Implementation of treatment guidelines for specialist mental health care.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Bighelli I
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6463846 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BACKGROUND: Referral letters are the main communication means between Primary and Specialised Mental Health Care. However, studies of referral letters reveal that they lack important information, and how this lack of information affects the care for patients is unknown. This study aims to explore if and to what degree the quality of referral letters within Mental Health Care for adults can be improved and the potential improvement's impact on defined patient, professional and organisational related outcomes. METHODS AND DESIGN: A controlled study with pre and post test will be prepared and accomplished to explore the correlation between the content of referral letters and outcomes of the care for the referred patients. The study is performed in accordance with the guideline of the Medical Research Council on development and evaluation of complex interventions. Using a mixed method design, a stepwise model will be conducted: Firstly, process and outcome measures will be developed and tested. Secondly, by these measures, the results from an intervention group of General Practitioners (GPs) who receive a complex quality improvement intervention will be compared with results from a control group who perform "care as usual". Compliance to the introduced guideline will be measured as a mediator. DISCUSSION: The Western Norway Mental Health Interface Study is among the first trials to evaluate the impact of the quality of referral letters on the organization of care. This study will provide information that will be usable for healthcare managers and clinicians in both Primary and Specialised Care settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01374035.
| S-EPMC3261816 | biostudies-literature
Project description:U.S. health care systems are tasked with alleviating the burden of mental health, but are frequently underprepared and lack workforce and resource capacity to deliver services to all in need. Digital mental health interventions (DMHIs) can increase access to evidence-based mental health care. However, DMHIs commonly do not fit into the day-to-day activities of the people who engage with them, resulting in a research-to-practice gap for DMHI implementation. For health care settings, differences between digital and traditional mental health services make alignment and integration challenging. Specialized attention is needed to improve the implementation of DMHIs in health care settings so that these services yield high uptake, engagement, and sustainment. The purpose of this article is to enhance efforts to integrate DMHIs in health care settings by proposing implementation strategies, selected and operationalized based on the discrete strategies established in the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change project, that align to DMHI-specific barriers in these settings. Guidance is offered in how these strategies can be applied to DMHI implementation across four phases commonly distinguished in implementation science using the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment Framework. Next steps to advance research in this area and improve the research-to-practice gap for implementing DMHIs are recommended. Applying implementation strategies to DMHI implementation will enable psychologists to systematically evaluate this process, which can yield an enhanced understanding of the factors that facilitate implementation success and improve the translation of DMHIs from controlled trials to real-world settings. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).
| S-EPMC7709140 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMedicines reconciliation-identifying and maintaining an accurate list of a patient's current medications-should be undertaken at all transitions of care and available to all patients.ObjectiveA self-completion web survey was conducted for chief pharmacists (or equivalent) to evaluate medicines reconciliation levels in secondary care mental health organisations.SettingThe survey was sent to secondary care mental health organisations in England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales.MethodThe survey was launched via Bristol Online Surveys. Quantitative data was analysed using descriptive statistics and qualitative data was collected through respondents free-text answers to specific questions.Main outcomes measureInvestigate how medicines reconciliation is delivered, incorporate a clear description of the role of pharmacy staff and identify areas of concern.ResultsForty-two (52 % response rate) surveys were completed. Thirty-seven (88.1 %) organisations have a formal policy for medicines reconciliation with defined steps. Results show that the pharmacy team (pharmacists and pharmacy technicians) are the main professionals involved in medicines reconciliation with a high rate of doctors also involved. Training procedures frequently include an induction by pharmacy for doctors whilst the pharmacy team are generally trained by another member of pharmacy. Mental health organisations estimate that nearly 80 % of medicines reconciliation is carried out within 24 h of admission. A full medicines reconciliation is not carried out on patient transfer between mental health wards; instead quicker and less exhaustive variations are implemented. 71.4 % of organisations estimate that pharmacy staff conduct daily medicine reconciliations for acute admission wards (Monday to Friday). However, only 38 % of organisations self-report to pharmacy reconciling patients' medication for other teams that admit from primary care.ConclusionMost mental health organisations appear to be complying with NICE guidance on medicines reconciliation for their acute admission wards. However, medicines reconciliation is conducted less frequently on other units that admit from primary care and rarely completed on transfer when it significantly differs to that on admission. Formal training and competency assessments on medicines reconciliation should be considered as current training varies and adherence to best practice is questionable.
