal":{"name":"Health and social care delivery research","volume":"105 ","pages":"1-171"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140768115","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Relationship between staff and quality of care in care homes: StaRQ mixed methods study.","authors":"Karen Spilsbury, A. Charlwood, Carl Thompson, Kirsty Haunch, D. Valizade, Reena Devi, Cornell Jackson, D. Alldred, Antony Arthur, Lucy Brown, Paul Edwards, Will Fenton, Heather Gage, Matthew Glover, Barbara Hanratty, Julienne Meyer, Aileen Waton","doi":"10.3310/GWTT8143","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3310/GWTT8143","url":null,"abstract":"Background\u0000Quality of life and care varies between and within the care homes in which almost half a million older people live and over half a million direct care staff (registered nurses and care assistants) work. The reasons are complex, understudied and sometimes oversimplified, but staff and their work are a significant influence.\u0000\u0000\u0000Objective(s)\u0000To explore variations in the care home nursing and support workforce; how resident and relatives' needs in care homes are linked to care home staffing; how different staffing models impact on care quality, outcomes and costs; how workforce numbers, skill mix and stability meet residents' needs; the contributions of the care home workforce to enhancing quality of care; staff relationships as a platform for implementation by providers.\u0000\u0000\u0000Design\u0000Mixed-method (QUAL-QUANT) parallel design with five work packages. WP1 - two evidence syntheses (one realist); WP2 - cross-sectional survey of routine staffing and rated quality from care home regulator; WP3 - analysis of longitudinal data from a corporate provider of staffing characteristics and quality indicators, including safety; WP4 - secondary analysis of care home regulator reports; WP5 - social network analysis of networks likely to influence quality innovation. We expressed our synthesised findings as a logic model.\u0000\u0000\u0000Setting\u0000English care homes, with and without nursing, with various ownership structures, size and location, with varying quality ratings.\u0000\u0000\u0000Participants\u0000Managers, residents, families and care home staff.\u0000\u0000\u0000Findings\u0000Staffing's contribution to quality and personalised care requires: managerial and staff stability and consistency; sufficient staff to develop 'familial' relationships between staff and residents, and staff-staff reciprocity, 'knowing' residents, and skills and competence training beyond induction; supported, well-led staff seeing modelled behaviours from supervisors; autonomy to act. Outcome measures that capture the relationship between staffing and quality include: the extent to which resident needs and preferences are met and culturally appropriate; resident and family satisfaction; extent of residents living with purpose; safe care (including clinical outcomes); staff well-being and job satisfaction were important, but underacknowledged.\u0000\u0000\u0000Limitations\u0000Many of our findings stem from self-reported and routine data with known biases - such as under reporting of adverse incidents; our analysis may reflect these biases. COVID-19 required adapting our original protocol to make it feasible. Consequently, the effects of the pandemic are reflected in our research methods and findings. Our findings are based on data from a single care home operator and so may not be generalised to the wider population of care homes.\u0000\u0000\u0000Conclusions\u0000Innovative and multiple methods and theory can successfully highlight the nuanced relationship between staffing and quality in care homes. Modifiable characteristics such as visible philosophies of care and hi","PeriodicalId":73204,"journal":{"name":"Health and social care delivery research","volume":"100 ","pages":"1-139"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140794826","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Safer and more efficient vital signs monitoring protocols to identify the deteriorating patients in the general hospital ward: an observational study.","authors":"Jim Briggs, Ina Kostakis, Paul Meredith, Chiara Dall'ora, Julie Darbyshire, Stephen Gerry, Peter Griffiths, Jo Hope, Jeremy Jones, Caroline Kovacs, Rob Lawrence, David Prytherch, Peter Watkinson, Oliver Redfern","doi":"10.3310/HYTR4612","DOIUrl":"10.3310/HYTR4612","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The frequency at which patients should have their vital signs (e.g. blood pressure, pulse, oxygen saturation) measured on hospital wards is currently unknown. Current National Health Service monitoring protocols are based on expert opinion but supported by little empirical evidence. The challenge is finding the balance between insufficient monitoring (risking missing early signs of deterioration and delays in treatment) and over-observation of stable patients (wasting resources needed in other aspects of care).</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>Provide an evidence-based approach to creating monitoring protocols based on a patient's risk of deterioration and link these to nursing workload and economic impact.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Our study consisted of two parts: (1) an observational study of nursing staff to ascertain the time to perform vital sign observations; and (2) a retrospective study of historic data on patient admissions exploring the relationships between National Early Warning Score and risk of outcome over time. These were underpinned by opinions and experiences from stakeholders.</p><p><strong>Setting and participants: </strong>Observational study: observed nursing staff on 16 randomly selected adult general wards at four acute National Health Service hospitals. Retrospective study: extracted, linked and analysed routinely collected data from two large National Health Service acute trusts; data from over 400,000 patient admissions and 9,000,000 vital sign observations.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Observational study found a variety of practices, with two hospitals having registered nurses take the majority of vital sign observations and two favouring healthcare assistants or student nurses. However, whoever took the observations spent roughly the same length of time. The average was 5:01 minutes per observation over a 'round', including time to locate and prepare the equipment and travel to the patient area. Retrospective study created survival models predicting the risk of outcomes over time since the patient was last observed. For low-risk patients, there was little difference in risk between 4 hours and 24 hours post observation.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We explored several different scenarios with our stakeholders (clinicians and patients), based on how 'risk' could be managed in different ways. Vital sign observations are often done more frequently than necessary from a bald assessment of the patient's risk, and we show that a maximum threshold of risk could theoretically be achieved with less resource. Existing resources could therefore be redeployed within a changed protocol to achieve better outcomes for some patients without compromising the safety of the rest. Our work supports the approach of the current monitoring protocol, whereby patients' National Early Warning Score 2 guides observation frequency. Existing practice is to observe higher-risk patients more frequen","PeriodicalId":73204,"journal":{"name":"Health and social care delivery research","volume":"12 6","pages":"1-143"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140320043","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Reducing health inequalities through general practice: a realist review and action framework.","authors":"Anna Gkiouleka, Geoff Wong, Sarah Sowden, Isla Kuhn, Annie Moseley, Sukaina Manji, Rebecca R Harmston, Rikke Siersbaek, Clare Bambra, John A Ford","doi":"10.3310/YTWW7032","DOIUrl":"10.3310/YTWW7032","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Background: &lt;/strong&gt;Socio-economic inequalities in health have been in the public agenda for decades. General practice has an influential role to play in mitigating the impact of inequalities especially regarding chronic conditions. At the moment, general practice is dealing with serious challenges in relation to workforce shortages, increasing workload and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. It is important to identify effective ways so that general practice can play its role in reducing health inequalities.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Objectives: &lt;/strong&gt;We explored what types of interventions and aspects of routine care in general practice decrease or increase inequalities in health and care-related outcomes. We focused on cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes and/or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. We explored for whom these interventions and aspects of care work best, why, and in what circumstances. Our main objective was to synthesise this evidence into specific guidance for healthcare professionals and decision-makers about how best to achieve equitable general practice.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Design: &lt;/strong&gt;Realist review.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Main outcome measures: &lt;/strong&gt;Clinical or care-related outcomes by socio-economic group, or other PROGRESS-Plus criteria.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Review methods: &lt;/strong&gt;Realist review based on Pawson's five steps: (1) locating existing theories, (2) searching for evidence, (3) selecting articles, (4) extracting and organising data and (5) synthesising the evidence.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Results: &lt;/strong&gt;Three hundred and twenty-five studies met the inclusion criteria and 159 of them were selected for the evidence synthesis. Evidence about the impact of general practice interventions on health inequalities is limited. To reduce health inequalities, general practice needs to be: • connected so that interventions are linked and coordinated across the sector; • intersectional to account for the fact that people's experience is affected by many of their characteristics; • flexible to meet patients' different needs and preferences; • inclusive so that it does not exclude people because of who they are; • community-centred so that people who receive care engage with its design and delivery. These qualities should inform action across four domains: structures like funding and workforce distribution, organisational culture, everyday regulated procedures involved in care delivery, interpersonal and community relationships.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Limitations: &lt;/strong&gt;The reviewed evidence offers limited detail about the ways and the extent to which specific interventions increase or decrease inequalities in general practice. Therefore, we focused on the underpinning principles that were common across interventions to produce higher-level, transferrable conclusions about ways to achieve equitable care.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusions: &lt;/strong&gt;Inequalities in general practice result from complex processes across four different domains that in","PeriodicalId":73204,"journal":{"name":"Health and social care delivery research","volume":"12 7","pages":"1-104"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140320044","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Practices of falls risk assessment and prevention in acute hospital settings: a realist investigation.","authors":"Rebecca Randell, Lynn McVey, Judy Wright, Hadar Zaman, V-Lin Cheong, David M Woodcock, Frances Healey, Dawn Dowding, Peter Gardner, Nicholas R Hardiker, Alison Lynch, Chris Todd, Christopher Davey, Natasha Alvarado","doi":"10.3310/JWQC5771","DOIUrl":"10.3310/JWQC5771","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Background: &lt;/strong&gt;Falls are the most common safety incident reported by acute hospitals. The National Institute of Health and Care Excellence recommends multifactorial falls risk assessment and tailored interventions, but implementation is variable.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Aim: &lt;/strong&gt;To determine how and in what contexts multifactorial falls risk assessment and tailored interventions are used in acute National Health Service hospitals in England.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Design: &lt;/strong&gt;Realist review and multisite case study. (1) Systematic searches to identify stakeholders' theories, tested using empirical data from primary studies. Review of falls prevention policies of acute Trusts. (2) Theory testing and refinement through observation, staff interviews (&lt;i&gt;n&lt;/i&gt; = 50), patient and carer interviews (&lt;i&gt;n&lt;/i&gt; = 31) and record review (&lt;i&gt;n&lt;/i&gt; = 60).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Setting: &lt;/strong&gt;Three Trusts, one orthopaedic and one older person ward in each.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Results: &lt;/strong&gt;Seventy-eight studies were used for theory construction and 50 for theory testing. Four theories were explored. (1) Leadership: wards had falls link practitioners but authority to allocate resources for falls prevention resided with senior nurses. (2) Shared responsibility: a key falls prevention strategy was patient supervision. This fell to nursing staff, constraining the extent to which responsibility for falls prevention could be shared. (3) Facilitation: assessments were consistently documented but workload pressures could reduce this to a tick-box exercise. Assessment items varied. While individual patient risk factors were identified, patients were categorised as high or low risk to determine who should receive supervision. (4) Patient participation: nursing staff lacked time to explain to patients their falls risks or how to prevent themselves from falling, although other staff could do so. Sensitive communication could prevent patients taking actions that increase their risk of falling.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Limitations: &lt;/strong&gt;Within the realist review, we completed synthesis for only two theories. We could not access patient records before observations, preventing assessment of whether care plans were enacted.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusions: &lt;/strong&gt;(1) Leadership: There should be a clear distinction between senior nurses' roles and falls link practitioners in relation to falls prevention; (2) shared responsibility: Trusts should consider how processes and systems, including the electronic health record, can be revised to better support a multidisciplinary approach, and alternatives to patient supervision should be considered; (3) facilitation: Trusts should consider how to reduce documentation burden and avoid tick-box responses, and ensure items included in the falls risk assessment tools align with guidance. Falls risk assessment tools and falls care plans should be presented as tools to support practice, rather than something to be audited; (4) patient participation: Tr","PeriodicalId":73204,"journal":{"name":"Health and social care delivery research","volume":"12 5","pages":"1-194"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140178010","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The implications of competing risks and direct treatment disutility in cardiovascular disease and osteoporotic fracture: risk prediction and cost effectiveness analysis.","authors":"Bruce Guthrie, Gabriel Rogers, Shona Livingstone, Daniel R Morales, Peter Donnan, Sarah Davis, Ji Hee Youn, Rob Hainsworth, Alexander Thompson, Katherine Payne","doi":"10.3310/KLTR7714","DOIUrl":"10.3310/KLTR7714","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Clinical guidelines commonly recommend preventative treatments for people above a risk threshold. Therefore, decision-makers must have faith in risk prediction tools and model-based cost-effectiveness analyses for people at different levels of risk. Two problems that arise are inadequate handling of competing risks of death and failing to account for direct treatment disutility (i.e. the hassle of taking treatments). We explored these issues using two case studies: primary prevention of cardiovascular disease using statins and osteoporotic fracture using bisphosphonates.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Externally validate three risk prediction tools [QRISK®3, QRISK®-Lifetime, QFracture-2012 (ClinRisk Ltd, Leeds, UK)]; derive and internally validate new risk prediction tools for cardiovascular disease [competing mortality risk model with Charlson Comorbidity Index (CRISK-CCI)] and fracture (CFracture), accounting for competing-cause death; quantify direct treatment disutility for statins and bisphosphonates; and examine the effect of competing risks and direct treatment disutility on the cost-effectiveness of preventative treatments.