Evaluating the use of videoconferencing for handover and MDT meetings within an intensive support team

Purpose: This study aims to evaluate the use of videoconferencing when conducting multi-disciplinary team (MDT) and handover meetings within an NHS Adult Learning Disabilities Intensive Support Team (IST). The IST have been conducting MDT and handover meetings "virtually” since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020, in line with government guidance. It is pertinent to evaluate the effectiveness of using videoconferencing, as the move to flexible, remote working is detailed within the NHS Long Term Plan. Design/methodology/approach: Participants were members of the IST. A mixed methods approach using an online questionnaire collected participant's views relating to the use of videoconferencing when conducting MDT and handover meetings, in comparison to previous face-to-face meetings. The questionnaire considered five key areas: accessibility, environment and communication, organisation, continuation of care and data protection and confidentiality. Results were collated and analysed. Findings: Improvements were reported relating to accessibility, as the virtual format allowed for easier attendance, provided greater flexibility in attending and inviting key stakeholders. A reduced sense of team connectedness was reported, related to the virtual environment. The majority of participants reported that they wish to continue to have the option to attend meetings virtually in future. Originality/value: There are no previous papers evaluating the use of videoconferencing within ISTs during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study suggests that the use of videoconferencing to conduct MDT and handover meetings is effective within the IST and highlights points for consideration moving forward. © 2023, Emerald Publishing Limited.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and earthquake on mental health of persons with severe mental illness: A survey study among people receiving community mental health care versus treatment as usual in Croatia.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic led to the disruption of mental health services in most countries. Croatia has been developing and strengthening its mental health system, including the introduction of community mental health teams (CMHT) for persons with severe mental illness (SMI), whose implementation was ongoing during the pandemic through the RECOVER-E project. AIMS: The aim of this study was to assess the differences in mental health outcomes, perceived social support and healthcare utilization in the group of participants receiving treatment as usual (TAU group) compared to the group receiving TAU and additional care by the CMHT (CMHT group) during the COVID-19 pandemic and two earthquakes. METHOD: This is a cross-sectional survey administered among 90 participants with SMI at two time points: in May/June 2020 (first COVID-19 wave, earthquake) and in December 2020/January 2021 (second COVID-19 wave, earthquake). RESULTS: A significantly larger proportion of participants from the CMHT group visited the general practitioners in both waves of COVID-19 (first wave: CMHT 72.1%, TAU 44.2%, p = .009; second wave: CMHT 91.1%, TAU 64.1%, p = .003), as well as psychiatric services in the second wave (CMHT 95.3%, TAU 79.5%, p = .028). The use of long-acting injectables was also more frequent in the CMHT group (p = .039). Furthermore, analysis of the first wave showed higher perceived support of significant others (p = .004) in the CMHT group. We did not identify any differences in mental health outcomes between groups in either wave. CONCLUSIONS: While mental health outcomes did not differ between TAU and CMHT group, people in CMHT used services and treatments more frequently than those in TAU during the pandemic, which may indicate that CMHT services enable the continuity and accessibility of care for people with SMI under the circumstances where standard care is interruped (for example pandemic, disaster conditions).

Case Series: Managing Severe Mental Illness in Disaster Situation: the Croatian Experience After 2020 Earthquake.

On the 29th of December 2020, amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, Petrinja in the Croatian Sisak-Moslavina County experienced a strong earthquake, resulting in a severe disruption in mental health service delivery. Specialized care community mental health teams were introduced days within the event with the aim to bridge the gap in psychiatric care that was severely disturbed in the region affected by the earthquake. Through a case series of patients with SMI, we describe how care was quickly deployed and delivered after a natural disaster and during a pandemic resulting in their functional recovery. Community mental health teams have the potential to provide feasible, comprehensive, and accessible mental health services, and their continued implementation in the post-disaster period in Croatia could be beneficial for care management of people with severe mental illness.

Simulating a Community Mental Health Service During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Effects of Clinician-Clinician Encounters, Clinician-Patient-Family Encounters, Symptom-Triggered Protective Behaviour, and Household Clustering.

Objectives: Face-to-face healthcare, including psychiatric provision, must continue despite reduced interpersonal contact during the COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus) pandemic. Community-based services might use domiciliary visits, consultations in healthcare settings, or remote consultations. Services might also alter direct contact between clinicians. We examined the effects of appointment types and clinician-clinician encounters upon infection rates. Design: Computer simulation. Methods: We modelled a COVID-19-like disease in a hypothetical community healthcare team, their patients, and patients' household contacts (family). In one condition, clinicians met patients and briefly met family (e.g., home visit or collateral history). In another, patients attended alone (e.g., clinic visit), segregated from each other. In another, face-to-face contact was eliminated (e.g., videoconferencing). We also varied clinician-clinician contact; baseline and ongoing "external" infection rates; whether overt symptoms reduced transmission risk behaviourally (e.g., via personal protective equipment, PPE); and household clustering. Results: Service organisation had minimal effects on whole-population infection under our assumptions but materially affected clinician infection. Appointment type and inter-clinician contact had greater effects at low external infection rates and without a behavioural symptom response. Clustering magnified the effect of appointment type. We discuss infection control and other factors affecting appointment choice and team organisation. Conclusions: Distancing between clinicians can have significant effects on team infection. Loss of clinicians to infection likely has an adverse impact on care, not modelled here. Appointments must account for clinical necessity as well as infection control. Interventions to reduce transmission risk can synergize, arguing for maximal distancing and behavioural measures (e.g., PPE) consistent with safe care.