Dataset Information

Coaching for recovery: a quality improvement project in mental healthcare.

ABSTRACT: Approximately one in four adults in the UK will experience a mental health difficulty at some point in their life. This figure is approximately 400 million people worldwide.[1] Depression alone is currently estimated to cost the UK 1.7% of GDP and is one of the largest causes of ill health in the world.[2] For conditions like psychosis, evidence tells us that people have poorer quality of life outcomes, are more likely to die early, become obese, smoke, be unemployed, and have long term physical conditions than average.[3] People's social situation is also likely to be more complex, with housing needs, social isolation, stigma, and poverty.[4] All of these factors can make it hard for a person with a long-term mental health condition, or those supporting them, to hold onto a sense of hope that positive change is possible or that "recovery" towards a life that holds optimum meaning to them is achievable. An innovative "pop up" Recovery College model was co-produced, delivered, and evaluated by a team of people with lived experience of mental health difficulties, known as peer trainers. The Recovery College offered courses containing the best evidence-based knowledge about recovery in mental health, self-care and self-management. Each learning session included theory, personal testament from peer trainers, and volunteers and demonstrations of practical self-care skills and techniques. The courses were open to people experiencing mental health difficulties, their families, friends, and professionals. After the college course finished each student was offered up to three individual coaching sessions to help support putting the lessons learnt from the college into practice. The project aimed to test whether this innovative educational and coaching model could offer hope, knowledge and practical skills in self-management to support resilience and recovery. The project was underpinned by quality improvement methodologies to develop, deliver, and refine the model.

SUBMITTER: Burhouse A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4693036 | biostudies-literature | 2015

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Coaching for recovery: a quality improvement project in mental healthcare.

Burhouse Anna A Rowland Madeleine M Marie Niman Heather H Abraham Daisy D Collins Elizabeth E Matthews Helen H Denney Joanna J Ryland Howard H

BMJ quality improvement reports 20151111 1

Approximately one in four adults in the UK will experience a mental health difficulty at some point in their life. This figure is approximately 400 million people worldwide.[1] Depression alone is currently estimated to cost the UK 1.7% of GDP and is one of the largest causes of ill health in the world.[2] For conditions like psychosis, evidence tells us that people have poorer quality of life outcomes, are more likely to die early, become obese, smoke, be unemployed, and have long term physical ...[more]

PMID: 26734387

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundGiven persistent gaps in coordination of care for medically complex primary care patients, efficient strategies are needed to promote better care coordination.ObjectiveThe Coordination Toolkit and Coaching project compared two toolkit-based strategies of differing intensity to improve care coordination at VA primary care clinics.DesignMulti-site, cluster-randomized QI initiative.ParticipantsTwelve VA primary care clinics matched in 6 pairs.InterventionsWe used a computer-generated allocation sequence to randomize clinics within each pair to two implementation strategies. Active control clinics received an online toolkit with evidence-based tools and QI coaching manual. Intervention clinics received the online toolkit plus weekly assistance from a distance coach for 12 months.Main measuresWe quantified patient experience of general care coordination using the Health Care System Hassles Scale (primary outcome) mailed at baseline and 12-month follow-up to serial cross-sectional patient samples. We measured the difference-in-difference (DiD) in clinic-level-predicted mean counts of hassles between coached and non-coached clinics, adjusting for clustering and patient characteristics using zero-inflated negative binomial regression and bootstrapping to obtain 95% confidence intervals. Other measures included care coordination QI projects attempted, tools adopted, and patient-reported exposure to projects.Key resultsN = 2,484 (49%) patients completed baseline surveys and 2,481 (48%) completed follow-ups. Six coached clinics versus five non-coached clinics attempted QI projects. All coached clinics versus two non-coached clinics attempted more than one project or projects that were multifaceted (i.e., involving multiple components addressing a common goal). Five coached versus three non-coached clinics used 1-2 toolkit tools. Both the coached and non-coached clinics experienced pre-post reductions in hassle counts over the study period (- 0.42 (- 0.76, - 0.08) non-coached; - 0.40 (- 0.75, - 0.06) coached). However, the DiD (0.02 (- 0.47, 0.50)) was not statistically significant; coaching did not improve patient experience of care coordination relative to the toolkit alone.ConclusionAlthough coached clinics attempted more or more complex QI projects and used more tools than non-coached clinics, coaching provided no additional benefit versus the online toolkit alone in patient-reported outcomes.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03063294.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Quality improvement collaboratives (QICs) bring together groups of healthcare professionals to work in a structured manner to improve the quality of healthcare delivery within particular domains. We explored which characteristics of the composition, participation, functioning, and organization of these collaboratives related to changes in the healthcare for patients with anxiety disorders, dual diagnosis, or schizophrenia. METHODS: We studied three QICs involving 29 quality improvement (QI) teams representing a number of mental healthcare organizations in the Netherlands. The aims of the three QICs were the implementation of multidisciplinary practice guidelines in the domains of anxiety disorders, dual diagnosis, and schizophrenia, respectively. We used eight performance indicators to assess the impact of the QI teams on self-reported patient outcomes and process of care outcomes for 1,346 patients. The QI team members completed a questionnaire on the characteristics of the composition, participation in a national program, functioning, and organizational context for their teams. It was expected that an association would be found between these team characteristics and the quality of care for patients with anxiety disorders, dual diagnosis, and schizophrenia. RESULTS: No consistent patterns of association emerged. Theory-based factors did not perform better than practice-based factors. However, QI teams that received support from their management and both active and inspirational team leadership showed better results. Rather surprisingly, a lower average level of education among the team members was associated with better results, although less consistently than the management and leadership characteristics. Team views with regard to the QI goals of the team and attitudes towards multidisciplinary practice guidelines did not correlate with team success. CONCLUSIONS: No general conclusions about the impact of the characteristics of QI teams on the quality of healthcare can be drawn, but support of the management and active, inspirational team leadership appear to be important. Not only patient outcomes but also the performance indicators of monitoring and screening/assessment showed improvement in many but not all of the QI teams with such characteristics. More studies are needed to identify factors associated with the impact of multidisciplinary practice guidelines in mental healthcare.

Project description:Blood tests are a seemingly basic investigation, but are often a vital part of directing patient management. Despite the importance of this everyday process, we indentified the potential for improvement of the current phlebotomy service in our hospital, as both junior doctors and phlebotomists reported a lack of communication and standardised practice across the wards. Resulting delays in obtaining blood test results can impact detrimentally on patient safety and management. We designed a survey which highlighted inefficient handovers and discrepancies between wards as driving factors behind this. We therefore aimed to improve communication between phlebotomists and doctors, as well as the overall organisation of the service. This took the form of the "Phlebotomy Box," a box file system offering a set location for blood stickers to be situated. The box concept was optimised on a series of medical and surgical wards, incorporating multidisciplinary feedback from relevant teams. We measured how many untaken bloods were handed over to medical staff continuously, both pre- and post implementation of the phlebotomy box. Our baseline ward demonstrated poor handover rates of untaken bloods, ranging from 0% to 40%. This increased to a consistent 100% following introduction of the Phlebotomy Box and ongoing staff education. Once optimised, the box was trialled on a further two medical wards and one surgical ward, achieving 100% handover from an initial 0% to 67%. Quantitative improvement was also reflected qualitatively in widespread staff surveys, with overwhelmingly positive support and acceptance. In summary, the Phlebotomy Box innovation has led to 100% of untaken bloods being effectively handed over. We have demonstrated a significant improvement in communication and efficiency within the phlebotomy service, with tangible benefits to patient care, as minimising time lags can prevent delays in clinical decisions. The phlebotomy box represents a simplistic, sustainable intervention that could be easily replicated in other Trusts.

Project description:Good communication is central to good healthcare. As a result of poor communication between parents and healthcare professionals (HCPs) in clinical settings, this study aimed to address this problem by developing a communication tool to empower parents and act as a prompt for HCPs to talk about the child's care and gather information at the point of admission to hospital about what is important to families, therefore supporting patient-centered communication. A design thinking process was used to develop a physical copy of Chloe's card and evaluate its use. Design thinking is a problem-solving approach, which uses an empathetic lens to integrate viewpoints of different stakeholders throughout the process of creating solutions. Design thinking involves five processes: (1) empathise-including a literature review and data synthesis, (2) define-by completing semi-structured interviews with parents about their experience of communication and HCPs perceptions of parent's experience of communication, (3) ideate-iterate the design of Chloe's card with parents and HCPs, (4) prototype-develop the design of Chloe's card, and (5) test-pilot test in clinical practice. Results from this initial study suggest that a small hand-held card, with emoticons and a place to write concerns, was acceptable to parents and feasible to use in clinical practice. Parents do not always feel heard by HCPs and a tool such as Chloe's card may help facilitate sharing of information about matters important to them and their child. However, some HCPs felt the need for a communication tool undermined their clinical skills. Feedback from HCP participants suggests that the idea of Chloe's card was acceptable and perceived as potentially being useful in clinical practice. Further work is required, as part of a larger study, to further refine this communication tool, identify those parents who would benefit most from Chloe's card, as well as to further refine the HCP process prior to implementing it into clinical settings. It was noted future iterations would benefit from a digital version linked with a child's electronic record, as well as multi-language versions and information for parents.

Dataset Information

Coaching for recovery: a quality improvement project in mental healthcare.

Publications

Coaching for recovery: a quality improvement project in mental healthcare.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets