Work-related experiences of consultant psychiatrists during the COVID-19 response: qualitative analysis

Background: Research has begun to draw attention to the challenges mental health professionals faced in delivering services during the COVID-19 pandemic response. However, few studies have examined the specific experiences of consultant psychiatrists. Aims: To examine the work-related experiences and psychosocial needs of consultant psychiatrists situated in the Republic of Ireland arising from the COVID-19 response. Method: We interviewed 18 consultant psychiatrists and analysed data using inductive thematic analysis. Results: Work-related experience of participants was characterised by increased workload associated with assumption of guardianship of physical and mental health of vulnerable patients. Unintended consequences of public health restrictions increased case complexity, limited availability of alternative supports and hindered the practice of psychiatry, including inhibiting peer support systems for psychiatrists. Participants perceived available psychological supports as generally unsuitable for their needs given their specialty. Long-standing under-resourcing, mistrust in management and high levels of burnout exacerbated the psychological burden of the COVID-19 response. Conclusions: The challenges of leading mental health services were evident in the increased complexity involved in caring for vulnerable patients during the pandemic, contributing to uncertainty, loss of control and moral distress among participants. These dynamics worked synergistically with pre-existing system-level failures, eroding capacity to mount an effective response. The longer-term psychological well-being of consultant psychiatrists - as well as the pandemic preparedness of healthcare systems - is contingent on implementation of policies addressing long-standing under-investment in the services vulnerable populations rely on, not least community mental health services.</p

Measuring clinical outcomes in adult ADHD clinics: psychometrics of a new scale, the adult ADHD Clinical Outcome Scale

Background Adult attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) clinics are in their infancy in Ireland and internationally. There is an urgent need for clinical evaluation of these services. Until now, clinical outcomes have relied mainly on functional scales and/or quality of life. However, adult ADHD is a longstanding disorder with many comorbidities. Although medication for ADHD symptoms can have immediate effects, co-occurring problems may take considerably longer to remediate. Aims To present the psychometrics of a short outcome measure of key clinical areas including symptoms. Method The ADHD Clinical Outcome Scale (ACOS), developed by the authors, is a clinician-rated scale and was administered in consecutive adults attending an ADHD clinic. A modified version was completed by the participant. A second clinician independently administered the scale in a subsample. ACOS consists of 15 items rated on a Likert scale. Two self-report scales, the Adult ADHD Quality of Life Questionnaire (AAQoL) and Weiss Functional Impairment Rating Scale (WFIRS), were also administered. Results The mean age of 148 participants was 30.1 years (s.d. = 9.71), and 81 were female (54.7%). The correlation for interrater reliability was r = 0.868, and that between the participant and clinician versions was r = 0.663. The intraclass correlation coefficient for the internal consistency was 0.829, and the correlations for concurrent validity with total AAQoL and WFIRS scores were r = −0.573 and r = 0.477, respectively. Factor analysis revealed four factors: (a) attentional/organisational problems; (b) hyperactivity/impulsivity; (c) comorbidities; and (d) alcohol/drug use, self-harm and tension in relationships. Conclusions The psychometrics of the ACOS are promising, and the inclusion of typically co-occurring clinical domains makes it suitable for use as a clinician-rated outcome measure in every contact with patients attending adult ADHD clinics</p

The use of telehealth in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a survey of parents and caregivers

The use of telehealth became widespread during the COVID-19 pandemic, including in child and adolescent attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) services. Telehealth is defined as live, synchronous phone and video appointments between a healthcare provider and a parent and/or child with ADHD. There is a dearth of research on the use of telehealth within this population. The aim of this study was to examine parents’ and caregivers’ perceptions of telehealth for children and adolescents with ADHD. A cross-sectional survey design was employed. Recruitment of parents and caregivers of children and adolescents with ADHD was conducted online. The survey asked participants about their views of telehealth, previous experience, and willingness to use telehealth. Quantitative data were analysed using STATA. Qualitative data were analysed using content analysis. One hundred and twelve respondents participated in the survey. Participants were mostly female (n = 97, 86.6%) and aged between 45 and 54 (n = 64, 57.1%). Of the 61 (54.5%) participants with experience of telehealth, the majority reported that that they were at least satisfied with telehealth visits (n = 36, 59%), whilst approximately half rated their quality more poorly than in-person visits (n = 31, 50.8%). The majority of respondents (n = 91, 81.3%) reported that they would be willing to use telehealth for their child’s future appointments. Most common reasons selected for wanting to use telehealth included saving time, improvements to the family routine, and reducing costs. Reasons selected for not wanting to use telehealth included not being able to receive hands-on care, belief that the quality of care is poorer than in-person consultations, and distraction of the child during telehealth visits. The study demonstrates that parents recognise deficits and benefits of telehealth, suggesting a need to build their trust and confidence in remote ADHD care

Transferability of psychological interventions from disaster-exposed employees to healthcare workers working during the COVID-19 pandemic - update to a systematic review and secondary analysis

Background: The COVID-19 Pandemic had a significant negative impact on the mental health of healthcare workers (HCWs). Evidence-based interventions that could be used to mitigate this impact are lacking in the literature. This review aims to evaluate psychological interventions used for employees following previous disasters and assess the transferability of these interventions to a healthcare setting during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: Intervention information from a previously published systematic review of the literature published up to 2015 was extracted, and an additional search of studies published from 2015–2020 was conducted. Studies were assessed for transferability using a checklist derived from the PIET-T process model. Results: Interventions from eighteen studies were assessed for transferability (including three studies identified in an updated literature search). Interventions established as most transferable included resilience training, meditation/mindfulness interventions, and cognitive behavioural therapy. Psychological debriefing was transferable but as it is contrary to current recommendations is not deemed appropriate for adoption. Conclusions: Several existing interventions have the potential to be utilised within the COVID-19 context/pandemic. More research needs to be undertaken in this area to assess these interventions upon transfer.</p

Transferability of psychological interventions from disaster-exposed employees to healthcare workers working during the COVID-19 pandemic

Background The COVID-19 Pandemic had a significant negative impact on the mental health of healthcare workers. Evidence-based interventions that could be used to mitigate this impact are lacking in the literature. This review aims to evaluate psychological interventions used for employees following previous disasters and assess the transferability of these interventions to a healthcare setting during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods Intervention information from a previously published systematic review of the literature published up to 2015 was extracted, and an additional search of studies published from 2015-2020 was conducted. Studies were assessed for transferability using a checklist derived from the PIET-T process model. Results Interventions from eighteen studies were assessed for transferability (including three studies identified in an updated literature search). Interventions established as most transferable included resilience training, meditation/mindfulness interventions, and cognitive behavioural therapy. Psychological debriefing was transferable but as it is contrary to current recommendations is not deemed appropriate for adoption. Implications Several existing interventions have the potential to be utilised within the COVID-19 context/pandemic. More research needs to be undertaken in this area to assess these interventions upon transfer.</p

Transferability of psychological interventions from disaster-exposed employees to healthcare workers working during the COVID-19 pandemic

Background The COVID-19 Pandemic had a significant negative impact on the mental health of healthcare workers. Evidence-based interventions that could be used to mitigate this impact are lacking in the literature. This review aims to evaluate psychological interventions used for employees following previous disasters and assess the transferability of these interventions to a healthcare setting during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods Intervention information from a previously published systematic review of the literature published up to 2015 was extracted, and an additional search of studies published from 2015-2020 was conducted. Studies were assessed for transferability using a checklist derived from the PIET-T process model. Results Interventions from eighteen studies were assessed for transferability (including three studies identified in an updated literature search). Interventions established as most transferable included resilience training, meditation/mindfulness interventions, and cognitive behavioural therapy. Psychological debriefing was transferable but as it is contrary to current recommendations is not deemed appropriate for adoption. Implications Several existing interventions have the potential to be utilised within the COVID-19 context/pandemic. More research needs to be undertaken in this area to assess these interventions upon transfer.</p

Stakeholder perspectives and experiences of the implementation of remote mental health consultations during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study

Background: Remote mental health consultations were swiftly implemented across mental health services during the COVID-19 pandemic. Research has begun to inform future design and delivery of telemental health services. Exploring the in-depth experiences of those involved is important to understand the complex, multi-level factors that influence the implementation of remote mental health consultations. The aim of this study was to explore stakeholder perspectives and experiences of the implementation of remote mental health consultations during the COVID-19 pandemic in Ireland. Methods: A qualitative study was conducted whereby semi-structured, individual interviews were undertaken with mental health providers, service users, and managers (n = 19) to acquire rich information. Interviews were conducted between November 2021 and July 2022. The interview guide was informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Data were analysed thematically using a deductive and inductive approach. Results: Six themes were identified. The advantages of remote mental health consultations were described, including convenience and increased accessibility to care. Providers and managers described varying levels of success with implementation, citing complexity and incompatibility with existing workflows as barriers to adoption. Providers' access to resources, guidance, and training were notable facilitators. Participants perceived remote mental health consultations to be satisfactory but not equivalent to in-person care in terms of quality. Views about the inferior quality of remote consultations stemmed from beliefs about the inhibited therapeutic relationship and a possible reduction in effectiveness compared to in-person care. Whilst a return to in-person services was mostly preferred, participants acknowledged a potential adjunct role for remote consultations in certain circumstances. Conclusions: Remote mental health consultations were welcomed as a means to continue care during the COVID-19 pandemic. Their swift and necessary adoption placed pressure on providers and organisations to adapt quickly, navigating challenges and adjusting to a new way of working. This implementation created changes to workflows and dynamics that disrupted the traditional method of mental health care delivery. Further consideration of the importance of the therapeutic relationship and fostering positive provider beliefs and feelings of competence are needed to ensure satisfactory and effective implementation of remote mental health consultations going forward.</p

