ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Rates of PTSD are up to 12 times higher in care-experienced young people (CEYP) compared to their peers. Trauma-focused CBTs (tf-CBT) are the best-evidenced treatment for youth with PTSD, yet, in practice, CEYP often struggle to access this treatment. We worked alongside services to understand barriers and facilitators of the implementation of cognitive therapy for PTSD (a type of tf-CBT) to CEYP. DESIGN: This was an active, open implementation trial. METHODS: We recruited 28 mental health teams across England, including general CAMHS, targeted CAMHS for CEYP and social care-based teams. From these teams, participants were 243 mental health professionals, from a wide variety of professional backgrounds. Following recruitment/intervention training, teams participated in rolling three monthly focus groups and individual interviews, to understand what helped and hindered implementation. Data were analysed using a framework analysis conducted using CFIR 2.0. RESULTS: Almost half of the teams were able to implement, but only approximately one quarter with CEYP, specifically. Universal barriers that were discussed by almost all teams particularly highlighted service structures and poor resourcing as major barriers to delivery to CEYP, as well as the complexities of the young person and their network. Unique factors that differentiated teams who did and did not implement included commissioning practices, the culture of the team, leadership engagement and style, and the development of supervision structures. CONCLUSIONS: Findings offer key considerations for mental health teams, service leads, commissioners and policy-makers to enhance delivery of best-evidenced mental health treatments like CT-PTSD, for CEYP.
ABSTRACT
AIM: It is increasingly recognised that traditional models of mental health (MH) care, with a service transition at age 18 years, may not reflect best practice. The literature supports a move towards youth and young adult focused models of MH care, for young people up to the age of 25, which specifically cater to the unique psychosocial and developmental needs of this population. This service evaluation aimed to explore the facilitators and barriers to the implementation of youth models of MH care across England (UK). METHODS: Six services participated in separate focus groups pertaining to their experience of implementing youth models of MH care. The interview guide for the focus groups was informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and explored barriers and facilitators to implementation and sustainment. The focus groups were recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically. RESULTS: Seven key themes relevant to the implementation of youth models of MH care were identified: a clear rationale for doing things differently, for young people by young people, "building those relationships is key", service identity development, resource and infrastructure, leadership at multiple levels, and valuing and developing staff. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest effective communication and leadership, co-production and cross system collaboration contribute to successful implementation of youth models of MH care. The findings will be of interest to those involved in informing and supporting successful implementation and delivery of youth models of mental health care at local and national levels.
