Dataset Information

A cross-sectional survey of mental health service users', carers' and professionals' priorities for patient safety in the United Kingdom.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Establishing patient safety priorities in psychiatry has received less international attention than in other areas of health care. This study aimed to identify safety issues as described by people in the United Kingdom identifying as mental health service users, carers and professionals. METHODS:A cross-sectional online survey was distributed via social media. Identified safety issues were mapped onto the Yorkshire Contributory Factors Framework (YCFF) which categorizes factors that contribute to patient safety incidents in general hospital settings. Service user and carer responses were described separately from professional responses using descriptive statistics. RESULTS:One hundred and eighty-five responses from 95 service users and carers and 90 professionals were analysed. Seventy different safety issues were identified. These were mapped onto the 17 existing categories of the YCFF and two additional categories created to form the YCFF-MH. Most frequently identified issues were as follows: "Individual characteristics" (of staff) which included competence and listening skills; "Service process" that contained concerns about waiting times; "Management of staff and staffing levels" dominated by staffing levels; and "External policy context" which included the overall resourcing of services. Professionals identified staffing levels and inadequate community provision more frequently than service users and carers, who in turn identified crisis care more frequently. CONCLUSIONS:This study updates knowledge on stakeholder perceived safety issues across mental health care. It shows a far broader range of issues relating to safety than has previously been described. The YCFF was successfully modified to describe these issues and areas for further coproduced research are suggested.

SUBMITTER: Berzins K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6250880 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A cross-sectional survey of mental health service users', carers' and professionals' priorities for patient safety in the United Kingdom.

Berzins Kathryn K Baker John J Brown Mark M Lawton Rebecca R

Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy 20180817 6

<h4>Background</h4>Establishing patient safety priorities in psychiatry has received less international attention than in other areas of health care. This study aimed to identify safety issues as described by people in the United Kingdom identifying as mental health service users, carers and professionals.<h4>Methods</h4>A cross-sectional online survey was distributed via social media. Identified safety issues were mapped onto the Yorkshire Contributory Factors Framework (YCFF) which categorizes ...[more]

PMID: 30120809

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSocial integration, shared decision-making and personalised care are key elements of mental health and social care policy. Although these elements have been shown to improve service user and service-level outcomes, their translation into practice has been inconsistent and social isolation amongst service users persists.AimTo co-adapt, with service users, carers/supporters and health professionals, a web-based social network intervention, GENIE™, for use in secondary mental health services. The intervention is designed to support social activity and preference discussions between mental healthcare professionals and service users as a means of connecting individuals to local resources.MethodsIn Phase 1 (LEARN), we completed two systematic reviews to synthesise the existing evidence relating to the i) effectiveness and ii) the implementation of social network interventions for people with mental health difficulties. We undertook semi-structured interviews with a convenience sample of 15 stakeholders previously involved in the implementation of the intervention in physical healthcare settings. Interviews were also conducted with 5 national key stakeholders in mental health (e.g., policy makers, commissioners, third sector leads) to explore wider implementation issues. In Phase 2 (ADAPT), we worked iteratively with eight service users, nine carers, six professionals/volunteers and our patient and public advisory group. We drew on a framework for experience-based co-design, consisting of a series of stakeholder consultation events, to discuss the use of the social network intervention, in mental health services. Participants also considered factors that could serve as enablers, barriers, and challenges to local implementation.ResultsAcross the stakeholder groups there was broad agreement that the social network intervention had potential to be useful within mental health services. In terms of appropriate and effective implementation, such an intervention was predicted to work best within the care planning process, on discharge from hospital and within early intervention services. There were indications that the social connection mapping and needs assessment components were of most value and feasible to implement which points to the potential utility of a simplified version compared to the one used in this study. The training provided to facilitators was considered to be more important than their profession and there were indications that service users should be offered the opportunity to invite a carer, friend, or family member to join them in the intervention.ConclusionThe GENIE™ intervention has been co-adapted for use in mental health services and a plan for optimal implementation has been co-produced. The next phase of the programme of work is to design and implement a randomised controlled trial to evaluate clinical and cost effectiveness of a simplified version of the intervention.

