Project description:ObjectiveTo simulate the impact on population mental health indicators of allowing people to book some Medicare-subsidised sessions with psychologists and other mental health care professionals without a referral (direct access), and of increasing the annual growth rate in specialist mental health care capacity (consultations).DesignSystem dynamics model, calibrated using historical time series data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, HealthStats NSW, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, and the Australian Early Development Census. Parameter values that could not be derived from these sources were estimated by constrained optimisation.SettingNew South Wales, 1 September 2021 - 1 September 2028.Main outcome measuresProjected mental health-related emergency department presentations, hospitalisations following self-harm, and deaths by suicide, both overall and for people aged 15-24 years.ResultsDirect access (for 10-50% of people requiring specialist mental health care) would lead to increases in the numbers of mental health-related emergency department presentations (0.33-1.68% of baseline), hospitalisations with self-harm (0.16-0.77%), and deaths by suicide (0.19-0.90%), as waiting times for consultations would increase, leading to disengagement and consequently to increases in adverse outcomes. Increasing the annual rate of growth of mental health service capacity (two- to fivefold) would reduce the frequency of all three outcomes; combining direct access to a proportion of services with increased growth in capacity achieved substantially greater gains than an increase in service capacity alone. A fivefold increase in the annual service growth rate would increase capacity by 71.6% by the end of 2028, compared with current projections; combined with direct access to 50% of mental health consultations, 26 616 emergency department presentations (3.6%), 1199 hospitalisations following self-harm (1.9%), and 158 deaths by suicide (2.1%) could be averted.ConclusionThe optimal combination of increased service capacity growth (fivefold) and direct access (50% of consultations) would have double the impact over seven years of accelerated capacity growth alone. Our model highlights the risks of implementing individual reforms without knowledge of their overall system effect.

Project description:BackgroundMany people with eating disorders (EDs) either do not access treatment, access it well after symptoms first start, or drop out of treatment. This study evaluated ways to improve early access to evidence-based interventions for those with EDs in a non-specialist community setting.MethodsIn an Australian regional community, links were formed between general medical practitioners and treatment providers (psychologists, mental health social workers and dietitians), who received ongoing training, feedback and support. Service users had access to 20-40 subsidised treatment sessions. Data were collected from 143 patients over 18 months. Our outcomes are reported according to the RE-AIM implementation framework: Reach (we measured uptake and treatment completion); Effectiveness (impact on disordered eating cognitions, body mass index, remission, and moderators of effectiveness including illness duration, previous treatment, presence of comorbidities, presence of a normative level of disordered eating, presence of any ED behaviours, weighing in treatment, multidisciplinary case conferencing, number of dietetic sessions); Adoption (drop-out and predictors); Implementation (barriers encountered); Maintenance (subsequent activity designed to embed new practices).ResultsTreatment was completed by 71%; significant large decreases in eating disorder cognitions were achieved; remission was obtained by 37% (intent-to-treat). Treatment completion was predicted by lower baseline levels of disordered eating, uptake of ≥ 3 dietetic sessions, and ≥ 2 team case conferences. Greater improvement over time was predicted by regular case conferencing and in-session weighing.ConclusionsImplementation of this model in a regional community setting produced completion rates and outcomes comparable to those found in specialist clinical trials of ED treatments. Service providers identified care coordination as the most important factor to connect users to services and help navigate barriers to ongoing treatment.Trial registrationThis research was an invited evaluation of a project implemented by the Australian Department of Health. The project did not introduce any new clinical practice but sought to improve access to evidence-based multidisciplinary treatment for people with EDs by removing four known systemic barriers: securing an accurate diagnosis, availability of multidisciplinary treatment, cost of treatment, and intensity of treatment. As such, the project did not require trial registration. Notwithstanding, this evaluation obtained ethics approval (Bellberry Human Research Ethics Committee, Application No: 2018-09-728-FR-1).

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.

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.

Project description:BackgroundPerinatal depression affects an estimated 1 in 5 women in North America during the perinatal period, with annualized lifetime costs estimated at $20.6 billion CAD in Canada and over $45.9 billion USD in the US. Access to psychological treatments remains limited for most perinatal women suffering from depression and anxiety. Some barriers to effective care can be addressed through task-sharing to non-specialist providers and through telemedicine platforms. The cost-effectiveness of these strategies compared to traditional specialist and in-person models remains unknown. This protocol describes an economic evaluation of non-specialist providers and telemedicine, in comparison to specialist providers and in-person sessions within the ongoing Scaling Up Maternal Mental healthcare by Increasing access to Treatment (SUMMIT) trial.MethodsThe economic evaluation will be undertaken alongside the SUMMIT trial. SUMMIT is a pragmatic, randomized, non-inferiority trial across five North American study sites (N = 1,226) of the comparable effectiveness of two types of providers (specialist vs. non-specialist) and delivery modes (telemedicine vs. in-person) of a behavioural activation treatment for perinatal depressive and anxiety symptoms. The primary economic evaluation will be a cost-utility analysis. The outcome will be the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, which will be expressed as the additional cost required to achieve an additional quality-adjusted life-year, as assessed by the EuroQol 5-Dimension 5-Level instrument. A secondary cost-effectiveness analysis will use participants' depressive symptom scores. A micro-costing analysis will be conducted to estimate the resources/costs required to implement and sustain the interventions; healthcare resource utilization will be captured via self-report. Data will be pooled and analysed using uniform price and utility weights to determine cost-utility across all trial sites. Secondary country-specific cost-utility and cost-effectiveness analyses will also be completed. Sensitivity analyses will be conducted, and cost-effectiveness acceptability-curves will be generated, in all instances.DiscussionResults of this study are expected to inform key decisions related to dissemination and scale up of evidence-based psychological interventions in Canada, the US, and possibly worldwide. There is potential impact on real-world practice by informing decision makers of the long-term savings to the larger healthcare setting in services to support perinatal women with common mental health conditions.

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.

Dataset Information

Implementation of treatment guidelines for specialist mental health care.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets