Dataset Information

Experiences of mental health professionals supporting front-line health and social care workers during COVID-19: qualitative study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is having a well-documented impact on the mental health of front-line health and social care workers (HSCWs). However, little attention has been paid to the experiences of, and impact on, the mental health professionals who were rapidly tasked with supporting them.

Aims

We set out to redress this gap by qualitatively exploring UK mental health professionals' experiences, views and needs while working to support the well-being of front-line HSCWs during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Method

Mental health professionals working in roles supporting front-line HSCWs were recruited purposively and interviewed remotely. Transcripts of the interviews were analysed by the research team following the principles of reflexive thematic analysis.

Results

We completed interviews with 28 mental health professionals from varied professional backgrounds, career stages and settings across the UK. Mental health professionals were motivated and driven to develop new clinical pathways to support HSCWs they perceived as colleagues and many experienced professional growth. However, this also came at some costs, as they took on additional responsibilities and increased workloads, were anxious and uncertain about how best to support this workforce and tended to neglect their own health and well-being. Many were professionally isolated and were affected vicariously by the traumas and moral injuries that healthcare workers talked about in sessions.

Conclusions

This research highlights the urgent need to consider the mental well-being, training and support of mental health professionals who are supporting front-line workers.

SUBMITTER: Billings J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8007934 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesThis study aimed to investigate the presence of perceived stressors, psychological safety and teamwork in healthcare professionals. As the timeframe for this study spanned the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, data were captured demonstrating the impact of the pandemic on these factors.DesignQualitative interview study.SettingAll staff working within the emergency and critical care departments of one National Health Service Trust in London, UK.ParticipantsForty-nine participants were recruited using a purposive sampling technique and interviewed when the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic had subsided.Main outcome measuresEvaluation of changes in perceived stressors, psychological safety and teamwork in individuals working during the COVID-19 pandemic.ResultsThe thematic analysis relating to a participant's lived experiences while working during COVID-19 led to the construction of five key themes, including 'psychological effects' and 'changes in team dynamics'. Several psychological effects were described, including the presence of psychological distress and insights into the aetiology of moral injury. There was marked heterogeneity in participants' response to COVID-19, particularly with respect to changes in team dynamics and the perception of a psychologically safe environment. Descriptions of improved team cohesiveness and camaraderie contrasted with stories of new barriers, notably due to the high workload and the impact of personal protective equipment. Building on these themes, a map of key changes arising due to the pandemic was developed, highlighting potential opportunities to provide targeted support.ConclusionsWorking on the front line of a pandemic can have significant implications for healthcare workers, putting them at risk of psychological distress and moral injury, as well as affecting team dynamics. There is striking heterogeneity in the manifestation of these challenges. Team leaders can use the themes and qualitative data from this study to help identify areas for management focus and individual and team support.

Project description:BackgroundHealth policy in many countries directs treatment to the lowest effective care level and encourages collaboration between primary and specialist mental health care. A number of models for collaborative care have been developed, and patient benefits are being reported. Less is known about what enables and prevents implementation and sustainability of such models regarding the actions and attitudes of stakeholders on the ground. This article reports from a qualitative sub-study of a cluster-RCT testing a model for collaborative care in Oslo, Norway. The model involved the placement of psychologists and psychiatrists from a community mental health centre in each intervention GP practice. GPs could seek their input or advice when needed and refer patients to them for assessment (including assessment of the need for external services) or treatment.MethodsWe conducted in-depth qualitative interviews with GPs (n = 7), CMHC specialists (n = 6) and patients (n = 11) in the intervention arm. Sample specific topic guides were used to investigate the experience of enablers and barriers to the collaborative care model. Data were subject to stepwise deductive-inductive thematic analysis.ResultsParticipants reported positive experiences of how the model improved accessibility. First, co-location made GPs and CMHC specialists accessible to each other and facilitated detailed, patient-centred case collaboration and learning through complementary skills. The threshold for patients' access to specialist care was lowered, treatment could commence early, and throughput increased. Treatment episodes were brief (usually 5-10 sessions) and this was too brief according to some patients. Second, having experienced mental health specialists in the team and on the front line enabled early assessment of symptoms and of the type of treatment and service that patients required and were entitled to, and who could be treated at the GP practice. This improved both care pathways and referral practices. Barriers revolved around the organisation of care. Logistical issues could be tricky but were worked out. The biggest obstacle was the funding of health care at a structural level, which led to economic losses for both the GP practices and the CMHC, making the model unsustainable.ConclusionsParticipants identified a range of benefits of collaborative care for both patients and services. However, the funding system in effect penalises collaborative work. It is difficult to see how policy aiming for successful, sustainable collaboration can be achieved without governments changing funding structures.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03624829.

Project description:BackgroundShared decision-making (SDM) is a process whereby clinicians and patients work together to select treatments based on both the patient's preferences and clinical evidence. Although patients with psychotic disorders want to participate more in decisions regarding their care, they have limited opportunities to do so because of various barriers. Knowing about health professionals' experiences with SDM is important toward achieving successful implementation. The study aim was to describe and explore health professionals' SDM experiences with patients with psychotic disorders.MethodsThree focus group interviews were conducted, with a total of 18 health professionals who work at one of three Norwegian community mental health centres where patients with psychotic disorders are treated. We applied a descriptive and exploratory approach using qualitative content analysis.ResultsHealth professionals primarily understand the SDM concept to mean giving patients information and presenting them with a choice between different antipsychotic medications. Among the barriers to SDM, they emphasized that patients with psychosis have a limited understanding of their health situation and that time is needed to build trust and alliances. Health professionals mainly understand patients with psychotic disorders as a group with limited abilities to make their own decisions. They also described the concept of SDM with little consideration of presenting different treatment options. Psychological or social interventions were often presented as complementary to antipsychotic medications, rather than as an alternative to them.ConclusionHealth professionals' understanding of SDM is inconsistent with the definition commonly used in the literature. They consider patients with psychotic disorders to have limited abilities to participate in decisions regarding their own treatment. These findings suggest that health professionals need more theoretical and practical training in SDM.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Given the prevalence of mental health problems globally, there is an increasing need for the police and other non-mental health trained professionals to identify and manage situations involving individuals with mental health problems. The review aimed to identify and explore qualitative evidence on views and experiences of non-mental health professionals receiving mental health training and the barriers and facilitators to training delivery and implementation. METHODS:A meta-synthesis of qualitative evidence on the barriers, facilitators and perceived impact of mental health training programmes for non-mental health trained professionals. Systematic literature searches were undertaken of the following databases: Criminal Justice Abstracts (CJA); MEDLINE; Embase; PsycINFO; ASSIA; CENTRAL; SSCI; ERIC; Campbell Library; Social Care Online and EPOC from 1995 to 2016. Records were independently screened for eligibility by two researchers, data extraction and quality appraisal of studies was also undertaken independently by two researchers. The CASP tool was used to quality appraise included studies. Included studies were synthesised using a meta-ethnographic approach as outlined by Noblit and Hare. RESULTS:10,282 records were identified and eight qualitative studies were included. A range of barriers and facilitators to training were identified and related to the delivery and content of training; the use of additional resources; and staff willingness to engage with training and organisational factors. The perceived impact of training was also discussed in terms of how it affects trainees; perceptions of mental health; self-perception; responses to situations involving mental health and the potential of training to reduce injury or physical harm in situations involving mental health. The value of training and how to measure its impact were also discussed. CONCLUSION:Findings from this review have implications for those designing, implementing and evaluating mental health training programmes. It is recommended that research evaluating mental health training includes a qualitative component to ensure that the barriers and facilitators to training and its impact on trainees' perceptions of mental health are understood. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION NUMBER:PROSPERO: CRD42015015981.

Project description:BackgroundThe widely established treatment for psychosis is long-term antipsychotic medication. However, many people stop taking this treatment, and request other options. There are also growing concerns about adverse effects, but currently no professional guidelines to support reducing or stopping these drugs. The views and experiences of individual mental health professionals around reducing and stopping antipsychotics are therefore crucial in treatment decisions.MethodsWe conducted 7 focus groups with prescribing psychiatrists and other members of community-based statutory mental health services in London. Participants discussed their views about, experiences, and processes of antipsychotic reduction and discontinuation. Data were analysed using thematic analysis.ResultsParticipants acknowledged that antipsychotics can have severe adverse effects. They were generally supportive of trying to reduce these drugs to the lowest effective dose, although stopping antipsychotics was less acceptable. Prior experiences of adverse events after reduction or discontinuation meant that both were approached with caution. Reduction was also reported to be hampered by organisational and knowledge barriers. Lack of resources, pressure to discharge, and poor continuity of care were seen as organisational barriers. Knowledge barriers included inadequate evidence about who might be best suited to reduction, and lack of guidance about how this could be done safely. This meant that reduction was often prompted by patients, and sometimes actively discouraged, and stability with maintenance treatment was often favoured.ConclusionsConcerns about risk and other barriers means that clinicians are often reluctant to implement reduction or discontinuation of antipsychotic medication. In order to increase the treatment options available to service users, more research and guidance on how to minimise the risks of antipsychotic reduction and discontinuation is required to enable clinicians to engage more constructively with service users requests, offering people more choice and control in managing their mental health condition.

Project description:ObjectivesThis study aimed to explore the lived experience of Jordanian front-line healthcare workers (FHCWs), including their experienced challenges and adaptations amid the COVID-19 pandemic.DesignA phenomenological qualitative design was used to highlight the experiences of a sample Jordanian FHCWs during the COVID-19 pandemic. Qualitative interviews were conducted using a semistructured guide with open-ended questions, audiotaped and then transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis of the transcribed narratives was conducted using an open coding line by line to develop themes and related subthemes.SettingMobile COVID-19 testing and contact tracing units during an active surge of cases in Jordan between May and September 2020.ParticipantsParticipants were recruited using purposive sampling method and consisted of 15 FHCWs (2 physicians, 10 nurses, 2 paramedics and 1 laboratory technician) who have worked in testing and contact tracing teams in the community and have dealt with suspected or confirmed cases of COVID-19 infection.ResultsParticipant narratives were classified into two main overarching themes; challenges and adaptation themes. The challenges theme was exhibited as follows: (1) an excruciating encounter with an invisible enemy, (2) distorted knowledge about COVID-19 and (3) organisational and administrative challenges. The adaptation theme was exhibited as follows: (1) seeking relevant knowledge about the disease and (2) seeking more connectedness.ConclusionsThe COVID-19 pandemic exerted many challenges for FHCWs at multiple levels; intrapersonal and interpersonal, organisational and societal levels. Nevertheless, a number of adaptation strategies within these levels have been reported. This study helps to provide the base on which healthcare officials and public health personnel can formulate preparedness plans that tackle challenges faced by front-line workers, which ultimately enhance the resilience of healthcare systems to withstand future pandemics.