Caregiving and receiving experiences in UK community mental health services during COVID-19 pandemic restrictions: A qualitative, co-produced study.

WHAT IS KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT?: At the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, little was known about ways of delivering registered nurse practice within CMHTs under restrictions associated with a global pandemic. Emerging research focused on broad healthcare staff wellbeing during the pandemic. Qualitative research explored the overall response of COVID-19 on people with existing health needs or remote working more specifically. Over the past 2 years studies have emerged detailing experiences but no studies have used qualitative research to understand community mental health nurses and service users experience of services. WHAT THE PAPER ADDS TO EXISTING KNOWLEDGE?: This co-produced qualitative study is the first to explore the changes to CMHT care from the experience of service users and nurses later in the COVID-19 pandemic. The study questions whether recovery-based approaches are possible in a hybrid way of working. The findings identify challenges for nurses' well-being and work-life boundaries when working from home. The study adds to historical professional narratives of mental health nursing. WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: While hybrid approaches developed in response to COVID-19 restrictions may offer more choice these approaches need further co-produced evaluation on the impact of recovery-focused care and therapeutic relationships. Mental health nurses need to review how future hybrid working continues to impact nurses' mental health and emotional safety. Nurses and service users need to raise awareness within society and policy on the impact that COVID-19 had on people with existing mental health conditions. ABSTRACT: Introduction Community Mental Health Team responses to COVID-19 included fundamental service delivery adaptations. Aim/Question Our co-produced study sought to understand which service delivery changes experienced by service users and registered nurses were helpful or unhelpful to caregiving and receiving. Method Qualitative semi-structured interviews were undertaken with 10 service users and 13 registered nurses from 3 NHS England sites. Co-produced throughout, people with lived experience of mental health services and nurses wishing to improve their research experience undertook interviews following training. Data were analysed thematically. Findings Care radically changed from in-person to large phone or video contact. This reportedly altered therapeutic relationship building and raised questions about whether recovery-focused care was possible. Hybrid working was viewed as helpful but raised challenges for nurse wellbeing. Discussion Changes to care delivery challenged the fundamentals of recovery-focused interventions and therapeutic relationships. Service users and nurses well-being consequently suffered. The impact of the pandemic on people with existing mental health conditions was poorly acknowledged in the media. Implications for Practice Recovery-focused interventions and relationship building need evaluating in the light of ongoing hybrid working. Teams need to consider the well-being of nurses engaged in complex service-user interactions from home.

Synthesis of the Evidence on What Works for Whom in Telemental Health: Rapid Realist Review.

BACKGROUND: Telemental health (delivering mental health care via video calls, telephone calls, or SMS text messages) is becoming increasingly widespread. Telemental health appears to be useful and effective in providing care to some service users in some settings, especially during an emergency restricting face-to-face contact, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. However, important limitations have been reported, and telemental health implementation risks the reinforcement of pre-existing inequalities in service provision. If it is to be widely incorporated into routine care, a clear understanding is needed of when and for whom it is an acceptable and effective approach and when face-to-face care is needed. OBJECTIVE: This rapid realist review aims to develop a theory about which telemental health approaches work (or do not work), for whom, in which contexts, and through what mechanisms. METHODS: Rapid realist reviewing involves synthesizing relevant evidence and stakeholder expertise to allow timely development of context-mechanism-outcome (CMO) configurations in areas where evidence is urgently needed to inform policy and practice. The CMO configurations encapsulate theories about what works for whom and by what mechanisms. Sources included eligible papers from 2 previous systematic reviews conducted by our team on telemental health; an updated search using the strategy from these reviews; a call for relevant evidence, including "gray literature," to the public and key experts; and website searches of relevant voluntary and statutory organizations. CMO configurations formulated from these sources were iteratively refined, including through discussions with an expert reference group, including researchers with relevant lived experience and frontline clinicians, and consultation with experts focused on three priority groups: children and young people, users of inpatient and crisis care services, and digitally excluded groups. RESULTS: A total of 108 scientific and gray literature sources were included. From our initial CMO configurations, we derived 30 overarching CMO configurations within four domains: connecting effectively; flexibility and personalization; safety, privacy, and confidentiality; and therapeutic quality and relationship. Reports and stakeholder input emphasized the importance of personal choice, privacy and safety, and therapeutic relationships in telemental health care. The review also identified particular service users likely to be disadvantaged by telemental health implementation and a need to ensure that face-to-face care of equivalent timeliness remains available. Mechanisms underlying the successful and unsuccessful application of telemental health are discussed. CONCLUSIONS: Service user choice, privacy and safety, the ability to connect effectively, and fostering strong therapeutic relationships need to be prioritized in delivering telemental health care. Guidelines and strategies coproduced with service users and frontline staff are needed to optimize telemental health implementation in real-world settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO); CRD42021260910; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021260910.