Dataset Information

Quality of mental health services and rights of people receiving treatment in inpatient services in Finland: a cross-sectional observational survey with the WHO QualityRights Tool Kit.

ABSTRACT:

Background

This article aims to review the quality of mental health services and the rights of the people receiving treatment in inpatient hospital care in Finland using the World Health Organization's QualityRights Tool Kit as a part of a randomized controlled trial VIOLIN. So far, reports on the QualityRights Tool Kit have mainly been from low- and middle-income countries or countries lacking resources for health services. Reports from countries with well-resourced health care systems, such as the Nordic countries, are still quite few.

Methods

A cross-sectional observational survey was conducted on 13 closed inpatient psychiatric wards (acute, rehabilitation, forensic psychiatric) at eight hospitals in Finland. The data for the survey were gathered through a document review, observations, and group interviews among staff members, service users and family members. The STROBE checklist for cross-sectional studies was followed in the reporting.

Results

Finnish mental health services are partially or fully achieving the standards set by the WHO QualityRights Tool Kit (final scores: 2.5-2.9 out of 3). The highest final score out of the five themes (2.9/3) was achieved under Freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and from exploitation, violence and abuse. The lowest final score out of the five themes (2.5/3) was achieved under the right to exercise legal capacity and the right to personal liberty and the security of person.

Conclusions

According to the findings, Finnish mental health services appear to be of high quality. However, we have identified some gaps in quality, which we have addressed in a national randomized controlled trial VIOLIN. Improvements can be realized through shared decision making and relaying information to service users.

SUBMITTER: Lantta T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8399820 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionThe majority of people who die by suicide have never seen a mental health professional or been diagnosed with a mental illness. To date, this majority group has largely been ignored, with most existing research focusing on predictors of suicide such as past suicide attempts. Identifying the characteristics of people who die by suicide without receiving services, often with a fatal first attempt, is crucial to reduce suicide rates through guiding improvements to service pathways and "just in time" interventions.MethodsIn this systematic review, PsycInfo, PubMed, CINAHL, and Web of Science were searched for peer-reviewed articles published from 1980 to 1st March 2021. Included studies examined predictors of non-receipt of formal mental health services among people who died by suicide. Data were extracted from published reports and the quality of included studies was assessed using a modified version of the Joanna Briggs Institute Checklist for Analytical Cross Sectional Studies. This review was registered with PROSPERO, CRD 42021226543.ResultsSixty-seven studies met inclusion criteria, with sample sizes ranging from 39 to 193,152 individuals. Male sex, younger or older age, and rural location were consistently associated with non-receipt of mental health services. People not receiving mental health services were also less likely to have a psychiatric diagnosis, past suicidal behavior or contact with general health services, and more likely to use violent means of suicide. There was some evidence that minority ethnicity and psychosocial stressors were associated with service non-receipt.ConclusionPeople who die by suicide without receiving mental health services are likely to have diverse profiles, indicating the need for multifaceted approaches to effectively support people at risk of suicide. Identifying the needs and preferences of individuals who are at risk of suicide is crucial in developing new support pathways and services, and improving the quality of existing services.Systematic review registrationhttp://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42021226543.

Project description:IntroductionOne of the most challenging aspects of conducting intervention trials among people who experience severe mental illness (SMI) and who smoke tobacco, is recruitment. In our parent "QuitLink" randomized controlled trial (RCT), slower than expected peer researcher facilitated recruitment, along with the impact of COVID-19 pandemic restrictions, necessitated an adaptive recruitment response. The objectives of the present study were to: (i) describe adaptive peer researcher facilitated recruitment strategies; (ii) explore the effectiveness of these strategies; (iii) investigate whether recruitment strategies reached different subgroups of participants; and (iv) examine the costs and resources required for implementing these strategies. Finally, we offer experience-based lessons in a Peer Researcher Commentary.MethodsPeople were included in the RCT if they smoked at least 10 cigarettes a day and were accessing mental health support from the project's two partnering mental health organizations in Victoria, Australia. The majority of people accessing these services will have been diagnosed with SMI. Recruitment occurred over 2 years. We began with peer facilitated recruitment strategies delivered face-to-face, then replaced this with direct mail postcards followed by telephone contact. In the final 4 months of the study, we began online recruitment, broadening it to people who smoked and were accessing support or treatment (including from general practitioners) for mental health and/or alcohol or other drug problems, anywhere in the state of Victoria. Differences between recruitment strategies on key participant variables were assessed. We calculated the average cost per enrolee of the different recruitment approaches.ResultsOnly 109 people were recruited from a target of 382: 29 via face-to-face (March 2019 to April 2020), 66 from postcards (May 2020 to November 2020), and 14 from online (November to December 2020 and January to March 2021) strategies. Reflecting our initial focus on recruiting from supported independent living accommodation facilities, participants recruited face-to-face were significantly more likely to be living in partially or fully supported independent living (n = 29, <0.001), but the samples were otherwise similar. After the initial investment in training and equipping peer researchers, the average cost of recruitment was AU$1,182 per participant-~US$850. Face-to-face recruitment was the most expensive approach and postcard recruitment the least (AU$1,648 and AU$928 per participant).DiscussionPeer researcher facilitated recruitment into a tobacco treatment trial was difficult and expensive. Widely dispersed services and COVID-19 restrictions necessitated non-face-to-face recruitment strategies, such as direct mail postcards, which improved recruitment and may be worthy of further research.Clinical trial registrationThe trial is registered with ANZCTR (www.anzctr.org.au): ACTRN12619000244101 prior to the accrual of the first participant and updated regularly as per registry guidelines. The trial sponsor was the University of Newcastle, NSW, Australia.

Project description:BackgroundThe aim of this study was to examine how the use of outpatient and inpatient health services differs by occupational groups, and whether the differences are explained by sociodemographic factors and health status.MethodsWe used register-based data on 25-64-year-old employees living in the city of Oulu, Finland, in 2018 (N = 61,848). Use of outpatient health care services (public, private and occupational health care) among men and women was analysed with negative binomial regression models, and use of inpatient health care with logistic regression models, using two occupational classifications: occupational group (1-digit level) and more detailed occupation (2-digit level). Adjusted covariates were age, education, income, marital status, special reimbursement entitlements for medicines, and sickness absence.ResultsExamined at the level of larger occupational groups, the use of outpatient and inpatient health care was less common than average among managers, professionals and skilled agricultural, forestry and fishery workers; in women also among craft and related trades workers. Controlling for covariates explained only part of the differences, more among women than among men. Analysed at the level of more detailed occupations, the adjusted use of outpatient and inpatient care was more common among health associate professionals and stationary plant and machine operators, both among men and women. Furthermore, the use of outpatient care was common among male personal care workers, protective service workers and metal, machinery and related trades workers as well as among labourers in mining, construction, manufacturing and transport, and female customer services clerks and sales workers.ConclusionThe use of health care services differs by occupation, and the differences are not fully explained by sociodemographic factors and health status. High occupational risks, attitudes and knowledge may explain the more frequent use of health services. Furthermore, explanations may be sought from lack of access to occupational health care or healthier working conditions and behavior.

Project description:BackgroundMany interventions aim to improve the transition from ward to community at the time of discharge, with varying success. Guidelines suggest that discharge planning should begin at admission, but in reality this is ideal rather than standard practice. We aimed to develop a novel information capture tool during admission that facilitates and accelerates discharge.MethodsA quality improvement study to develop, implement and evaluate a novel tool that improves information capture upon admission to acute mental health wards within a single English National Health Service (NHS) trust. We developed the tool by synthesising existing evidence and working with multi-agency and multi-disciplinary professionals in two co-design workshops. During implementation the tool was piloted on three wards. Ethnographic observations (145 h) and interviews (45) were used to evaluate the implementation of the tool across the three wards. Thematic synthesis was used to consolidate the findings.ResultsThe tool developed considerably as the process evolved. The finished product is a list of 10 information categories that should be captured from external agencies upon admission to hospital to facilitate discharge planning to community settings. Reported advantages of the tool were: (1) facilitating confidence in junior staff to legitimately question the suitability of a patient for an acute ward (2) collecting and storing essential information in a single accessible place that can be used throughout the care pathway and (3) collecting information from the services/agencies to which patients will eventually be discharged.ConclusionsImproving the quality of information at admission has the potential to facilitate and accelerate discharge. The novel tool provides a framework for capturing this information that can be incorporated into existing information systems. However, the introduction of the tool exacerbated complex, fragile distributed team dynamics, highlighting the importance of sociocultural context in information flow transitional interventions within distributed teams.