Co-producing rapid research: Strengths and challenges from a lived experience perspective.

The Lived Experience Researchers (LERs) of the Mental Health Policy Research Unit (MHPRU) reflect on the experience of conducting rapid co-produced research, particularly during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Throughout this perspective article, we introduce requirements for co-production applying the 4Pi Framework, reflect on specific characteristics of co-production in rapid research, discuss strengths and challenges for involvement of LERs in rapid research, and lastly provide recommendations to achieve meaningful involvement. Incorporating meaningful co-production is an augmentation to any research project, with several benefits to the research, to the team, and to individual researchers. Particularly in the case of rapid research, that aims for efficient translation of knowledge into practice, involvement of experts by experience will be key. The work conducted by the MHPRU LERs presented in this paper demonstrates the viability, value, and potential of this way of working.

Implementation strategies for telemental health: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a rapid shift from traditional face-to-face care provision towards delivering mental health care remotely through telecommunications, often referred to as telemental health care. However, the manner and extent of telemental health implementation have varied considerably across settings and areas, and substantial barriers are encountered. There is, therefore, a need to identify what works best for service users and staff and establish the key mechanisms for efficient integration into routine care. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to identify investigations of pre-planned strategies reported in the literature intended to achieve or improve effective and sustained implementation of telemental health approaches (including video calls, telephone calls, text messaging platforms or a combination of any of these approaches with face-to-face care), and to evaluate how different strategies influence implementation outcomes. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted, with five databases searched for any relevant literature published between January 2010 and July 2021. Studies were eligible if they took place in specialist mental health services and focused on pre-planned strategies to achieve or improve the delivery of mental health care through remote communication between mental health professionals or between mental health professionals and service users, family members, unpaid carers, or peer supporters. All included studies were quality-assessed. Data were synthesised using the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) compilation of implementation strategies and the taxonomy of implementation outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 14 studies were identified as meeting the inclusion criteria from a total of 14,294 records of which 338 were assessed at full text. All ERIC implementation strategies were used by at least one study, the most commonly reported being 'Train and educate stakeholders'. All studies reported using a combination of several implementation strategies, with the mean number of strategies used per study of 3.5 (range 2-6), many of which were reported to result in an improvement in implementation over time. Few studies specifically investigated a single implementation strategy and its associated outcomes, making conclusions regarding the most beneficial strategy difficult to draw. CONCLUSIONS: Using a combination of implementation strategies appears to be a helpful method of supporting the implementation of telemental health. Further research is needed to test the impact of specific implementation strategies on implementation outcomes.

Synthesis of the Evidence on What Works for Whom in Telemental Health: Rapid Realist Review.

BACKGROUND: Telemental health (delivering mental health care via video calls, telephone calls, or SMS text messages) is becoming increasingly widespread. Telemental health appears to be useful and effective in providing care to some service users in some settings, especially during an emergency restricting face-to-face contact, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. However, important limitations have been reported, and telemental health implementation risks the reinforcement of pre-existing inequalities in service provision. If it is to be widely incorporated into routine care, a clear understanding is needed of when and for whom it is an acceptable and effective approach and when face-to-face care is needed. OBJECTIVE: This rapid realist review aims to develop a theory about which telemental health approaches work (or do not work), for whom, in which contexts, and through what mechanisms. METHODS: Rapid realist reviewing involves synthesizing relevant evidence and stakeholder expertise to allow timely development of context-mechanism-outcome (CMO) configurations in areas where evidence is urgently needed to inform policy and practice. The CMO configurations encapsulate theories about what works for whom and by what mechanisms. Sources included eligible papers from 2 previous systematic reviews conducted by our team on telemental health; an updated search using the strategy from these reviews; a call for relevant evidence, including "gray literature," to the public and key experts; and website searches of relevant voluntary and statutory organizations. CMO configurations formulated from these sources were iteratively refined, including through discussions with an expert reference group, including researchers with relevant lived experience and frontline clinicians, and consultation with experts focused on three priority groups: children and young people, users of inpatient and crisis care services, and digitally excluded groups. RESULTS: A total of 108 scientific and gray literature sources were included. From our initial CMO configurations, we derived 30 overarching CMO configurations within four domains: connecting effectively; flexibility and personalization; safety, privacy, and confidentiality; and therapeutic quality and relationship. Reports and stakeholder input emphasized the importance of personal choice, privacy and safety, and therapeutic relationships in telemental health care. The review also identified particular service users likely to be disadvantaged by telemental health implementation and a need to ensure that face-to-face care of equivalent timeliness remains available. Mechanisms underlying the successful and unsuccessful application of telemental health are discussed. CONCLUSIONS: Service user choice, privacy and safety, the ability to connect effectively, and fostering strong therapeutic relationships need to be prioritized in delivering telemental health care. Guidelines and strategies coproduced with service users and frontline staff are needed to optimize telemental health implementation in real-world settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO); CRD42021260910; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021260910.

Training and redeployment of healthcare workers to intensive care units (ICUs) during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: The rapid influx of patients with COVID-19 to intensive care at a rate that exceeds pre-existing staff capacity has required the rapid development of innovative redeployment and training strategies, which considered patient care and infection control. The aim of this study was to provide a detailed understanding of redeployment and training during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic by capturing and considering the merit of the strategies enlisted and the experiences and needs of redeployed healthcare workers (HCWs). DESIGN: The review involved a systematic search of key terms related to intensive care AND training AND redeployment AND healthcare workers within nine databases (Medline, CINAHL, PsychINFO, MedRxiv, Web of Science, The Health Management Consortium database, Social Science Research Network, OpenGrey and TRIP), which took place on 16 July 2021. Analysis consisted of a synthesis of quantitative study outputs and framework-based thematic analysis of qualitative study outputs and grey literature. These results were then combined applying an interpretative synthesis. We followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, and the review protocol was available online. RESULTS: Forty papers were analysed. These took place primarily in the UK (n=15, 37.5%) and USA (n=17, 42.5%). Themes presented in the results are redeployment: implementation strategies and learning; redeployed HCWs' experience and strategies to address their needs; redeployed HCWs' learning needs; training formats offered and training evaluations; and future redeployment and training delivery. Based on this, key principles for successful redeployment and training were proposed. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic presents unique challenges to develop flexible redeployment strategies and deliver training promptly while following infection control recommendations. This review synthesises original approaches to tackle these challenges, which are relevant to inform the development of targeted and adaptative training and redeployment plans considering the needs of HCWs.

Implementation, Adoption, and Perceptions of Telemental Health During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Early in 2020, mental health services had to rapidly shift from face-to-face models of care to delivering the majority of treatments remotely (by video or phone call or occasionally messaging) due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This resulted in several challenges for staff and patients, but also in benefits such as convenience or increased access for people with impaired mobility or in rural areas. There is a need to understand the extent and impacts of telemental health implementation, and barriers and facilitators to its effective and acceptable use. This is relevant both to future emergency adoption of telemental health and to debates on its future use in routine mental health care. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the adoption and impacts of telemental health approaches during the COVID-19 pandemic, and facilitators and barriers to optimal implementation. METHODS: Four databases (PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Web of Science) were searched for primary research relating to remote working, mental health care, and the COVID-19 pandemic. Preprint servers were also searched. Results of studies were synthesized using framework synthesis. RESULTS: A total of 77 papers met our inclusion criteria. In most studies, the majority of contacts could be transferred to a remote form during the pandemic, and good acceptability to service users and clinicians tended to be reported, at least where the alternative to remote contacts was interrupting care. However, a range of impediments to dealing optimal care by this means were also identified. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of telemental health allowed some continuing support to the majority of service users during the COVID-19 pandemic and has value in an emergency situation. However, not all service users can be reached by this means, and better evidence is now needed on long-term impacts on therapeutic relationships and quality of care, and on impacts on groups at risk of digital exclusion and how to mitigate these. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews CRD42021211025; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021211025.

Re-ordering connections: UK healthcare workers' experiences of emotion management during the COVID-19 pandemic.

This paper examines the impact of disruptions to the organisation and delivery of healthcare services and efforts to re-order care through emotion management during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK. Framing care as an affective practice, studying healthcare workers' (HCWs) experiences enables better understanding of how interactions between staff, patients and families changed as a result of the pandemic. Using a rapid qualitative research methodology, we conducted interviews with frontline HCWs in two London hospitals during the peak of the first wave of the pandemic and sourced public accounts of HCWs' experiences of the pandemic from social media (YouTube and Twitter). We conducted framework analysis to identify key factors disrupting caring interactions. Fear of infection and the barriers of physical distancing acted to separate staff from patients and families, requiring new affective practices to repair connections. Witnessing suffering was distressing for staff, and providing a 'good death' for patients and communicating care to families was harder. In addition to caring for patients and families, HCWs cared for each other. Infection control measures were important for limiting the spread of COVID-19 but disrupted connections that were integral to care, generating new work to re-order interactions.

Service user experiences and views regarding telemental health during the COVID-19 pandemic: A co-produced framework analysis.

BACKGROUND: The prominence of telemental health, including providing care by video call and telephone, has greatly increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, there are clear variations in uptake and acceptability, and concerns that digital exclusion may exacerbate previous inequalities in access to good quality care. Greater understanding is needed of how service users experience telemental health, and what determines whether they engage and find it acceptable. METHODS: We conducted a collaborative framework analysis of data from semi-structured interviews with a sample of people already experiencing mental health problems prior to the pandemic. Data relevant to participants' experiences and views regarding telemental health during the pandemic were identified and extracted. Data collection and analysis used a participatory, coproduction approach where researchers with relevant lived experience, contributed to all stages of data collection, analysis and interpretation of findings alongside clinical and academic researchers. FINDINGS: The experiences and preferences regarding telemental health care of the forty-four participants were dynamic and varied across time and settings, as well as between individuals. Participants' preferences were shaped by reasons for contacting services, their relationship with care providers, and both parties' access to technology and their individual preferences. While face-to-face care tended to be the preferred option, participants identified benefits of remote care including making care more accessible for some populations and improved efficiency for functional appointments such as prescription reviews. Participants highlighted important challenges related to safety and privacy in online settings, and gave examples of good remote care strategies they had experienced, including services scheduling regular phone calls and developing guidelines about how to access remote care tools. DISCUSSION: Participants in our study have highlighted advantages of telemental health care, as well as significant limitations that risk hindering mental health support and exacerbate inequalities in access to services. Some of these limitations are seen as potentially removable, for example through staff training or better digital access for staff or service users. Others indicate a need to maintain traditional face-to-face contact at least for some appointments. There is a clear need for care to be flexible and individualised to service user circumstances and preferences. Further research is needed on ways of minimising digital exclusion and of supporting staff in making effective and collaborative use of relevant technologies.

Effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental healthcare and services: results of a UK survey of front-line staff working with people with intellectual disability and/or autism.

AIMS AND METHOD: Mental health services have changed the way they operate during the COVID-19 pandemic. We investigated the challenges and innovations reported by staff working in services for people with intellectual disability and/or autism in National Health Service (NHS) and non-NHS sectors, and in in-patient and community settings. RESULTS: Data were drawn from 648 staff who participated in a UK-wide online survey. Issues around infection risk and mitigation were more important to those working in the NHS and in-patient settings. Community staff were more likely to express concern about the practicalities of a rapid shift to remote working and engaging patients remotely. Qualitative data revealed support for maintaining remote staff working and remote service provision post-pandemic. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Given the current emphasis on community support for people with intellectual disability and/or autism, the focus of research and clinical practice should be the development of accessible and effective models of remote service provision.

How has COVID-19 affected mental health nurses and the delivery of mental health nursing care in the UK? Results of a mixed-methods study.

WHAT IS KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT?: During the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been research considering the impact on medical healthcare professionals and the mental health needs of the general population. However, limited focus has been placed on mental health services or mental health staff providing care in the community and in hospitals. While nurses make up the largest section of the mental health workforce in the UK, the impact that this pandemic has had on their work has been largely ignored. WHAT THE PAPER ADDS TO EXISTING KNOWLEDGE?: This paper provides a unique insight into the experiences and impact that the COVID-19 pandemic has had on mental health nurses across a range of community and inpatient settings to understand what has changed in their work and the care they can and do provide during this crisis. This includes exploring how services have changed, the move to remote working, the impact of the protective equipment crisis on nurses and the difficult working conditions facing those in inpatient settings where there is minimal guidance provided. WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE?: By understanding the impact the pandemic has had on mental health nursing care, we can understand the gaps in guidance that exist, the challenges being faced and the impact the crisis has had on care for mental health service users. By doing so, we can plan for the ongoing nature of this pandemic and the aftermath that the crisis may leave for our service users and workforce alike. ABSTRACT: Introduction While evidence has emerged concerning the impact of COVID-19 on the general population and the challenges facing health services, much less is known regarding how the pandemic has directly affected the delivery of mental health nursing care. Aim This paper aimed to explore how COVID-19 has affected the ability of mental health nurses to deliver care in community and inpatient mental health services in the UK. Method We investigated staff reports regarding the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental healthcare and mental health service users in the UK, using a mixed-methods online survey. A total of 897 nurses across a range of inpatient and community settings participated. Discussion Key themes within the data explore the following: new ways of working; remote working; risks of infection/infection control challenges; and the impact on service users. Targeted guidelines are required to support mental health nurses providing care and support during a pandemic to people in severe mental distress, often in unsuitable environments. Implications for Practice Service developments need to occur alongside tailored guidance and support for staff welfare supported by clear leadership. These findings identify areas requiring attention and investment to prepare for future crises and the consequences of the pandemic.

Mental health and well-being of healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK: contrasting guidelines with experiences in practice.

BACKGROUND: Substantial evidence has highlighted the importance of considering the mental health of healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic, and several organisations have issued guidelines with recommendations. However, the definition of well-being and the evidence base behind such guidelines remain unclear. AIMS: The aims of the study are to assess the applicability of well-being guidelines in practice, identify unaddressed healthcare workers' needs and provide recommendations for supporting front-line staff during the current and future pandemics. METHOD: This paper discusses the findings of a qualitative study based on interviews with front-line healthcare workers in the UK (n = 33), and examines them in relation to a rapid review of well-being guidelines developed in response to the COVID-19 pandemic (n = 14). RESULTS: The guidelines placed greater emphasis on individual mental health and psychological support, whereas healthcare workers placed greater emphasis on structural conditions at work, responsibilities outside the hospital and the invaluable support of the community. The well-being support interventions proposed in the guidelines did not always respond to the lived experiences of staff, as some reported not being able to participate in these interventions because of understaffing, exhaustion or clashing schedules. CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare workers expressed well-being needs that aligned with socio-ecological conceptualisations of well-being related to quality of life. This approach to well-being has been highlighted in literature on support of healthcare workers in previous health emergencies, but it has not been monitored during this pandemic. Well-being guidelines should explore the needs of healthcare workers, and contextual characteristics affecting the implementation of recommendations.

Impact on mental health care and on mental health service users of the COVID-19 pandemic: a mixed methods survey of UK mental health care staff.

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic has potential to disrupt and burden the mental health care system, and to magnify inequalities experienced by mental health service users. METHODS: We investigated staff reports regarding the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in its early weeks on mental health care and mental health service users in the UK using a mixed methods online survey. Recruitment channels included professional associations and networks, charities, and social media. Quantitative findings were reported with descriptive statistics, and content analysis conducted for qualitative data. RESULTS: 2,180 staff from a range of sectors, professions, and specialties participated. Immediate infection control concerns were highly salient for inpatient staff, new ways of working for community staff. Multiple rapid adaptations and innovations in response to the crisis were described, especially remote working. This was cautiously welcomed but found successful in only some clinical situations. Staff had specific concerns about many groups of service users, including people whose conditions are exacerbated by pandemic anxieties and social disruptions; people experiencing loneliness, domestic abuse and family conflict; those unable to understand and follow social distancing requirements; and those who cannot engage with remote care. CONCLUSION: This overview of staff concerns and experiences in the early COVID-19 pandemic suggests directions for further research and service development: we suggest that how to combine infection control and a therapeutic environment in hospital, and how to achieve effective and targeted tele-health implementation in the community, should be priorities. The limitations of our convenience sample must be noted.