Supporting the Sharing of Mental Health Challenges in the Workplace: Findings from Comparative Case Study Research at Two Mental Health Services.

Personal experience with mental health (MH) challenges has been characterized as a concealable stigma. Identity management literature suggests actively concealing a stigma may negatively impact wellbeing. Reviews of workplace identity management literature have linked safety in revealing a stigma to individual performance, well-being, engagement and teamwork. However, no research to date has articulated the factors that make sharing MH challenges possible. This study employed a comparative case study design to explore the sharing of MH challenges in two Australian MH services. We conducted qualitative analyses of interviews with staff in direct service delivery and supervisory roles, to determine factors supporting safety to share. Workplace factors supporting safety to share MH challenges included: planned and unplanned "check-ins;" mutual sharing and support from colleagues and supervisors; opportunities for individual and team reflection; responses to and management of personal leave and requests for accommodation; and messaging and action from senior organizational leaders supporting the value of workforce diversity. Research involving staff with experience of MH challenges provides valuable insights into how we can better support MH staff across the workforce.

REFOCUS-PULSAR Recovery-Oriented Practice Training in Adult Primary Mental Health Care: Exploratory Findings Including From a Pretest-Posttest Evaluation.

Objectives: Australian general practitioners (GPs) are pivotal in mental health care. The REFOCUS-PULSAR (Principles Unite Local Services Assisting Recovery) primary care study aimed to improve personal recovery outcomes in adults with mental health problems consulting GPs. Design: Modified from an intended stepped-wedge cluster study, an exploratory (pre- and post-intervention) design employed cross-sectional surveys of patients consulting GPs. Setting: Eighteen primary care sites (clusters) in Victoria, Australia in 2013-2017. Participants: From 30 GPs recruited, 23 participated (76%), with 235 patient surveys returned from adults aged <75 years receiving mental health care. Intervention: A co-delivered face-to-face training intervention for GPs in recovery-oriented practice (ROP), with personal recovery a key focus, used multimedia, mnemonics, and targeted interview schedules to encourage ROP-with availability of support sessions for 1 year. Outcome Measures: Primary: the Questionnaire about the Process of Recovery full-scale score (outcome). Secondary: INSPIRE (experience), Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS) and Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10) (outcomes). Other: General-practice-Users Perceived-need Inventory (experience). Results: Small positive significant effects indicated primary-outcome post-intervention improvements [t-test (233) = -2.23, p = 0.01], also improvement in two secondary outcomes (WEMWBS t(233) = -2.12, p = 0.02 and K10 t(233) = 2.44, p = 0.01). More patients post-intervention reported "no need" for further help from their GP; but in those reporting needs, there was greater unmet need for counseling. Conclusions: ROP implementation, internationally influential in specialist mental health care, here is explored in primary care where it has had less attention. These exploratory findings suggest better patient outcomes followed introducing GPs to ROP in routine practice conditions. Higher unmet need for counseling post-intervention reported by patients might be a sign of limited supply despite ROP facilitating better identification of needs. Challenges in project implementation means that these findings carry risks of bias and flag the importance establishing research infrastructure in primary care. Clinical Trial Registration: www.clinicaltrials.gov/, The Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry Identifier: ACTRN12614001312639.

Patients' Experiences of Restrictive Interventions in Australia: Findings From the 2010 Australian Survey of Psychosis.

OBJECTIVE: The authors used survey data to investigate patients' experiences of restrictive interventions in inpatient settings. METHODS: The 2010 Australian Survey of High Impact Psychosis (N=1,825) asked about restrictive interventions experienced during a mental health admission in the previous year (N=428), ranging from restrictions on leaving a ward to seclusion. The authors explored the relationship between perceived benefit (good or limited versus no benefit) and the number of different types of restrictive interventions experienced. RESULTS: Twenty-three percent had recently experienced one or more restrictive interventions; of these, 42% had experienced forced medication and 35% had experienced seclusion. Although most reported some benefit, perceptions of benefit were lower among those who experienced a greater number of interventions. CONCLUSIONS: People with psychosis who experienced a greater number of restrictive interventions were less likely to find restrictions justified or beneficial. The cumulative effect of increased numbers of restrictions may also lead to worsening perceptions of benefit.