Implementation of telemedicine consultations for people with mental health conditions in the community: a protocol for a systematic review [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations]

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic response has led to an exponential increase in the use and spread of telemedicine internationally. In community mental health care settings, telemedicine services were implemented within a few weeks, with little time for rigorous planning. Despite the reported acceptability of telemedicine by patients and clinicians, barriers to its implementation have come to light. There is now a need to investigate these barriers, and facilitators, as telemedicine begins to show potential promise beyond the pandemic. We propose a review that aims to identify the factors affecting the implementation of telemedicine consultations for patients with mental health conditions in the community. Methods: A systematic review will be conducted and reported according to the PRISMA guidelines. Five electronic databases will be searched using a pre-defined search strategy from 2016 to 2021. Only studies of synchronous, interactive telemedicine consultations conducted via video, phone or live messaging between patients and providers will be included. Quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods studies will be eligible for inclusion. Only studies published in the English language will be included. Titles and abstracts will be screened by two reviewers. Full text articles will be screened by a single reviewer, with a random 20% sample screened by a second reviewer. The methodological quality of studies will be assessed using the Mixed Method Appraisal Tool (MMAT) by two reviewers. Data will be extracted and tabulated to address the aims of the review. A narrative synthesis will be conducted and reported factors will be mapped to the domains of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Conclusion: By identifying the factors that influence the implementation of telemedicine consultations for patients with mental conditions in the community, consideration can be given to both barriers and facilitators that could be addressed in future mental health services planning. PROSPERO registration: CRD42021273422 (04/10/2021) </p

Stakeholder perspectives and experiences of the implementation of remote mental health consultations during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study

Background: Remote mental health consultations were swiftly implemented across mental health services during the COVID-19 pandemic. Research has begun to inform future design and delivery of telemental health services. Exploring the in-depth experiences of those involved is important to understand the complex, multi-level factors that influence the implementation of remote mental health consultations. The aim of this study was to explore stakeholder perspectives and experiences of the implementation of remote mental health consultations during the COVID-19 pandemic in Ireland. Methods: A qualitative study was conducted whereby semi-structured, individual interviews were undertaken with mental health providers, service users, and managers (n = 19) to acquire rich information. Interviews were conducted between November 2021 and July 2022. The interview guide was informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Data were analysed thematically using a deductive and inductive approach. Results: Six themes were identified. The advantages of remote mental health consultations were described, including convenience and increased accessibility to care. Providers and managers described varying levels of success with implementation, citing complexity and incompatibility with existing workflows as barriers to adoption. Providers' access to resources, guidance, and training were notable facilitators. Participants perceived remote mental health consultations to be satisfactory but not equivalent to in-person care in terms of quality. Views about the inferior quality of remote consultations stemmed from beliefs about the inhibited therapeutic relationship and a possible reduction in effectiveness compared to in-person care. Whilst a return to in-person services was mostly preferred, participants acknowledged a potential adjunct role for remote consultations in certain circumstances. Conclusions: Remote mental health consultations were welcomed as a means to continue care during the COVID-19 pandemic. Their swift and necessary adoption placed pressure on providers and organisations to adapt quickly, navigating challenges and adjusting to a new way of working. This implementation created changes to workflows and dynamics that disrupted the traditional method of mental health care delivery. Further consideration of the importance of the therapeutic relationship and fostering positive provider beliefs and feelings of competence are needed to ensure satisfactory and effective implementation of remote mental health consultations going forward.</p

Implementation of telemedicine consultations for people with mental health conditions in the community: a protocol for a systematic review [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations]

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic response has led to an exponential increase in the use and spread of telemedicine internationally. In community mental health care settings, telemedicine services were implemented within a few weeks, with little time for rigorous planning. Despite the reported acceptability of telemedicine by patients and clinicians, barriers to its implementation have come to light. There is now a need to investigate these barriers, and facilitators, as telemedicine begins to show potential promise beyond the pandemic. We propose a review that aims to identify the factors affecting the implementation of telemedicine consultations for patients with mental health conditions in the community.  Methods: A systematic review will be conducted and reported according to the PRISMA guidelines. Five electronic databases will be searched using a pre-defined search strategy from 2016 to 2021. Only studies of synchronous, interactive telemedicine consultations conducted via video, phone or live messaging between patients and providers will be included. Quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods studies will be eligible for inclusion. Only studies published in the English language will be included. Titles and abstracts will be screened by two reviewers. Full text articles will be screened by two reviewers. The methodological quality of studies will be assessed using the Mixed Method Appraisal Tool (MMAT) by two reviewers. Data will be extracted and tabulated to address the aims of the review. A narrative synthesis will be conducted and reported factors will be mapped to the domains of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).  Conclusion: By identifying the factors that influence the implementation of telemedicine consultations for patients with mental conditions in the community, consideration can be given to both barriers and facilitators that could be addressed in future mental health services planning.  PROSPERO registration: CRD42021273422 (04/10/2021)</p