Implementing mental health support teams in schools and colleges: the perspectives of programme implementers and service providers.

Background: Between 2018 and 2025, a national implementation programme is funding more than 500 new mental health support teams (MHSTs) in England, to work in education settings to deliver evidence-based interventions to children with mild to moderate mental health problems and support emotional wellbeing for all pupils. A new role, education mental health practitioner (EMHP), has been created for the programme.Aims: A national evaluation explored the development, implementation and early progress of 58 MHSTs in the programme's first 25 'Trailblazer' sites. This paper reports the views and experiences of people involved in MHST design, implementation and service delivery at a local, regional and national level.Methods: Data are reported from in-depth interviews with staff in five Trailblazer sites (n = 71), and the programme's regional (n = 52) and national leads (n = 21).Results: Interviewees universally welcomed the creation of MHSTs, but there was a lack of clarity about their purpose, concerns that the standardised CBT interventions being offered were not working well for some children, and challenges retaining EMHPs.Conclusions: This study raises questions about MHSTs' service scope, what role they should play in addressing remaining gaps in mental health provision, and how EMHPs can develop the skills to work effectively with diverse groups.

Rapid evaluation of service innovations in health and social care: key considerations.

Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (RSET: 16/138/17; BRACE: 16/138/31).

A rapid mixed-methods evaluation of remote home monitoring models during the COVID-19 pandemic in England.

Background: Remote home monitoring services were developed and implemented for patients with COVID-19 during the pandemic. Patients monitored blood oxygen saturation and other readings (e.g. temperature) at home and were escalated as necessary. Objective: To evaluate effectiveness, costs, implementation, and staff and patient experiences (including disparities and mode) of COVID-19 remote home monitoring services in England during the COVID-19 pandemic (waves 1 and 2). Methods: A rapid mixed-methods evaluation, conducted in two phases. Phase 1 (July-August 2020) comprised a rapid systematic review, implementation and economic analysis study (in eight sites). Phase 2 (January-June 2021) comprised a large-scale, multisite, mixed-methods study of effectiveness, costs, implementation and patient/staff experience, using national data sets, surveys (28 sites) and interviews (17 sites). Results: Phase 1 Findings from the review and empirical study indicated that these services have been implemented worldwide and vary substantially. Empirical findings highlighted that communication, appropriate information and multiple modes of monitoring facilitated implementation; barriers included unclear referral processes, workforce availability and lack of administrative support. Phase 2 We received surveys from 292 staff (39% response rate) and 1069 patients/carers (18% response rate). We conducted interviews with 58 staff, 62 patients/carers and 5 national leads. Despite national roll-out, enrolment to services was lower than expected (average enrolment across 37 clinical commissioning groups judged to have completed data was 8.7%). There was large variability in implementation of services, influenced by patient (e.g. local population needs), workforce (e.g. workload), organisational (e.g. collaboration) and resource (e.g. software) factors. We found that for every 10% increase in enrolment to the programme, mortality was reduced by 2% (95% confidence interval: 4% reduction to 1% increase), admissions increased by 3% (-1% to 7%), in-hospital mortality fell by 3% (-8% to 3%) and lengths of stay increased by 1.8% (-1.2% to 4.9%). None of these results are statistically significant. We found slightly longer hospital lengths of stay associated with virtual ward services (adjusted incidence rate ratio 1.05, 95% confidence interval 1.01 to 1.09), and no statistically significant impact on subsequent COVID-19 readmissions (adjusted odds ratio 0.95, 95% confidence interval 0.89 to 1.02). Low patient enrolment rates and incomplete data may have affected chances of detecting possible impact. The mean running cost per patient varied for different types of service and mode; and was driven by the number and grade of staff. Staff, patients and carers generally reported positive experiences of services. Services were easy to deliver but staff needed additional training. Staff knowledge/confidence, NHS resources/workload, dynamics between multidisciplinary team members and patients' engagement with the service (e.g. using the oximeter to record and submit readings) influenced delivery. Patients and carers felt services and human contact received reassured them and were easy to engage with. Engagement was conditional on patient, support, resource and service factors. Many sites designed services to suit the needs of their local population. Despite adaptations, disparities were reported across some patient groups. For example, older adults and patients from ethnic minorities reported more difficulties engaging with the service. Tech-enabled models helped to manage large patient groups but did not completely replace phone calls. Limitations: Limitations included data completeness, inability to link data on service use to outcomes at a patient level, low survey response rates and under-representation of some patient groups. Future work: Further research should consider the long-term impact and cost-effectiveness of these services and the appropriateness of different models for different groups of patients. Conclusions: We were not able to find quantitative evidence that COVID-19 remote home monitoring services have been effective. However, low enrolment rates, incomplete data and varied implementation reduced our chances of detecting any impact that may have existed. While services were viewed positively by staff and patients, barriers to implementation, delivery and engagement should be considered. Study registration: This study is registered with the ISRCTN (14962466). Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (RSET: 16/138/17; BRACE: 16/138/31) and NHSEI and will be published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 11, No. 13. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the National Institute for Health and Care Research or the Department of Health and Social Care.

COVID-19 patients can experience very low oxygen levels, without feeling breathless. Patients may not realise there is a problem until they become extremely unwell, risking being admitted to hospital too late. To address this, COVID-19 remote home monitoring services were developed and later rolled out across England. Patients monitored oxygen levels at home using an 'oximeter' (a small device which clips on to your finger) and sent these readings to providers via phone or technology (e.g. an app). Patients could access further care if needed. We did not know whether these services worked, or what people felt about them. • How services were set up and used in England. • Whether services work (e.g. by reducing deaths and length of hospital stay). • How much they cost. • What patients, carers and staff think about these services (including differences between groups and telephone vs. technology). We looked at available existing evidence and collected data from eight services operating in the first wave of the pandemic. During the second wave of the pandemic, we used data available at a national level and conducted surveys (28 sites) and interviews (17 sites) with staff, patients and individuals involved in developing/leading services nationally. These services have been used worldwide, but they vary considerably. We found many things that help these services to be used (e.g. good communication) but also things that get in the way (e.g. unclear referrals). Our findings did not show that services reduce deaths or time in hospital. But these findings are limited by a lack of data. Staff and patients liked these services, but we found some barriers to delivering and using the service. Some groups found services harder to use (e.g. older patients, those with disabilities and ethnic minorities). Using technology helped with large patient groups, but it did not completely replace phone calls. Better information is needed to know whether these services work. Staff and patients liked these services. However, improvements may make them easier to deliver and use (e.g. further staff training and giving additional support to patients who need it).

Patient and staff experiences of using technology-enabled and analogue models of remote home monitoring for COVID-19 in England: A mixed-method evaluation.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate patient and staff experiences of using technology-enabled ('tech-enabled') and analogue remote home monitoring models for COVID-19, implemented in England during the pandemic. METHODS: Twenty-eight sites were selected for diversity in a range of criteria (e.g. pre-hospital or early discharge service, mode of patient data submission). Between February and May 2021, we conducted quantitative surveys with patients, carers and staff delivering the service, and interviewed patients, carers, and staff from 17 of the 28 services. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics and both univariate and multivariate analyses. Qualitative data were interpreted using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-one sites adopted mixed models whereby patients could submit their symptoms using either tech-enabled (app, weblink, or automated phone calls) or analogue (phone calls with a health professional) options; seven sites offered analogue-only data submission (phone calls or face-to-face visits with a health professional). Sixty-two patients and carers were interviewed, and 1069 survey responses were received (18 % response rate). Fifty-eight staff were interviewed, and 292 survey responses were received (39 % response rate). Patients who used tech-enabled modes tended to be younger (p = 0.005), have a higher level of education (p = 0.011), and more likely to identify as White British (p = 0.043). Most patients found relaying symptoms easy, regardless of modality, though many received assistance from family or friends. Staff considered the adoption of mixed delivery models beneficial, enabling them to manage large patient numbers and contact patients for further assessment as needed; however, they suggested improvements to the functionality of systems to better fit clinical and operational needs. Human contact was important in all remote home monitoring options. CONCLUSIONS: Organisations implementing tech-enabled remote home monitoring at scale should consider adopting mixed models which can accommodate patients with different needs; focus on the usability and interoperability of tech-enabled platforms; and encourage digital inclusivity for patients.

Early evaluation of the Children and Young People's Mental Health Trailblazer programme: a rapid mixed-methods study.

Background: The Children and Young People's Mental Health Trailblazer programme is funding the creation of new mental health support teams to work in schools and further education colleges. Mental health support teams directly support children and young people with 'mild to moderate' mental health problems and work with school and college staff to promote well-being for all. A new workforce of education mental health practitioners is being trained for the teams. Objective(s): The National Institute for Health and Care Research Birmingham, RAND and Cambridge Evaluation Rapid Evaluation Centre and Policy Innovation and Evaluation Research Unit undertook an early evaluation of the Trailblazer programme to examine the development, implementation and early progress of mental health support teams in the programme's first 25 'Trailblazer' sites. Design: A mixed-methods evaluation, comprising three work packages: 1. Establishing the baseline and understanding the development and early impacts of the Trailblazer sites, including two rounds of surveys with key informants and participating education settings in all 25 sites. 2. More detailed research in five purposively selected Trailblazer sites, including interviews with a range of stakeholders and focus groups with children and young people. 3. Scoping and developing options for a longer-term assessment of the programme's outcomes and impacts. Fieldwork was undertaken between November 2020 and February 2022. The University of Birmingham Institute for Mental Health Youth Advisory Group was involved throughout the study, including co-producing the focus groups with children and young people. Results: Substantial progress had been made implementing the programme, in challenging circumstances, and there was optimism about what it had the potential to achieve. The education mental health practitioner role had proven popular, but sites reported challenges in retaining education mental health practitioners, and turnover left mental health support teams short-staffed and needing to re-recruit. Education settings welcomed additional mental health support and reported positive early outcomes, including staff feeling more confident and having faster access to advice about mental health issues. At the same time, there were concerns about children who had mental health problems that were more serious than 'mild to moderate' but not serious enough to be accepted for specialist help, and that the interventions offered were not working well for some young people. Mental health support teams were generally spending more time supporting children with mental health problems than working with education settings to develop 'whole school' approaches to mental health and well-being, and service models in some sites appeared to be more clinically oriented, with a strong focus on mental health support teams' therapeutic functions. Limitations: Despite efforts to maximise participation, survey response rates were relatively low and some groups were less well represented than others. We were not able to gather sufficiently detailed data to develop a typology of Trailblazer sites, as was planned. Conclusions: Key lessons for future programme implementation include: - Whether mental health support teams should expand support to children and young people with more complex and serious mental health problems. - How to keep the twin aims of prevention and early intervention in balance. - How to retain education mental health practitioners once trained. Future work: The findings have important implications for the design of a longer-term impact evaluation of the programme, which is due to commence in summer 2023. Study registration: Ethical approval from the University of Birmingham (ERN_19-1400 - RG_19-190) and London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (Ref: 18040) and Health Research Authority approval (IRAS 270760). Funding: The Birmingham, RAND and Cambridge Evaluation Rapid Evaluation Centre is funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme (HSDR 16/138/31). The Policy Innovation and Evaluation Research Unit is funded by the NIHR Policy Research Programme (PR-PRU-1217-20602).

Is bureaucracy being busted in research ethics and governance for health services research in the UK? Experiences and perspectives reported by stakeholders through an online survey.

BACKGROUND: It has long been noted that the chain from identification of need (research gap) to impact in the real world is both long and tortuous. This study aimed to contribute evidence about research ethics and governance arrangements and processes in the UK with a focus on: what works well; problems; impacts on delivery; and potential improvements. METHODS: Online questionnaire widely distributed 20th May 2021, with request to forward to other interested parties. The survey closed on 18th June 2021. Questionnaire included closed and open questions related to demographics, role, study objectives. RESULTS: Responses were received from 252 respondents, 68% based in universities 25% in the NHS. Research methods used by respondents included interviews/focus groups (64%); surveys/questionnaires (63%); and experimental/quasi experimental (57%). Respondents reported that participants in the research they conducted most commonly included: patients (91%); NHS staff (64%) and public (50%). Aspects of research ethics and governance reported to work well were: online centralised systems; confidence in rigorous, respected systems; and helpful staff. Problems with workload, frustration and delays were reported, related to overly bureaucratic, unclear, repetitive, inflexible and inconsistent processes. Disproportionality of requirements for low-risk studies was raised across all areas, with systems reported to be risk averse, defensive and taking little account of the risks associated with delaying or deterring research. Some requirements were reported to have unintended effects on inclusion and diversity, particularly impacting Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) and engagement processes. Existing processes and requirements were reported to cause stress and demoralisation, particularly as many researchers are employed on fixed term contracts. High negative impacts on research delivery were reported, in terms of timescales for completing studies, discouraging research particularly for clinicians and students, quality of outputs and costs. Suggested improvements related to system level changes / overall approach and specific refinements to existing processes. CONCLUSIONS: Consultation with those involved in Health Services Research in the UK revealed a picture of overwhelming and increasing bureaucracy, delays, costs and demoralisation related to gaining the approvals necessary to conduct research in the NHS. Suggestions for improvement across all three areas focused on reducing duplication and unnecessary paperwork/form filling and reaching a better balance between risks of harm through research and harms which occur because research to inform practice is delayed or deterred.

Staff experiences of training and delivery of remote home monitoring services for patients diagnosed with COVID-19 in England: A mixed-methods study.

OBJECTIVES: Remote home monitoring services for patients at risk of rapid deterioration introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic had important implications for the health workforce. This study explored the nature of 'work' that health care staff in England undertook to manage patients with COVID-19 remotely, how they were supported to deliver these new services, and the factors that influenced delivery of COVID-19 remote home monitoring services for staff. METHODS: We conducted a rapid mixed-methods evaluation of COVID-19 remote home monitoring services during November 2020 to July 2021 using a cross-sectional survey of a purposive sample of staff involved in delivering the service (clinical leads, frontline delivery staff and those involved in data collection and management) from 28 sites across England. We also conducted interviews with 58 staff in a subsample of 17 sites. Data collection and analysis were carried out in parallel. We used thematic analysis to analyse qualitative data while quantitative survey data were analysed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: A total of 292 staff responded to the surveys (39% response rate). We found that prior experience of remote monitoring had some, albeit limited benefit for delivering similar services for patients diagnosed with COVID-19. Staff received a range of locally specific training and clinical oversight along with bespoke materials and resources. Staff reported feeling uncertain about using their own judgement and being reliant on seeking clinical oversight. The experience of transitioning from face-to-face to remote service delivery led some frontline delivery staff to reconsider their professional role, as well as their beliefs around their own capabilities. There was a general perception of staff being able to adapt, acquire new skills and knowledge and they demonstrated a commitment to continuity of care for patients, although there were reports of struggling with the increased accountability and responsibility attached to their adapted roles at times. CONCLUSIONS: Remote home monitoring models can play an important role in managing a large number of patients for COVID-19 and possibly a range of other conditions. Successful delivery of such service models depends on staff competency and the nature of training received to facilitate effective care and patient engagement.

Undertaking rapid evaluations during the COVID-19 pandemic: Lessons from evaluating COVID-19 remote home monitoring services in England.

Introduction: Rapid evaluations can offer evidence on innovations in health and social care that can be used to inform fast-moving policy and practise, and support their scale-up according to previous research. However, there are few comprehensive accounts of how to plan and conduct large-scale rapid evaluations, ensure scientific rigour, and achieve stakeholder engagement within compressed timeframes. Methods: Using a case study of a national mixed-methods rapid evaluation of COVID-19 remote home monitoring services in England, conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, this manuscript examines the process of conducting a large-scale rapid evaluation from design to dissemination and impact, and reflects on the key lessons for conducting future large-scale rapid evaluations. In this manuscript, we describe each stage of the rapid evaluation: convening the team (study team and external collaborators), design and planning (scoping, designing protocols, study set up), data collection and analysis, and dissemination. Results: We reflect on why certain decisions were made and highlight facilitators and challenges. The manuscript concludes with 12 key lessons for conducting large-scale mixed-methods rapid evaluations of healthcare services. We propose that rapid study teams need to: (1) find ways of quickly building trust with external stakeholders, including evidence-users; (2) consider the needs of the rapid evaluation and resources needed; (3) use scoping to ensure the study is highly focused; (4) carefully consider what cannot be completed within a designated timeframe; (5) use structured processes to ensure consistency and rigour; (6) be flexible and responsive to changing needs and circumstances; (7) consider the risks associated with new data collection approaches of quantitative data (and their usability); (8) consider whether it is possible to use aggregated quantitative data, and what that would mean when presenting results, (9) consider using structured processes & layered analysis approaches to rapidly synthesise qualitative findings, (10) consider the balance between speed and the size and skills of the team, (11) ensure all team members know roles and responsibilities and can communicate quickly and clearly; and (12) consider how best to share findings, in discussion with evidence-users, for rapid understanding and use. Conclusion: These 12 lessons can be used to inform the development and conduct of future rapid evaluations in a range of contexts and settings.

Patients' experiences of, and engagement with, remote home monitoring services for COVID-19 patients: A rapid mixed-methods study.

INTRODUCTION: Remote home monitoring models were implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic to shorten hospital length of stay, reduce unnecessary hospital admission, readmission and infection and appropriately escalate care. Within these models, patients are asked to take and record readings and escalate care if advised. There is limited evidence on how patients and carers experience these services. This study aimed to evaluate patient experiences of, and engagement with, remote home monitoring models for COVID-19. METHODS: A rapid mixed-methods study was carried out in England (conducted from March to June 2021). We remotely conducted a cross-sectional survey and semi-structured interviews with patients and carers. Interview findings were summarized using rapid assessment procedures sheets and data were grouped into themes (using thematic analysis). Survey data were analysed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: We received 1069 surveys (18% response rate) and conducted interviews with patients (n = 59) or their carers (n = 3). 'Care' relied on support from staff members and family/friends. Patients and carers reported positive experiences and felt that the service and human contact reassured them and was easy to engage with. Yet, some patients and carers identified problems with engagement (e.g., hesitancy to self-escalate care). Engagement was influenced by patient factors such as health and knowledge, support from family/friends and staff, availability and ease of use of informational and material resources (e.g., equipment) and service factors. CONCLUSION: Remote home monitoring models place responsibility on patients to self-manage symptoms in partnership with staff; yet, many patients required support and preferred human contact (especially for identifying problems). Caring burden and experiences of those living alone and barriers to engagement should be considered when designing and implementing remote home monitoring services. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The study team met with service users and public members of the evaluation teams throughout the project in a series of workshops. Workshops informed study design, data collection tools and data interpretation and were conducted to also discuss study dissemination. Public patient involvement (PPI) members helped to pilot patient surveys and interview guides with the research team. Some members of the public also piloted the patient survey. Members of the PPI group were given the opportunity to comment on the manuscript, and the manuscript was amended accordingly.

The implementation of remote home monitoring models during the COVID-19 pandemic in England.

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of evidence for the implementation of remote home monitoring for COVID-19 infection. The aims of this study were to identify the key characteristics of remote home monitoring models for COVID-19 infection, explore the experiences of staff implementing these models, understand the use of data for monitoring progress against outcomes, and document variability in staffing and resource allocation. METHODS: This was a multi-site mixed methods study conducted between July and August 2020 that combined qualitative and quantitative approaches to analyse the implementation and impact of remote home monitoring models developed during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in England. The study combined interviews (n = 22) with staff delivering these models across eight sites in England with the collection and analysis of data on staffing models and resource allocation. FINDINGS: The models varied in relation to the healthcare settings and mechanisms used for patient triage, monitoring and escalation. Implementation was embedded in existing staff workloads and budgets. Good communication within clinical teams, culturally-appropriate information for patients/carers and the combination of multiple approaches for patient monitoring (app and paper-based) were considered facilitators in implementation. The mean cost per monitored patient varied from £400 to £553, depending on the model. INTERPRETATION: It is necessary to provide the means for evaluating the effectiveness of these models, for example, by establishing comparator data. Future research should also focus on the sustainability of the models and patient experience (considering the extent to which some of the models exacerbate existing inequalities in access to care).

Patient centred care. When know means know.

Patients' understanding of health information varies hugely, is hard to predict and can widen inequality gaps. PCTs should consider appointing patient care advisers.