Cues and knowledge structures used by mental-health professionals when making risk assessments

Background: Research into mental-health risks has tended to focus on epidemiological approaches and to consider pieces of evidence in isolation. Less is known about the particular factors and their patterns of occurrence that influence clinicians’ risk judgements in practice. Aims: To identify the cues used by clinicians to make risk judgements and to explore how these combine within clinicians’ psychological representations of suicide, self-harm, self-neglect, and harm to others. Method: Content analysis was applied to semi-structured interviews conducted with 46 practitioners from various mental-health disciplines, using mind maps to represent the hierarchical relationships of data and concepts. Results: Strong consensus between experts meant their knowledge could be integrated into a single hierarchical structure for each risk. This revealed contrasting emphases between data and concepts underpinning risks, including: reflection and forethought for suicide; motivation for self-harm; situation and context for harm to others; and current presentation for self-neglect. Conclusions: Analysis of experts’ risk-assessment knowledge identified influential cues and their relationships to risks. It can inform development of valid risk-screening decision support systems that combine actuarial evidence with clinical expertise.

Patients' and health professionals' views on primary care for people with serious mental illness:focus group study

Objective: To explore the experience of providing and receiving primary care from the perspectives of primary care health professionals and patients with serious mental illness respectively. Design: Qualitative study consisting of six patient groups, six health professional groups, and six combined focus groups. Setting: Six primary care trusts in the West Midlands. Participants: Forty five patients with serious mental illness, 39 general practitioners (GPs), and eight practice nurses. Results: Most health professionals felt that the care of people with serious mental illness was too specialised for primary care. However, most patients viewed primary care as the cornerstone of their health care and preferred to consult their own GP, who listened and was willing to learn, rather than be referred to a different GP with specific mental health knowledge. Swift access was important to patients, with barriers created by the effects of the illness and the noisy or crowded waiting area. Some patients described how they exaggerated symptoms ("acted up") to negotiate an urgent appointment, a strategy that was also employed by some GPs to facilitate admission to secondary care. Most participants felt that structured reviews of care had value. However, whereas health professionals perceived serious mental illness as a lifelong condition, patients emphasised the importance of optimism in treatment and hope for recovery. Conclusions: Primary care is of central importance to people with serious mental illness. The challenge for health professionals and patients is to create a system in which patients can see a health professional when they want to without needing to exaggerate their symptoms. The importance that patients attach to optimism in treatment, continuity of care, and listening skills compared with specific mental health knowledge should encourage health professionals in primary care to play a greater role in the care of patients with serious mental illness.

Medicines reconciliation in comparison with NICE guidelines across secondary care mental health organisations

Background Medicines 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. Objective A self-completion web survey was conducted for chief pharmacists (or equivalent) to evaluate medicines reconciliation levels in secondary care mental health organisations. Setting The survey was sent to secondary care mental health organisations in England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. Method The 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 measure Investigate how medicines reconciliation is delivered, incorporate a clear description of the role of pharmacy staff and identify areas of concern. Results Forty-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. Conclusion Most 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.

Patient involvement in primary care mental health:a focus group study

Background: Patient involvement in health care is a strong political driver in the NHS. However in spite of policy prominence, there has been only limited previous work exploring patient involvement for people with serious mental illness. Aim: To describe the views on, potential for, and types of patient involvement in primary care from the perspectives of primary care health professionals and patients with serious mental illness. Design of study: Qualitative study consisting of six patient, six health professional and six combined focus groups between May 2002 and January 2003. Setting: Six primary care trusts in the West Midlands, England. Method: Forty-five patients with serious mental illness, 39 GPs, and eight practice nurses participated in a series of 18 focus groups. All focus groups were audiotaped and fully transcribed. Nvivo was used to manage data more effectively. Results: Most patients felt that only other people with lived experience of mental illness could understand what they were going through. This experience could be used to help others navigate the health- and social-care systems, give advice about medication, and offer support at times of crisis. Many patients also saw paid employment within primary care as a way of addressing issues of poverty and social exclusion. Health professionals were, however, more reluctant to see patients as partners, be it in the consultation or in service delivery. Conclusions: Meaningful change in patient involvement requires commitment and belief from primary care practitioners that the views and experiences of people with serious mental illness are valid and valuable.

Development and psychometric evaluation of a new team effectiveness scale for all types of community adult mental health teams:a mixed-methods approach

Defining 'effectiveness' in the context of community mental health teams (CMHTs) has become increasingly difficult under the current pattern of provision required in National Health Service mental health services in England. The aim of this study was to establish the characteristics of multi-professional team working effectiveness in adult CMHTs to develop a new measure of CMHT effectiveness. The study was conducted between May and November 2010 and comprised two stages. Stage 1 used a formative evaluative approach based on the Productivity Measurement and Enhancement System to develop the scale with multiple stakeholder groups over a series of qualitative workshops held in various locations across England. Stage 2 analysed responses from a cross-sectional survey of 1500 members in 135 CMHTs from 11 Mental Health Trusts in England to determine the scale's psychometric properties. Based on an analysis of its structural validity and reliability, the resultant 20-item scale demonstrated good psychometric properties and captured one overall latent factor of CMHT effectiveness comprising seven dimensions: improved service user well-being, creative problem-solving, continuous care, inter-team working, respect between professionals, engagement with carers and therapeutic relationships with service users. The scale will be of significant value to CMHTs and healthcare commissioners both nationally and internationally for monitoring, evaluating and improving team functioning in practice.

Mental health pharmacists views on shared decision-making for antipsychotics in serious mental illness

Background People diagnosed with serious mental illnesses (SMIs) such as schizophrenia and bipolar affective disorder are frequently treated with antipsychotics. National guidance advises the use of shared decision-making (SDM) in antipsychotic prescribing. There is currently little data on the opinions of health professionals on the role of SDM. Objective To explore the views and experiences of UK mental health pharmacists regarding the use of SDM in antipsychotic prescribing in people diagnosed with SMI. Setting The study was conducted by interviewing secondary care mental health pharmacists in the UK to obtain qualitative data. Methods Semi-structured interviews were recorded. An inductive thematic analysis was conducted using the method of constant comparison. Main outcome measure Themes evolving from mental health pharmacists on SDM in relation to antipsychotic prescribing in people with SMI. Results Thirteen mental health pharmacists were interviewed. SDM was perceived to be linked to positive clinical outcomes including adherence, service user satisfaction and improved therapeutic relations. Despite more prescribers and service users supporting SDM, it was not seen as being practised as widely as it could be; this was attributed to a number of barriers, most predominantly issues surrounding service user’s lacking capacity to engage in SDM and time pressures on clinical staff. The need for greater effort to work around the issues, engage service users and adopt a more inter-professional approach was conveyed. Conclusion The mental health pharmacists support SDM for antipsychotic prescribing, believing that it improves outcomes. However, barriers are seen to limit implementation. More research is needed into overcoming the barriers and measuring the benefits of SDM, along with exploring a more inter-professional approach to SDM.