Personal reformulation during the clinical associate psychologist apprenticeship: Exploratory mixed methods evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: Clinical associate psychologists (CAPs) train under the auspices of the apprenticeship programme and are a new addition to the psychological workforce. This project sought to evaluate whether a "personal reformulation" (PR) was helpful in terms of personal and professional development during the apprenticeship. METHODS: A mixed methods evaluation containing a longitudinal quantitative element and a "Big Q" qualitative element with a single cohort of N = 18 CAPs. A PR consists of a 2-hr one-to-one session and a follow-up session with a cognitive analytic psychotherapist. During a PR, a sequential diagrammatic reformulation is produced to aid recognition and revision of potentially problematic relationship patterns at work. Two outcome measures concerning reflective capacity and professional quality of life were completed at the start of the apprenticeship, pre-PR and at 3-month PR follow-up. The semi-structured interviews (n = 11) conducted at the follow-up were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Quantitative changes were limited to significant increases to general confidence and 8/12 apprentices had a reliable increase in confidence in communication. Qualitatively, five overarching themes were found: (1) gaining insight, (2) wellbeing, (3) nature of the space, (4) being an apprentice, and (5) moving forward. CONCLUSIONS: PRs were generally found to be emotionally challenging, but relatively large amounts of insight are possible from a very brief intervention that can contribute to personal and professional development during clinical training. More controlled research needs to be conducted and wider applications and evaluations of PRs in different professions would be welcome.

A comparison of two psychological screening methods currently used for inpatients in a UK burns service.

Various types of psychological screening are currently used in the UK to identify burn patients who are experiencing psychological distress and may need additional support and intervention during their hospital admission. This audit compared two types of psychological screening in 40 burn inpatients. One screening method was an unpublished questionnaire designed to explore multiple areas of potential distress for those who have experienced burns. The other method was an indirect psychological screen via discussions within multi-disciplinary team (MDT) meetings where a Clinical Psychologist was present to guide and prompt psychological discussions. Data was collected between November 2012 and September 2016. Results suggested that both screening methods were similar in identifying patients who benefit from more formal psychological assessment. Indeed, statistical analysis reported no difference between the two screening methods (N=40, p=.424, two-tailed). In conclusion, measuring distress in burns inpatients using a burns-specific questionnaire and psychological discussions within MDT meetings are similar in their ability to identify patients in need of more thorough psychological assessment. However, both screening methods identified patients who were in need of psychological input when the other did not. This suggests that psychological screening of burns inpatients, and the psychological difficulties that they can present with, is complex. The advantages and disadvantages of both methods of screening are discussed.

Pain phenotype in patients with knee osteoarthritis: classification and measurement properties of painDETECT and self-report Leeds assessment of neuropathic symptoms and signs scale in a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: Multiple mechanisms are involved in pain associated with osteoarthritis (OA). The painDETECT and Self-Report Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs (S-LANSS) questionnaires screen for neuropathic pain and may also identify individuals with musculoskeletal pain who exhibit abnormal central pain processing. The aim of this cross-sectional study was to evaluate painDETECT and S-LANSS for classification agreement and fit to the Rasch model, and to explore their relationship to pain severity and pain mechanisms in OA. METHODS: A total of 192 patients with knee OA completed questionnaires covering different aspects of pain. Another group of 77 patients with knee OA completed questionnaires and underwent quantitative sensory testing for pressure-pain thresholds (PPTs). Agreement between painDETECT and S-LANSS was evaluated using kappa coefficients and receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves. Rasch analysis of both questionnaires was conducted. Relationships between screening questionnaires and measures of pain severity or PPTs were calculated using correlations. RESULTS: PainDETECT and S-LANSS shared a stronger correlation with each other than with measures of pain severity. ROC curves identified optimal cutoff scores for painDETECT and S-LANSS to maximize agreement, but the kappa coefficient was low (κ = 0.33-0.46). Rasch analysis supported the measurement properties of painDETECT but not those of S-LANSS. Higher painDETECT scores were associated with widespread reductions in PPTs. CONCLUSION: The data suggest that painDETECT assesses pain quality associated with augmented central pain processing in patients with OA. Although developed as a screening questionnaire, painDETECT may also function as a measure of characteristics that indicate augmented central pain processing. Agreement between painDETECT and S-LANSS for pain classification was low, and it is currently unknown which tool may best predict treatment outcome.