| S-EPMC4828472 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMany patients with mental disorders are treated by their general practitioner (GP). Innovative technology-based integrated care models (e.g., mental health specialist video consultations) have been proposed to facilitate access to specialist services in primary care settings. While perspectives of patients and providers have been examined, there is little insight into the perspectives of health policy experts on such models. The purpose of this study was to examine the perspectives of health policy experts on (1) current challenges for continuity of care, (2) anticipated benefits and barriers for implementation of mental health specialist video consultations along with (3) practical and regulative preconditions for sustained implementation in primary care.MethodsIn a cross-sectional qualitative study, we conducted 15 semi-structured interviews with health policy experts representing various stakeholders in the German health care system: health insurances, governmental bodies, clinicians' professional associations, and patient representatives. Following a critical realism approach, we applied a qualitative inductive content analysis to derive key themes from the material.ResultsHealth policy experts saw long waiting times for patients and a lack of collaboration between in- and outpatient mental health services as well as mental health specialists and GPs as main barriers for current continuity of care. Health policy experts also felt that video consultations bear great potential to foster coordinated care between GPs and specialists and ensure timely referral for severely burdened patients. Increased workload for the general practice staff to facilitate video consultations and difficulties in establishing reliable therapeutic alliances between patients and specialists via remote treatment were considered as major barriers. Health policy experts varied significantly in their level of knowledge concerning legal frameworks and regulations pertaining to video consultations. However, the implementation of appropriate reimbursement schemes and sufficient data protection were regarded as the major regulative challenges.ConclusionsHealth policy experts mostly consider mental health specialist video consultations as a promising way to overcome current challenges for the management of patients with mental disorders at the interface between primary and specialist care. To ensure sustained implementation, a multi-stakeholder approach accounting for the perspective of health policy experts, patients, and providers should be followed.Trial registrationGerman Clinical Trials Register DRKS00012487.
| S-EPMC8293503 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundClinical guidelines advocate for the inclusion of young people experiencing depression as well as their caregivers in making decisions about their treatment. Little is known, however, about the degree to which these groups are involved, and whether they want to be. This study sought to explore the experiences and desires of young people and their caregivers in relation to being involved in treatment decision making for depressive disorders.MethodsSemi-structured interviews were carried out with ten young people and five caregivers from one primary care and one specialist mental health service about their experiences and beliefs about treatment decision making. Interviews were audio taped, transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis.ResultsExperiences of involvement for clients varied and were influenced by clients themselves, clinicians and service settings. For caregivers, experiences of involvement were more homogenous. Desire for involvement varied across clients, and within clients over time; however, most clients wanted to be involved at least some of the time. Both clients and caregivers identified barriers to involvement.ConclusionsThis study supports clinical guidelines that advocate for young people diagnosed with depressive disorders to be involved in treatment decision making. In order to maximise engagement, involvement in treatment decision making should be offered to all clients. Involvement should be negotiated explicitly and repeatedly, as desire for involvement may change over time. Caregiver involvement should be negotiated on an individual basis; however, all caregivers should be supported with information about mental disorders and treatment options.
| S-EPMC3266645 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMost people affected by depression or anxiety disorders are treated solely by their primary care physician. Access to specialized mental health care is impeded by patients' comorbidity and immobility in aging societies and long waiting times at the providers' end. Video-based integrated care models may leverage limited resources more efficiently and provide timely specialized care in primary care settings.ObjectiveThe study aims to evaluate the feasibility of mental health specialist video consultations with primary care patients with depression or anxiety disorders.MethodsParticipants were recruited by their primary care physicians during regular practice visits. Patients who had experienced at least moderate symptoms of depression and/or anxiety disorders were considered eligible for the study. Patients were randomized into 2 groups receiving either treatment-as-usual as provided by their general practitioner or up to 5 video consultations conducted by a mental health specialist. Video consultations focused on systematic diagnosis and proactive monitoring using validated clinical rating scales, the establishment of an effective working alliance, and a stepped-care algorithm within integrated care adjusting treatments based on clinical outcomes. Feasibility outcomes were recruitment, rate of loss to follow-up, acceptability of treatment, and attendance at sessions. Effectiveness outcomes included depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-9), anxiety (Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7), burden of specific somatic complaints (Somatic Symptom Disorder-B Criteria Scale-12), recovery (Recovery Assessment Scale-German [RAS-G]), and perception of chronic illness care (Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care), which were measured at baseline and 16 weeks postallocation by assessors blinded to the group allocation.ResultsA total of 50 patients with depression and/or anxiety disorders were randomized, 23 in the intervention group and 27 in the treatment-as-usual group. The recruitment yield (number randomized per number screened) and the consent rate (number randomized per number eligible) were 69% (50/73) and 86% (50/58), respectively. Regarding acceptability, 87% (20/23) of the participants in the intervention group completed the intervention. Of the 108 planned video consultations, 102 (94.4%) were delivered. Follow-up rates were 96% (22/23) and 85% (23/27) for the intervention and control groups, respectively. The change from baseline scores at postmeasurement for the No Domination by Symptoms domain of recovery (RAS-G) was somewhat higher in the intervention group than in the control group (Mann-Whitney U test: rank-biserial r=0.19; 95% CI -0.09 to 0.46; P=.18). We did not detect any notable differences between the intervention and control groups in terms of other effectiveness outcomes. We did not observe any serious adverse events related to the trial.ConclusionsThe intervention and study procedures were found to be feasible for patients, primary care practice staff, and mental health specialists. A sufficiently powered pragmatic trial on mental health specialist video consultations should be conducted to investigate their effectiveness in routine care.Trial registrationGerman Clinical Trials Register DRKS00015812; https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00015812.
| S-EPMC7998325 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundEmployees' perceptions of organizational climate for implementation of new methods are important in assessing and planning for implementation efforts. More specifically, feedback from employees' points to which implementation strategies to select, adopt, and tailor in building positive climate for implementation of new evidence-based practices within the organization. Implementation climate can be measured with the Implementation Climate Scale (ICS). The purpose of this study was to investigate the psychometric properties of the Norwegian version of the ICS in outpatient mental health clinics.MethodsThe ICS was administered to 383 clinicians within 47 different child and adult mental health clinics across the country. We conducted confirmatory factor analysis to assess the psychometric functioning of the ICS. Cronbach's alpha was examined to assess internal consistency. We also examined criterion related validity of the scale by comparing it with an alternative measure of implementation climate (concurrent validity) and by examining correlations with clinicians' intentions to use evidence-based practices.ResultsResults supported the 6-factor structure and the internal consistency reliability of the ICS. One exception was poor functioning of the Reward scale. Concurrent validity was stronger at the group than at the individual level, and assessment of associations with clinicians' intentions to use evidence- based practices showed positive correlations.ConclusionsThe Norwegian version of the ICS is a promising tool for assessing implementation climate which can provide organizations with specific feedback concerning which aspects of the implementation climate to attend to. Due to poor functioning of the Reward scale, adaptations and further testing of this is recommended.
| S-EPMC8725247 | biostudies-literature
Project description:UnlabelledBackgroundRecent years have seen the large-scale development of clinical practice guidelines for mental disorders in several countries. In the Netherlands, more than ten multidisciplinary guidelines for mental health care have been developed since 2003. The first dealt with the treatment of anxiety disorders. An important question was whether it is feasible to implement these guidelines because implementing practice guidelines is often difficult. Although several implementation interventions have proven effective, there seems to be no ready-made strategy that works in all circumstances.Case descriptionThe Dutch multidisciplinary guidelines for anxiety disorders were implemented in a community mental health care centre, located in the east of the Netherlands. The centre provides secondary outpatient care. The unit within the centre that specializes in the treatment of anxiety disorders has 16 team members with diverse professional backgrounds. Important steps in the process of implementing the guidelines were analysing the care provided before start of the implementation to determine the goals for improvement, and analysing the context and target group for implementation. Based on these analyses, a tailor-made multifaceted implementation strategy was developed that combined the reorganization of the care process, the development of instruction materials, the organization of educational meetings and the use of continuous quality circles to improve adherence to guidelines.Discussion and evaluationSignificant improvements in adherence rates were made in the aspect of care that was targeted for change. An increase was found in the number of patients being provided with recommended forms of psychotherapeutic treatment, ranging from 43% to 54% (p?<?0.01). The delivery of adequate pharmacological treatment was not explicitly targeted for change remained constant.ConclusionThe case study presented here shows that the implementation of practice guidelines for anxiety disorders in mental health care is feasible. Based on the results of our study, the implementation model used offers a useful approach to guideline implementation. By describing the exact steps that were followed in detail and providing some of the tools that were used in the study, we hope the replication of this implementation methodology is made more practical for others in the future.
| S-EPMC3499400 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIntegrating mental health services into primary care settings is complex and challenging. Although facilitation strategies have successfully supported implementation of primary care mental health integration and other complex innovations, we know little about the time required or its cost.ObjectiveTo examine the time and organizational cost of facilitating implementation of primary care mental health integration.DesignDescriptive analysis.ParticipantsOne expert external facilitator and two internal regional facilitators who helped healthcare system stakeholders, e.g., leaders, managers, clinicians, and non-clinical staff, implement primary care mental health integration at eight clinics.InterventionImplementation facilitation tailored to the needs and resources of the setting and its stakeholders.Main measuresWe documented facilitators' and stakeholders' time and types of activities using a structured spreadsheet collected from facilitators on a weekly basis. We obtained travel costs and salary information. We conducted descriptive analysis of time data and estimated organizational cost.Key resultsThe external facilitator devoted 263 h (0.09 FTE), including travel, across all 8 clinics over 28 months. Internal facilitator time varied across networks (1792 h versus 1169 h), as well as clinics. Stakeholder participation time was similar across networks (1280.6 versus 1363.4 person hours) but the number of stakeholders varied (133 versus 199 stakeholders). The organizational cost of providing implementation facilitation also varied across networks ($263,490 versus $258,127). Stakeholder participation accounted for 35% of the cost of facilitation activities in one network and 47% of the cost in the other.ConclusionsAlthough facilitation can improve implementation of primary care mental health integration, it requires substantial organizational investments that may vary by site and implementation effort. Furthermore, the cost of using an external expert to transfer facilitation skills and build capacity for implementation efforts appears to be minimal.
| S-EPMC7174254 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND: Nowadays more and more clinical guidelines for health care professionals are being developed. However, this does not automatically mean that these guidelines are actually implemented. The aim of this meta-review is twofold: firstly, to gain a better understanding of which factors affect the implementation of guidelines, and secondly, to provide insight into the "state-of-the-art" regarding research within this field. METHODS: A search of five literature databases and one website was performed to find relevant existing systematic reviews or meta-reviews. Subsequently, a two-step inclusion process was conducted: (1) screening on the basis of references and abstracts and (2) screening based on full-text papers. After that, relevant data from the included reviews were extracted and the methodological quality of the reviews was assessed by using the Quality Assessment Checklist for Reviews. RESULTS: Twelve systematic reviews met our inclusion criteria. No previous systematic meta-reviews meeting all our inclusion criteria were found. Two of the twelve reviews scored high on the checklist used, indicating only "minimal" or "minor flaws". The other ten reviews scored in the lowest of middle ranges, indicating "extensive" or "major" flaws. A substantial proportion (although not all) of the reviews indicates that effective strategies often have multiple components and that the use of one single strategy, such as reminders only or an educational intervention, is less effective. Besides, characteristics of the guidelines themselves affect actual use. For instance, guidelines that are easy to understand, can easily be tried out, and do not require specific resources, have a greater chance of implementation. In addition, characteristics of professionals - e.g., awareness of the existence of the guideline and familiarity with its content - likewise affect implementation. Furthermore, patient characteristics appear to exert influence: for instance, co-morbidity reduces the chance that guidelines are followed. Finally, environmental characteristics may influence guideline implementation. For example, a lack of support from peers or superiors, as well as insufficient staff and time, appear to be the main impediments. CONCLUSION: Existing reviews describe various factors that influence whether guidelines are actually used. However, the evidence base is still thin, and future sound research - for instance comparing combinations of implementation strategies versus single strategies - is needed.
| S-EPMC2551591 | biostudies-literature