</p><p><strong>Design, participants, main outcome measures, data sources: </strong>Discrimination and calibration of risk prediction models (Clinical Practice Research Datalink participants: aged 25-84 years for cardiovascular disease and aged 30-99 years for fractures); direct treatment disutility was elicited in online stated-preference surveys (people with/people without experience of statins/bisphosphonates); costs and quality-adjusted life-years were determined from decision-analytic modelling (updated models used in National Institute for Health and Care Excellence decision-making).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>CRISK-CCI has excellent discrimination, similar to that of QRISK3 (Harrell's <i>c</i> = 0.864 vs. 0.865, respectively, for women; and 0.819 vs. 0.834, respectively, for men). CRISK-CCI has systematically better calibration, although both models overpredict in high-risk subgroups. People recommended for treatment (10-year risk of ≥ 10%) are younger when using QRISK-Lifetime than when using QRISK3, and have fewer observed events in a 10-year follow-up (4.0% vs. 11.9%, respectively, for women; and 4.3% vs. 10.8%, respectively, for men). QFracture-2012 underpredicts fractures, owing to under-ascertainment of events in its derivation. However, there is major overprediction among people aged 85-99 years and/or with multiple long-term conditions. CFracture is better calibrated, although it also overpredicts among older people. In a time trade-off exercise (<i>n</i> = 879), statins exhibited direct treatment disutility of 0.034; for bisphosphonates, it was greater, at 0.067. Inconvenience also influenced preferences in best-worst scaling (<i>n</i> = 631). Updated cost-effectiveness analysis generates more quality-adjusted life-years among people with below-average cardiovascul","PeriodicalId":73204,"journal":{"name":"Health and social care delivery research","volume":"12 4","pages":"1-275"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139992047","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"'Why are we stuck in hospital?' Barriers to people with learning disabilities/autistic people leaving 'long-stay' hospital: a mixed methods study.","authors":"Jon Glasby, Robin Miller, Anne-Marie Glasby, Rebecca Ince, Frederick Konteh","doi":"10.3310/HBSH7124","DOIUrl":"10.3310/HBSH7124","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Transforming care so that people with learning disabilities and/or autistic people can receive support at home rather than in hospital settings is a key priority, but progress has been slow. Despite significant national debate, little previous research has engaged directly with people in hospital, their families or front-line staff to understand the issues from their perspectives.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This research seeks to better understand the experiences of people with learning disabilities and/or autistic people in long-stay hospital settings, their families and front-line staff - using this knowledge to create practice guides and training materials to support new understandings and ways of working.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Following a structured review of the literature, we sought to work with up to 10 people with learning disabilities and/or autistic people in three case-study sites (2021-22), supplementing this with interviews with family members and commissioners; interviews/focus groups with hospital staff, social workers, advocates and care providers; information from case files; and observations of multidisciplinary meetings.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Three 'long-stay' hospital settings in England.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>Twenty-seven people in hospital, together with families, health and social care staff and commissioners.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>• People in hospital report widespread frustration, feel that hospital environments are not conducive to getting/staying well, and face multiple barriers to leaving hospital. Without someone to fight for them, people struggle to overcome the inertia built into our current systems and processes. • Front-line staff are equally frustrated and describe a complex and seemingly dysfunctional system which they find almost impossible to navigate. • Hospital staff from different professional backgrounds do not have a shared sense of how many people really need to be in hospital or how many people could be cared for in different settings - suggesting that different definitions, world views and professional judgements might be at play. • Hospital staff are frustrated about what they see as the difficulty of discharging people into community services, while community services are equally frustrated about what they see as a risk-averse approach which they feel can lack an up-to-date knowledge of what is possible to achieve in the community. • Despite over a decade of policy attempts to resolve these issues, very significant barriers remain.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>This research explored the experiences of a small number of people, but has done so in significant depth. The research was undertaken in secure settings, during COVID and in a difficult external policy and practice context, and so has had to be very flexible and empathetic in order to build relationships and make the research possible. Future research cou","PeriodicalId":73204,"journal":{"name":"Health and social care delivery research","volume":"12 3","pages":"1-119"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139725192","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Factors within the clinical encounter that impact upon risk assessment within child and adolescent mental health services: a rapid realist synthesis.","authors":"Anna Cantrell, Katie Sworn, Duncan Chambers, Andrew Booth, Elizabeth Taylor Buck, Scott Weich","doi":"10.3310/VKTY5822","DOIUrl":"10.3310/VKTY5822","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Background: &lt;/strong&gt;Risk assessment is a key process when a child or adolescent presents at risk for self-harm or suicide in a mental health crisis or emergency. Risk assessment by a healthcare professional should be included within a biopsychosocial assessment. However, the predictive value of risk-screening tools for self-harm and suicide in children and adolescents is consistently challenged. A review is needed to explore how best to undertake risk assessment and the appropriate role for tools/checklists within the assessment pathway.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Aims: &lt;/strong&gt;To map research relating to risk assessment for child and adolescent mental health and to identify features that relate to a successful risk assessment.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Objectives: &lt;/strong&gt;To review factors within the clinical encounter that impact upon risk assessments for self-harm and suicide in children and adolescents: i. to conduct a realist synthesis to understand mechanisms for risk assessment, why they occur and how they vary by context ii. to conduct a mapping review of primary studies/reviews to describe available tools of applicability to the UK.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Data sources: &lt;/strong&gt;Databases, including MEDLINE, PsycINFO&lt;sup&gt;®&lt;/sup&gt;, EMBASE, CINAHL, HMIC, Science and Social Sciences Citation Index and the Cochrane Library, were searched (September 2021). Searches were also conducted for reports from websites.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Review methods: &lt;/strong&gt;A resource-constrained realist synthesis was conducted exploring factors that impact upon risk assessments for self-harm and suicide. This was accompanied by a mapping review of primary studies/reviews describing risk-assessment tools and approaches used in UK child and adolescent mental health. Following piloting, four reviewers screened retrieved records. Items were coded for the mapping and/or for inclusion in the realist synthesis. The review team examined the validity and limitations of risk-screening tools. In addition, the team identified structured approaches to risk assessment. Reporting of the realist synthesis followed &lt;i&gt;RAMESES&lt;/i&gt; guidelines.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Results: &lt;/strong&gt;From 4084 unique citations, 249 papers were reviewed and 41 studies (49 tools) were included in the mapping review. Eight reviews were identified following full-text screening. Fifty-seven papers were identified for the realist review. Findings highlight 14 explanations (programme theories) for a successful risk assessment for self-harm and suicide. Forty-nine individual assessment tools/approaches were identified. Few tools were developed in the UK, specifically for children and adolescents. These lacked formal independent evaluation. No risk-screening tool is suitable for risk prediction; optimal approaches incorporate a relationship of trust, involvement of the family, where appropriate, and a patient-centred holistic approach. The objective of risk assessment should be elicitation of information to direct a risk formulation and car","PeriodicalId":73204,"journal":{"name":"Health and social care delivery research","volume":"12 1","pages":"1-107"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139693624","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Conceptual framework on barriers and facilitators to implementing perinatal mental health care and treatment for women: the MATRIx evidence synthesis.","authors":"Rebecca Webb, Elizabeth Ford, Judy Shakespeare, Abigail Easter, Fiona Alderdice, Jennifer Holly, Rose Coates, Sally Hogg, Helen Cheyne, Sarah McMullen, Simon Gilbody, Debra Salmon, Susan Ayers","doi":"10.3310/KQFE0107","DOIUrl":"10.3310/KQFE0107","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Perinatal mental health difficulties can occur during pregnancy or after birth and mental illness is a leading cause of maternal death. It is therefore important to identify the barriers and facilitators to implementing and accessing perinatal mental health care.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Our research objective was to develop a conceptual framework of barriers and facilitators to perinatal mental health care (defined as identification, assessment, care and treatment) to inform perinatal mental health services.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Two systematic reviews were conducted to synthesise the evidence on: Review 1 barriers and facilitators to implementing perinatal mental health care; and Review 2 barriers to women accessing perinatal mental health care. Results were used to develop a conceptual framework which was then refined through consultations with stakeholders.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>Pre-planned searches were conducted on MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychInfo and CINAHL. Review 2 also included Scopus and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.</p><p><strong>Review methods: </strong>In Review 1, studies were included if they examined barriers or facilitators to implementing perinatal mental health care. In Review 2, systematic reviews were included if they examined barriers and facilitators to women seeking help, accessing help and engaging in perinatal mental health care; and they used systematic search strategies. Only qualitative papers were identified from the searches. Results were analysed using thematic synthesis and themes were mapped on to a theoretically informed multi-level model then grouped to reflect different stages of the care pathway.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Review 1 included 46 studies. Most were carried out in higher income countries and evaluated as good quality with low risk of bias. Review 2 included 32 systematic reviews. Most were carried out in higher income countries and evaluated as having low confidence in the results. Barriers and facilitators to perinatal mental health care were identified at seven levels: <i>Individual</i> (e.g. beliefs about mental illness); <i>Health professional</i> (e.g. confidence addressing perinatal mental illness); <i>Interpersonal</i> (e.g. relationship between women and health professionals); <i>Organisational</i> (e.g. continuity of carer); <i>Commissioner</i> (e.g. referral pathways); <i>Political</i> (e.g. women's economic status); and <i>Societal</i> (e.g. stigma). These factors impacted on perinatal mental health care at different stages of the care pathway. Results from reviews were synthesised to develop two MATRIx conceptual frameworks of the (1) barriers and (2) facilitators to perinatal mental health care. These provide pictorial representations of 66 barriers and 39 facilitators that intersect across the care pathway and at different levels.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>In Review 1 only 10% of abstracts we","PeriodicalId":73204,"journal":{"name":"Health and social care delivery research","volume":"12 2","pages":"1-187"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139693625","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Evaluating mental health decision units in acute care pathways (DECISION): a quasi-experimental, qualitative and health economic evaluation.","authors":"Steve Gillard, Katie Anderson, Geraldine Clarke, Chloe Crowe, Lucy Goldsmith, Heather Jarman, Sonia Johnson, Jo Lomani, David McDaid, Paris Pariza, A-La Park, Jared Smith, Kati Turner, Heather Yoeli","doi":"10.3310/PBSM2274","DOIUrl":"10.3310/PBSM2274","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>People experiencing mental health crises in the community often present to emergency departments and are admitted to a psychiatric hospital. Because of the demands on emergency department and inpatient care, psychiatric decision units have emerged to provide a more suitable environment for assessment and signposting to appropriate care.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The study aimed to ascertain the structure and activities of psychiatric decision units in England and to provide an evidence base for their effectiveness, costs and benefits, and optimal configuration.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>This was a mixed-methods study comprising survey, systematic review, interrupted time series, synthetic control study, cohort study, qualitative interview study and health economic evaluation, using a critical interpretive synthesis approach.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>The study took place in four mental health National Health Service trusts with psychiatric decision units, and six acute hospital National Health Service trusts where emergency departments referred to psychiatric decision units in each mental health trust.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>Participants in the cohort study (<i>n</i> = 2110) were first-time referrals to psychiatric decision units for two 5-month periods from 1 October 2018 and 1 October 2019, respectively. Participants in the qualitative study were first-time referrals to psychiatric decision units recruited within 1 month of discharge (<i>n</i> = 39), members of psychiatric decision unit clinical teams (<i>n</i> = 15) and clinicians referring to psychiatric decision units (<i>n</i> = 19).</p><p><strong>Outcomes: </strong>Primary mental health outcome in the interrupted time series and cohort study was informal psychiatric hospital admission, and in the synthetic control any psychiatric hospital admission; primary emergency department outcome in the interrupted time series and synthetic control was mental health attendance at emergency department. Data for the interrupted time series and cohort study were extracted from electronic patient record in mental health and acute trusts; data for the synthetic control study were obtained through NHS Digital from Hospital Episode Statistics admitted patient care for psychiatric admissions and Hospital Episode Statistics Accident and Emergency for emergency department attendances. The health economic evaluation used data from all studies. Relevant databases were searched for controlled or comparison group studies of hospital-based mental health assessments permitting overnight stays of a maximum of 1 week that measured adult acute psychiatric admissions and/or mental health presentations at emergency department. Selection, data extraction and quality rating of studies were double assessed. Narrative synthesis of included studies was undertaken and meta-analyses were performed where sufficient studies reported outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results:","PeriodicalId":73204,"journal":{"name":"Health and social care delivery research","volume":"11 25","pages":"1-221"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139041058","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}