Mental health in clinically referred children and young people before and during the Covid-19 pandemic.

The Covid-19 pandemic and mitigation approaches, including lockdowns and school closures, are thought to have negatively impacted children and young people's (CYP) mental health. However, the impact for clinically referred CYP is less clear. We investigated differences in the mental health of CYP referred to specialist Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) before and since the onset of the pandemic. Using baseline data (self- and parent- completed Mood and Feelings Questionnaire and Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire) from an ongoing RCT (STADIA; ISRCTN: 15748675) in England involving 5-17-year-olds with emotional difficulties recently referred to CAMHS (non-urgent referrals), with repeated cross-sectional comparisons of CYP (n = 1028) recruited during 5 different time  periods: (1) Before schools were closed (Group 1 (pre-pandemic); n = 308; 27.08.2019-20.03.2020). (2) Early pandemic period until schools fully re-opened, which included the first national lockdown, its easing and the summer holidays (Group 2 (in-pandemic); n = 183; 21.03.2020-31.08.2020). (3) The following school-term-schools fully re-opened and remained open, including during the second national lockdown (Group 3 (in-pandemic); n = 204; 01.09.2020-18.12.2020). (4) Schools closed as part of the third national lockdown (Group 4 (in-pandemic); n = 101; 05.01.2021-07.03.2021). (5) Schools re-opened and remained open, until the school summer holidays (Group 5 (in-pandemic); n = 232; 08.03.2021-16.07.2021). Most CYP scored above cutoff for emotional problems and depression, with three-quarters meeting criteria for a probable disorder ('caseness'). The groups did not differ on parent-rated mental health measures. However, self-rated emotional problems, depression, functional impairment and caseness appeared to be higher amongst participants recruited in the two periods following school re-openings. In particular, functional impairment and caseness were greater in Group 5 compared with Group 2. Although symptom severity or impairment did not change in the initial pandemic period, self-reported difficulties were greater during the periods after schools re-opened. This suggests possible greater stresses in the adjustment to re-starting school following recurrent lockdowns and school closures.

STAndardised DIagnostic Assessment for children and young people with emotional difficulties (STADIA): protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Emotional disorders (such as anxiety and depression) are associated with considerable distress and impairment in day-to-day function for affected children and young people and for their families. Effective evidence-based interventions are available but require appropriate identification of difficulties to enable timely access to services. Standardised diagnostic assessment (SDA) tools may aid in the detection of emotional disorders, but there is limited evidence on the utility of SDA tools in routine care and equipoise among professionals about their clinical value. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A multicentre, two-arm, parallel group randomised controlled trial, with embedded qualitative and health economic components. Participants will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to either the Development and Well-Being Assessment SDA tool as an adjunct to usual clinical care, or usual care only. A total of 1210 participants (children and young people referred to outpatient, specialist Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services with emotional difficulties and their parent/carers) will be recruited from at least 6 sites in England. The primary outcome is a clinician-made diagnosis about the presence of an emotional disorder within 12 months of randomisation. Secondary outcomes include referral acceptance, diagnosis and treatment of emotional disorders, symptoms of emotional difficulties and comorbid disorders and associated functional impairment. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study received favourable opinion from the South Birmingham Research Ethics Committee (Ref. 19/WM/0133). Results of this trial will be reported to the funder and published in full in the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Journal series and also submitted for publication in a peer reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN15748675; Pre-results.

The AMBER care bundle for hospital inpatients with uncertain recovery nearing the end of life: the ImproveCare feasibility cluster RCT.

BACKGROUND: Patients admitted to hospital with a terminal illness and uncertain recovery often receive inconsistent care and do not have the opportunity to die in their preferred place of death. Previous end-of-life care packages, such as the Liverpool Care Pathway for the Dying Patient, have sometimes been badly implemented. The AMBER (Assessment; Management; Best practice; Engagement; Recovery uncertain) care bundle was developed to remedy this. It has not been evaluated in a randomised trial, but a definitive trial would face many hurdles. OBJECTIVE: To optimise the design of and determine the feasibility of a pragmatic, multicentre, cluster randomised controlled trial of the AMBER care bundle compared with best standard care. DESIGN: A feasibility cluster randomised controlled trial including semistructured interviews with patients and relatives, focus groups with health-care professionals, non-participant observations of multidisciplinary team meetings, a standard care survey, heat maps and case note reviews. Retrospective data were collected from the family or close friends of deceased patients via a bereavement survey. SETTING: Four general medical wards at district general hospitals in England. PARTICIPANTS: There were 65 participants (control, n = 36; intervention, n = 29). There were 24 interviews, four focus groups, 15 non-participant meeting observations, six case note reviews and three heat maps, and 15 of out 23 bereavement, standard care surveys were completed. INTERVENTION: The AMBER care bundle is implemented by a nurse facilitator. It includes the development and documentation of a medical plan, consideration of outcomes, resuscitation and escalation status and daily plan revisiting. The AMBER care bundle encourages staff, patients and families to talk openly about their preferences and priorities should the worst happen. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Two 'candidate' primary outcomes were selected to be evaluated for a future definitive trial: Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale patient/family anxiety and communication subscale and 'howRwe'. The secondary outcome measures were Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale symptoms, Australian-modified Karnofsky Performance Status scale, EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version, Client Service Receipt Inventory, recruitment rate, intervention fidelity and intervention acceptability. RESULTS: Data were collected for 65 patients. This trial was not powered to measure clinical effectiveness, but variance and changes observed in the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale subscale indicated that this measure would probably detect differences within a definitive trial. It was feasible to collect data on health, social and informal care service use and on quality of life at two time points. The AMBER care bundle was broadly acceptable to all stakeholders and was delivered as planned. The emphasis on 'clinical uncertainty' prompted health-care professional awareness of often-overlooked patients. Reviewing patients' AMBER care bundle status was integrated into routine practice. Refinements included simplifying the inclusion criteria and improving health-care professional communication training. Improvements to trial procedures included extending the time devoted to recruitment and simplifying consent procedures. There was also a recommendation to reduce data collected from patients and relatives to minimise burden. LIMITATIONS: The recruitment rate was lower than anticipated. The inclusion criteria for the trial were difficult to interpret. Information sheets and consent procedures were too detailed and lengthy for the target population. Health-care professionals' enthusiasm and specialty were not considered while picking trial wards. Participant recruitment took place later during hospital admission and the majority of participants were lost to follow-up because they had been discharged. Those who participated may have different characteristics from those who did not. CONCLUSIONS: This feasibility trial has demonstrated that an evaluation of the AMBER care bundle among an acutely unwell patient population, although technically possible, is not practical or feasible. The intervention requires optimisation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN36040085. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Portfolio registration number 32682. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 55. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Unwell hospital patients who are approaching the end of their lives and may die at any moment receive inconsistent care and often do not have opportunities to discuss their future care preferences. The AMBER (Assessment; Management; Best practice; Engagement; Recovery uncertain) care bundle was developed to help identify such patients, train health-care professionals to better communicate their concerns with them and their families and, where possible, to realise their preferences for place of care and death. The Liverpool Care Pathway for the Dying Patient, previously used across England, was designed to provide the best possible quality of care to those at the end of life. However, an independent review identified that it often was not used appropriately, leading to poor patient outcomes. A number of the criticisms of the Liverpool Care Pathway for the Dying Patient, such as reports of quickened deaths from the withdrawal of hydration/nutrition, as well as poor communication with patients and families, may have been identified earlier if it had been thoroughly evaluated. The AMBER care bundle, developed at Guy's and St Thomas' Hospital, aims to provide better outcomes for patients with clinically uncertain recovery and their families. It is important that the AMBER care bundle is properly investigated before wider use. A bigger study of the AMBER care bundle would be complex and expensive, so we examined whether or not this would be possible and acceptable to patients cared for in four wards across four hospitals, before deciding whether or not to go ahead with this bigger study. Two wards used the care bundle and two did not. We interviewed participants, their families and staff, and examined participants' clinical notes. We found that the AMBER care bundle was largely acceptable to patients, relatives and staff, and generally delivered as intended. We successfully collected information from 65 unwell patients at the beginning of the trial and again 3­5 and 10­15 days later. However, a limited number of data were collected at the final time point (10­15 days) due to many participants being discharged from the hospital. Group discussions with staff and interviews with participants and relatives identified important changes required to improve the AMBER care bundle and views on how the trial was conducted. These included simplifying the type of patients who may be appropriate for the AMBER care bundle and improving communication training for staff. Although we identified that a further study was technically possible, it is currently impractical. Future solutions that would require further testing include focusing on clinical need rather than trying to guess how the patient's condition will develop to identify potential trial participants and using questions completed by the patients as part of their routine care as a source of information. In the meantime, the AMBER care bundle continues to be used in over 40 hospitals in England.

Recommendations for services for people living with chronic breathlessness in advanced disease: Results of a transparent expert consultation.

Chronic breathlessness is highly distressing for people with advanced disease and their informal carers, yet health services for this group remain highly heterogeneous. We aimed to generate evidence-based stakeholder-endorsed recommendations for practice, policy and research concerning services for people with advanced disease and chronic breathlessness. We used transparent expert consultation, comprising modified nominal group technique during a stakeholder workshop, and an online consensus survey. Stakeholders, representing multiple specialities and professions, and patient/carers were invited to participate. Thirty-seven participants attended the stakeholder workshop and generated 34 separate recommendations, rated by 74 online survey respondents. Seven recommendations had strong agreement and high levels of consensus. Stakeholders agreed services should be person-centred and flexible, should cut across multiple disciplines and providers and should prioritize breathlessness management in its own right. They advocated for wide geographical coverage and access to expert care, supported through skills-sharing among professionals. They also recommended recognition of informal carers and their role by clinicians and policymakers. Overall, stakeholders' recommendations reflect the need for improved access to person-centred, multi-professional care and support for carers to provide or access breathlessness management interventions. Future research should test the optimal models of care and educational strategies to meet these recommendations.