Search

Objectives Shared decision-making is the pinnacle of patient-centred care; mental health stakeholders value shared decision-making but find it difficult to enact. The objective was to compare and synthesise mental health stakeholder views on antipsychotic prescribing in one NHS Trust, to understand potential reasons for the difficult enactment of shared decision-making in practice. Methods We conducted 12 interviews and 5 focus groups with 33 mental health stakeholders, after obtaining their informed consent. They shared their experiences in and perceptions of antipsychotic prescribing and were recruited from Manchester Mental Health and Social Care Trust. Results Stakeholders agreed that successful shared decision-making demands a collaborative approach. We elucidated a striking divergence in views of the decision-making process and understanding of collaboration. Nurses, consultants and the pharmacist seemed most satisfied with the amount of collaboration but most pessimistic about the scope for it. Carers and most service users did not feel that there was any collaboration. Discussion Comparison of perspectives demonstrated the complexity of shared decision-making which is not addressed in current operational definitions or policy or nursing practice initiatives. The findings have the potential to progress initiatives in the mental health field from those that emphasise the need for shared decision-making to those that develop tools to promote shared decision-making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The authors developed and validated a clozapine-specific side-effects scale capable of eliciting the subjectively unpleasant side-effects of clozapine.Methods: Questions from the original Glasgow Antipsychotic Side-effects Scale (GASS) were compared to a list of the most commonly reported clozapine side-effects and those with a significant subjective burden were included in the GASS for Clozapine (GASS-C). The original authors of the GASS and a group of mental health professionals from the UK and Ireland were enlisted to comment on the questions in the GASS-C based on their clinical experience. 110 clozapine outpatients from two sites completed the GASS-C, the original GASS and a repeat GASS-C. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS for Windows version 19.Results: The GASS-C was shown to have construct validity, in that Spearman's correlation coefficient was 0.816 (p<0.001) with the original GASS, whilst Cohen's kappa coefficient was >0.77 (p<0.001) for one question and >0.81 (p<0.001) for remaining relevant questions. GASS-C was also shown to have strong test-retest reliability, in that Cronbach's alpha coefficient was >0.907 (p<0.001), whilst Cohen's kappa coefficient was >0.81 (p<0.001) for 12 questions and >0.61 (p<0.001) for the remaining four questions.Conclusion: The GASS-C is a valid and reliable clinical tool to enable a systematic assessment of the subjectively unpleasant side-effects of clozapine. Future research should focus on how the scale can be utilised as a clinical tool to improve real-world outcomes such as adherence to clozapine therapy and quality of life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Containment (e.g. physical restraint and seclusion) is used frequently in mental health inpatient settings. Containment is associated with serious psychological and physical harms. De-escalation (psychosocial techniques to manage distress without containment) is recommended to manage aggression and other unsafe behaviours, for example self-harm. All National Health Service staff are trained in de-escalation but there is little to no evidence supporting training's effectiveness., Objectives: Objectives were to: (1) qualitatively investigate de-escalation and identify barriers and facilitators to use across the range of adult acute and forensic mental health inpatient settings; (2) co-produce with relevant stakeholders an intervention to enhance de-escalation across these settings; (3) evaluate the intervention's preliminary effect on rates of conflict (e.g. violence, self-harm) and containment (e.g. seclusion and physical restraint) and understand barriers and facilitators to intervention effects., Design: Intervention development informed by Experience-based Co-design and uncontrolled pre and post feasibility evaluation. Systematic reviews and qualitative interviews investigated contextual variation in use and effects of de-escalation. Synthesis of this evidence informed co-design of an intervention to enhance de-escalation. An uncontrolled feasibility trial of the intervention followed. Clinical outcome data were collected over 24 weeks including an 8-week pre-intervention phase, an 8-week embedding and an 8-week post-intervention phase., Setting: Ten inpatient wards (including acute, psychiatric intensive care, low, medium and high secure forensic) in two United Kingdom mental health trusts., Participants: In-patients, clinical staff, managers, carers/relatives and training staff in the target settings., Interventions: Enhancing de-escalation techniques in adult acute and forensic units: Development and evaluation of an evidence-based training intervention (EDITION) interventions included de-escalation training, two novel models of reflective practice, post-incident debriefing and feedback on clinical practice, collaborative prescribing and ward rounds, practice changes around admission, shift handovers and the social and physical environment, and sensory modulation and support planning to reduce patient distress., Main Outcome Measures: Outcomes measured related to feasibility (recruitment and retention, completion of outcome measures), training outcomes and clinical and safety outcomes. Conflict and containment rates were measured via the Patient-Staff Conflict Checklist. Clinical outcomes were measured using the Attitudes to Containment Measures Questionnaire, Attitudes to Personality Disorder Questionnaire, Violence Prevention Climate Scale, Capabilities, Opportunities, and Motivation Scale, Coercion Experience Scale and Perceived Expressed Emotion in Staff Scale., Results: Completion rates of the proposed primary outcome were very good at 68% overall (excluding remote data collection), which increased to 76% (excluding remote data collection) in the post-intervention period. Secondary outcomes had high completion rates for both staff and patient respondents. Regression analyses indicated that reductions in conflict and containment were both predicted by study phase (pre, embedding, post intervention). There were no adverse events or serious adverse events related to the intervention., Conclusions: Intervention and data-collection procedures were feasible, and there was a signal of an effect on the proposed primary outcome., Limitations: Uncontrolled design and self-selecting sample., Future Work: Definitive trial determining intervention effects., Trial Registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN12826685 (closed to recruitment)., Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 16/101/02) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment ; Vol. 28, No. 3. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information., Context: Conflict (a term used to describe a range of potentially unsafe events including violence, self-harm, rule-breaking, medication refusal, illicit drug and alcohol use and absconding) in mental health settings causes serious physical and psychological harm. Containment interventions which are intended to minimise harm from violence (and other conflict behaviours) such as restraint, seclusion and rapid tranquilisation can result in serious injuries to patients and, occasionally, death. Involvement in physical restraint is the most common cause of serious physical injury to National Health Service mental health staff in the United Kingdom. Violence to staff results in substantial costs to the health service in sickness and litigation payments. Containment interventions are also expensive (e.g. physical restraint costs mental health services £6.1 million and enhanced observations £88 million per annum). Despite these harms, recent findings indicate containment interventions such as seclusion and physical restraint continue to be used frequently in mental health settings. Clinical trials have demonstrated that interventions can reduce containment without increasing violence and other conflict behaviours (e.g. verbal aggression, self-harm). Substantial cost-savings result from reducing containment use. De-escalation, as an intervention to manage aggression and potential violence without restrictive practices, is a core intervention. 'De-escalation' is a collective term for a range of psychosocial techniques designed to reduce distress and anger without the need to use 'containment' interventions (measures to prevent harm through restricting a person's ability to act independently, such as physical restraint and seclusion). Evidence indicates that de-escalation involves ensuring conditions for safe intervention and effective communication are established, clarifying and attempting to resolve the patient's concern, conveyance of respect and empathy and regulating unhelpful emotions such as anxiety and anger. Despite featuring prominently in clinical guidelines and training policy domestically and internationally and being a component of mandatory National Health Service training, there is no evidence-based model on which to base training. A systematic review of de-escalation training effectiveness and acceptability conducted in 2015 concluded: (1) no model of training has demonstrated effectiveness in a sufficiently rigorous evaluation, (2) the theoretical underpinning of evaluated models was often unclear and (3) there has been inadequate investigation of the characteristics of training likely to enhance acceptability and uptake. Despite all National Health Service staff being trained in de-escalation there have been no high-quality trials evaluating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of training. Feasibility studies are needed to establish whether it is possible to conduct a definitive trial that can determine the clinical, safety and cost-effectiveness of this intervention.

Background: People with schizophrenia have a higher premature mortality risk compared with the general population mainly due to cardiovascular disease (CVD). Despite this, people with schizophrenia are less likely to access physical health services or have their physical health investigated and monitored., Aims: To examine the beliefs and actions of mental health professionals regarding the physical health of people with schizophrenia., Method: Two hundred and fifty-five healthcare professionals who support people with schizophrenia within Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust (GMMH), United Kingdom and Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust (PCFT), United Kingdom took part. Beliefs and actions were assessed using a self-administered questionnaire, which was constructed around two primary domains (1) CVD risk factors; and (2) physical health interventions. Descriptive statistics were reported and responses between different healthcare professional groups were compared., Results: The overwhelming majority of participants were aware of established CVD risk factors with 98% identifying family history of CVD, 98% for smoking and 96% for high blood pressure. Most participants believed nearly all healthcare professionals were responsible for monitoring the physical health of people with schizophrenia, regardless of job speciality. There were 67% of participants who reported delivering an intervention to improve sedentary behaviour for people with schizophrenia. However, awareness of government and NHS recommended lifestyle interventions were low., Conclusions: This study found good knowledge regarding many established CVD risk factors but little clarity regarding who is responsible for monitoring the physical health of people with schizophrenia and how often brief lifestyle interventions are being implemented.