Project description:BackgroundCrisis resolution team (CRT) care in adult mental health services is intended to provide accessible and flexible short-term, intensive crisis intervention to service users experiencing a mental health crisis and involve their carers (next of kin). Research on users' and especially carers' experiences with CRT care is scarce and is mostly qualitative in nature.MethodsAltogether, 111 service users and 86 carers from 28 Norwegian CRTs were interviewed with The Service User and Carer Structured Interviews of the CORE Crisis Resolution Team Fidelity Scale Version 2. Their experiences with different aspects of CRT care were reported with descriptive statistics, and differences between service users' and carers' experiences were analyzed with the Mann-Whitney U Test.ResultsThe service users and carers reported that the CRT care mostly reflected their needs and what they wanted. The experiences of service users and carers were mostly similar, except for significant differences in received information and how the termination of CRT care appeared. Both groups experienced the organization of the CRT care as accessible, with continuity, reliability, and flexibility, but without a high intensity of care. Both groups found the content of the CRT care supportive, sensitive, with a choice of treatment type and a range of interventions beyond medication, but a lack of written treatment plans and discharge plans. Carers were rarely involved in discharge meetings. Regarding the role of CRTs within the care system, both groups agreed upon the lack of facilitation of early discharge from inpatient wards and lack of home treatment, but both groups confirmed some collaboration with other mental health services.ConclusionService users and carers found that the CRTs were accessible, reliable, flexible, supportive, sensitive, and provided a range of interventions beyond medication. Limitations were lack of a high intensity of care, limited written treatment and discharge plans, limited provision of home treatment, and lack of gatekeeping of acute beds. Both groups experienced the CRT care as mostly similar, but with significant differences regarding involvement in care planning and discharge preparation.

Project description:ObjectivesTo explore the experiences of service users, carers and staff seeking or providing secondary mental health services during the COVID-19 pandemic.DesignQualitative interview study, codesigned with mental health service users and carers.MethodsWe conducted semistructured, telephone or online interviews with a purposively constructed sample; a lived experience researcher conducted and analysed interviews with service users. Analysis was based on the constant comparison method.SettingNational Health Service (NHS) secondary mental health services in England between June and August 2020.ParticipantsOf 65 participants, 20 had either accessed or needed to access English secondary mental healthcare during the pandemic; 10 were carers of people with mental health difficulties; 35 were members of staff working in NHS secondary mental health services during the pandemic.ResultsExperiences of remote care were mixed. Some service users valued the convenience of remote methods in the context of maintaining contact with familiar clinicians. Most participants commented that a lack of non-verbal cues and the loss of a therapeutic 'safe space' challenged therapeutic relationship building, assessments and identification of deteriorating mental well-being. Some carers felt excluded from remote meetings and concerned that assessments were incomplete without their input. Like service users, remote methods posed challenges for clinicians who reported uncertainty about technical options and a lack of training. All groups expressed concern about intersectionality exacerbating inequalities and the exclusion of some service user groups if alternatives to remote care are lost.ConclusionsThough remote mental healthcare is likely to become increasingly widespread in secondary mental health services, our findings highlight the continued importance of a tailored, personal approach to decision making in this area. Further research should focus on which types of consultations best suit face-to-face interaction, and for whom and why, and which can be provided remotely and by which medium.

Project description:AimsPlanning mental health carer services requires information about the number of carers, their characteristics, service use and unmet support needs. Available Australian estimates vary widely due to different definitions of mental illness and the types of carers included. This study aimed to provide a detailed profile of Australian mental health carers using a nationally representative household survey.MethodsThe number of mental health carers, characteristics of carers and their care recipients, caring hours and tasks provided, service use and unmet service needs were derived from the national 2012 Survey of Disability, Ageing and Carers. Co-resident carers of adults with a mental illness were compared with those caring for people with physical health and other cognitive/behavioural conditions (e.g., autism, intellectual disability, dementia) on measures of service use, service needs and aspects of their caring role.ResultsIn 2012, there were 225 421 co-resident carers of adults with mental illness in Australia, representing 1.0% of the population, and an estimated further 103 813 mental health carers not living with their care recipient. The majority of co-resident carers supported one person with mental illness, usually their partner or adult child. Mental health carers were more likely than physical health carers to provide emotional support (68.1% v. 19.7% of carers) and less likely to assist with practical tasks (64.1% v. 86.6%) and activities of daily living (31.9% v. 48.9%). Of co-resident mental health carers, 22.5% or 50 828 people were confirmed primary carers - the person providing the most support to their care recipient. Many primary mental health carers (37.8%) provided more than 40 h of care per week. Only 23.8% of primary mental health carers received government income support for carers and only 34.4% received formal service assistance in their caring role, while 49.0% wanted more support. Significantly more primary mental health than primary physical health carers were dissatisfied with received services (20.0% v. 3.2%), and 35.0% did not know what services were available to them.ConclusionsResults reveal a sizable number of mental health carers with unmet needs in the Australian community, particularly with respect to financial assistance and respite care, and that these carers are poorly informed about available supports. The prominence of emotional support and their greater dissatisfaction with services indicate a need to better tailor carer services. If implemented carefully, recent Australian reforms including the Carer Gateway and National Disability Insurance Scheme hold promise for improving mental health carer supports.

Project description:BackgroundUtility scores are integral to health economics decision-making. Typically, utility scores have not been scored or developed with mental health service users. The aims of this study were to i) collaborate with service users to develop descriptions of five mental health states (psychosis, depression, eating disorder, medication side effects and self-harm); ii) explore feasibility and acceptability of using scenario-based health states in an e-survey; iii) evaluate which utility measures (standard gamble (SG), time trade off (TTO) and rating scale (RS)) are preferred; and iv) determine how different participant groups discriminate between the health scenarios and rank them.Design and methodsThis was a co-produced mixed methods cross-sectional online survey. Utility scores were generated using the SG, TTO and RS methods; difficulty of the completing each method, markers of acceptability and participants' preference were also assessed.ResultsA total of 119 participants (58%) fully completed the survey. For any given health state, SG consistently generated higher utility scores compared to RS and for some health states higher also than TTO (i.e. SG produces inflated utility scores relative to RS and TTO). Results suggest that different utility measures produce different evaluations of described health states. The TTO was preferred by all participant groups over the SG. The three participant groups scored four (of five) health scenarios comparably. Psychosis scored as the worst health state to live with while medication side-effects were viewed more positively than other scenarios (depression, eating disorders, self-harm) by all participant groups. However, there was a difference in how the depression scenario was scored, with service users giving depression a lower utility score compared to other groups.ConclusionMental health state scenarios used to generate utility scores can be co-produced and are well received by a broad range of participants. Utility valuations using SG, TTO and RS were feasible for use with service users, carers, healthcare professionals and members of the general public. Future studies of utility scores in psychiatry should aim to include mental health service users as both co-investigators and respondents.

Project description:BackgroundSelf-binding directives (SBDs) are psychiatric advance directives that include the possibility for service users to consent in advance to compulsory care in future mental health crises. Legal provisions for SBDs exist in the Netherlands since 2008 and were updated in 2020. While ethicists and legal scholars have identified several benefits and risks of SBDs, few data on stakeholder perspectives on SBDs are available.AimsThe aim of the study was to identify opportunities and challenges of SBDs perceived by stakeholders who have personal or professional experience with legally enforceable SBDs.MethodsData collection was carried out in the Netherlands from February 2020 to October 2021 by means of semi-structured interviews. Participants were selected through purposive sampling and snowball methods. Interviews were conducted with mental health service users (n = 7), professionals (n = 13), and an expert on SBD policy (n = 1), resulting in a total number of 21 interviews. The data were analyzed thematically.ResultsPerceived benefits of SBDs included increased autonomy, improvement of the therapeutic relationship, possibility of early intervention and prevention of harm, prevention of compulsory care, reduction of the duration of compulsory care and recovery, mitigation of negative experiences around compulsory care, and guidance for professionals in providing compulsory care. Perceived risks included infeasibility of SBD instructions, difficulty in decision-making around SBD activation, limited accessibility of SBDs, disappointment of service users due to non-compliance with SBDs, and limited evaluation and updating of SBD content. Barriers to SBD completion included lack of knowledge of SBDs among professionals, lack of motivation or insight among service users, and lack of professional support for SBD completion. Facilitators of SBD completion and activation included support for SBD completion, involvement of relatives and peer experts, specification of SBD content, and evaluation of compulsory care and SBD content. The new legal framework was regarded as having both positive and negative effects on SBD implementation.ConclusionsStakeholders who have personal or professional experience with legally enforceable SBDs perceive SBDs as having important benefits and tend not to articulate the fundamental ethical concerns about SBDs which can be found in the ethics and legal literature. Instead, they perceive ethical and practical challenges that can be addressed through the implementation of suitable safeguards.

Dataset Information

A cross-sectional survey of mental health service users', carers' and professionals' priorities for patient safety in the United Kingdom.

Publications

A cross-sectional survey of mental health service users', carers' and professionals' priorities for patient safety in the United Kingdom.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets