Dataset Information

'Care Under Pressure': a realist review of interventions to tackle doctors' mental ill-health and its impacts on the clinical workforce and patient care.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:Mental ill-health is prevalent across all groups of health professionals and this is of great concern in many countries. In the UK, the mental health of the National Health Service (NHS) workforce is a major healthcare issue, leading to presenteeism, absenteeism and loss of staff from the workforce. Most interventions targeting doctors aim to increase their 'productivity' and 'resilience', placing responsibility for good mental health with doctors themselves and neglecting the organisational and structural contexts that may have a detrimental effect on doctors' well-being. There is a need for approaches that are sensitive to the contextual complexities of mental ill-health in doctors, and that do not treat doctors as a uniform body, but allow distinctions to account for particular characteristics, such as specialty, career stage and different working environments. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:Our project aims to understand how, why and in what contexts support interventions can be designed to minimise the incidence of doctors' mental ill-health. We will conduct a realist review-a form of theory-driven interpretative systematic review-of interventions, drawing on diverse literature sources. The review will iteratively progress through five steps: (1) locate existing theories; (2) search for evidence; (3) select articles; (4) extract and organise data and (5) synthesise evidence and draw conclusions. The analysis will summarise how, why and in what circumstances doctors' mental ill-health is likely to develop and what can remediate the situation. Throughout the project, we will also engage iteratively with diverse stakeholders in order to produce actionable theory. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:Ethical approval is not required for our review. Our dissemination strategy will be participatory. Tailored outputs will be targeted to: policy makers; NHS employers and healthcare leaders; team leaders; support organisations; doctors experiencing mental ill-health, their families and colleagues. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42017069870.

SUBMITTER: Carrieri D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5829880 | biostudies-other | 2018 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

'Care Under Pressure': a realist review of interventions to tackle doctors' mental ill-health and its impacts on the clinical workforce and patient care.

Carrieri Daniele D Briscoe Simon S Jackson Mark M Mattick Karen K Papoutsi Chrysanthi C Pearson Mark M Wong Geoffrey G Wong Geoffrey G

BMJ open 20180202 2

<h4>Introduction</h4>Mental ill-health is prevalent across all groups of health professionals and this is of great concern in many countries. In the UK, the mental health of the National Health Service (NHS) workforce is a major healthcare issue, leading to presenteeism, absenteeism and loss of staff from the workforce. Most interventions targeting doctors aim to increase their 'productivity' and 'resilience', placing responsibility for good mental health with doctors themselves and neglecting t ...[more]

PMID: 29420234

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMental ill-health in health professionals, including doctors, is a global and growing concern. The existing literature on interventions that offer support, advice and/or treatment to sick doctors has not yet been synthesised in a way that considers the complexity and heterogeneity of the interventions, and the many dimensions of the problem. We (1) reviewed interventions to tackle doctors' and medical students' mental ill-health and its impacts on the clinical workforce and patient care-drawing on diverse literature sources and engaging iteratively with diverse stakeholder perspectives-and (2) produced recommendations that support the tailoring, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of contextually sensitive strategies to tackle mental ill-health and its impacts.MethodsRealist literature review consistent with the RAMESES quality and reporting standards. Sources for inclusion were identified through bibliographic database searches supplemented by purposive searches-resulting also from engagement with stakeholders. Data were extracted from included articles and subjected to realist analysis to identify (i) mechanisms causing mental ill-health in doctors and medical students and relevant contexts or circumstances when these mechanisms were likely to be 'triggered' and (ii) 'guiding principles' and features underpinning the interventions and recommendations discussed mostly in policy document, reviews and commentaries.ResultsOne hundred seventy-nine records were included. Most were from the USA (45%) and were published since 2009 (74%). The analysis showed that doctors were more likely to experience mental ill-health when they felt isolated or unable to do their job and when they feared repercussions of help-seeking. Healthy staff were necessary for excellent patient care. Interventions emphasising relationships and belonging were more likely to promote wellbeing. Interventions creating a people-focussed working culture, balancing positive/negative performance and acknowledging positive/negative aspects of a medical career helped doctors to thrive. The way that interventions were implemented seemed critically important. Doctors and medical students needed to have confidence in an intervention for the intervention to be effective.ConclusionsSuccessful interventions to tackle doctors' and students' mental ill-health are likely to be multidimensional and multilevel and involve multiple stakeholders. Evaluating and improving existing interventions is likely to be more effective than developing new ones. Our evidence synthesis provides a basis on which to do this.Study registrationPROSPERO CRD42017069870. Research project webpage http://sites.exeter.ac.uk/cup/.

Project description:BackgroundPublic mental health interventions are non-clinical services that aim to promote wellbeing and prevent mental ill health at the population level. In England, the health, social and community system is characterised by complex and fragmented inter-sectoral relationships. To overcome this, there has been an expansion in co-locating public mental health services within clinical settings, the focus of prior research. This study evaluates how co-location in community-based settings can support adult mental health and reduce health inequalities.MethodsA qualitative multi-site case study design using a realist evaluation approach was employed. Data collection took place in three phases: theory gleaning, parallel testing and refining of theories, and theory consolidation. We collected data from service users (n = 32), service providers (n = 32), funders, commissioners, and policy makers (n = 11), and members of the public (n = 10). We conducted in-depth interviews (n = 65) and four focus group discussions (n = 20) at six case study sites across England, UK, and two online multi-stakeholder workshops (n = 20). Interview guides followed realist-informed open-ended questions, adapted for each phase. The realist analysis used an iterative, inductive, and deductive data analysis approach to identify the underlying mechanisms for how community co-location affects public mental health outcomes, who this works best for, and understand the contexts in which co-location operates.ResultsFive overarching co-location theories were elicited and supported. Co-located services: (1) improved provision of holistic and person-centred support; (2) reduced stigma by creating non-judgemental environments that were not associated with clinical or mental health services; (3) delivered services in psychologically safe environments by creating a culture of empathy, friendliness and trust where people felt they were being treated with dignity and respect; (4) helped to overcome barriers to accessibility by making service access less costly and more time efficient, and (5) enhance the sustainability of services through better pooling of resources.ConclusionCo-locating public mental health services within communities impacts multiple social determinants of poor mental health. It has a role in reducing mental health inequalities by helping those least likely to access services. Operating practices that engender inter-service trust and resource-sharing are likely to support sustainability.

Project description:IntroductionThe growing incidence of mental ill health in doctors was a major issue in the UK and internationally, even prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. It has significant and far-reaching implications, including poor quality or inconsistent patient care, absenteeism, workforce attrition and retention issues, presenteeism, and increased risk of suicide. Existing approaches to workplace support do not take into account the individual, organisational and social factors contributing to mental ill health in doctors, nor how interventions/programmes might interact with each other within the workplace. The aim of this study is to work collaboratively with eight purposively selected National Health Service (NHS) trusts within England to develop an evidence-based implementation toolkit for all NHS trusts to reduce doctors' mental ill health and its impacts on the workforce.Methods and analysisThe project will incorporate three phases. Phase 1 develops a typology of interventions to reduce doctors' mental ill health. Phase 2 is a realist evaluation of the existing combinations of strategies being used by acute English healthcare trusts to reduce doctors' mental ill health (including preventative promotion of well-being), based on 160 interviews with key stakeholders. Phase 3 synthesises the insights gained through phases 1 and 2, to create an implementation toolkit that all UK healthcare trusts can use to optimise their strategies to reduce doctors' mental ill health and its impact on the workforce and patient care.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval has been granted for phase 2 of the project from the NHS Research Ethics Committee (REC reference number 22/WA/0352). As part of the conditions for our ethics approval, the sites included in our study will remain anonymous. To ensure the relevance of the study's outputs, we have planned a wide range of dissemination strategies: an implementation toolkit for healthcare leaders, service managers and doctors; conventional academic outputs such as journal manuscripts and conference presentations; plain English summaries; cartoons and animations; and a media engagement campaign.

Project description:BackgroundAccording to new Norwegian laws, mental healthcare for adults are obligated to assess all patients who are parents and to act on their children's needs. This article describes the study protocol of implementing the interventions Family Assessment and Child Talks for children of patients in the adult psychiatry of the University Hospital of Northern Norway. The project is designed to evaluate the process of changes in clinical practice due to the implementation of two interventions. The interventions to be implemented are a standardised Family Assessment Form and the intervention called Child Talks. The family assessment form is an intervention to identify children of mentally ill parents and their needs. The intervention Child Talks is a health-promoting and preventive intervention where the mental health workers talk with the family about the situation of the children and their needs.Methods/designThere are two groups of participants in this study: (1) mental health workers in the clinic (N=220) and (2) patients who are parents (N=200) receiving treatment in the clinic. (1) In the evaluation of clinical practice, the authors use a pre-test, post-test and 1-year follow-up design. At pre-test, the authors evaluate status quo among mental health workers in the clinic regarding knowledge, attitudes, collaborative routines and clinical practice related to families with parental mental illness. After the pre-test is finished, the project move on to implement the interventions Family Assessment Form and Child Talks in the clinic. At post-test and 1-year follow-up, the authors evaluate the impact of implementing the Family Assessment Form in terms of how many children were identified and offered Child Talks in the clinic or referred to other services for additional support. (2) In the evaluation of parents/patients experience with the interventions, the authors use a pre-test post-test design. To identify children of mentally ill patients, the authors collect data on demographical variables for the patient and the child at pre-measures, as well as data on parental competence (PSOC) and parental concerns (PEDS) about their children. At post-measures, the authors evaluate the impact of the intervention in terms of user satisfaction, as well as changes between pre- and post-measures on parental competence (PSOC) and parental concerns (PEDS) about their children.DiscussionThe implication of implementing new interventions to safeguard children of mentally ill patients and the limitation of not measuring child development directly are discussed.

Project description:IntroductionIn the context of a population that is growing older, and a number of high-profile scandals about care standards in hospital and community settings, having a skilled and knowledgeable workforce caring for older people is an ethical and policy imperative. Support workers make up the majority of the workforce in health and social care services for older people (aged 65 years and over), and yet little is known about the best way to facilitate their development. Given this gap, this review will draw on evidence to address the question: how can workforce development interventions improve the skills and the care standards of support workers within older people's health and social care services?Methods and analysisAs we are interested in how and why workforce development interventions might work, in what circumstances and with whom, we will conduct a realist review, sourcing evidence from health, social care, policing and education. The review will be conducted in four steps over 18 months to (1) construct a theoretical framework, that is, the review's programme theories; (2) retrieve, review and synthesise evidence relating to interventions designed to develop the support workforce guided by the programme theories; (3) 'test out' our synthesis findings and refine the programme theories, establish their practical relevance/potential for implementation and (4) formulate recommendations about improvements to current workforce development interventions to contribute to the improvement of care standards in older people's health and social care services, potentially transferrable to other services.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required to undertake this review. Knowledge exchange activities through stakeholder engagement and online postings are embedded throughout the lifetime of the project. The main output from this review will be a new theory driven framework for skill development for the support workforce in health and social care for older people.Trial registration numberCRD42013006283.

Dataset Information

'Care Under Pressure': a realist review of interventions to tackle doctors' mental ill-health and its impacts on the clinical workforce and patient care.

Publications

'Care Under Pressure': a realist review of interventions to tackle doctors' mental ill-health and its impacts on the clinical workforce and patient care.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets