Integrated care in German mental health services as benefit for relatives – a qualitative study

Background: As mental health services undergo the process of deinstitutionalization, this is resulting in a higher burden of care for relatives. Evidence suggests that interventions for carers have a beneficial impact on their psychological health. A reduction of responsibility for relatives is linked with a significantly improved outcome for the severely mentally ill. The aim of the study was to explore the relatives’ experiences with severely mentally ill patients in different integrated care service providers. Methods: Semi-structured focus groups and interviews were conducted with 24 relatives of patients receiving community based integrated care for severe mental illness. The collected data was transcribed and evaluated using qualitative content analysis. A deductive-inductive approach was used in generating thematic categories. Results: Four main categories were found related to the structural aspects of the integrated care services and for the experiences of the relatives within these services. Relatives reported that the services offered significant relief and substantial support in daily life. In addition, relatives felt a reduced burden of carer responsibility and therefore that they were provided with more protection and stability. This resulted in a sense of encouragement and not feeling left alone to face challenges. Conclusion: Relatives are a critical resource for patients suffering from mental health problems and benefit from formal structures and interventions to support them in carer role. An important need is to ensure continuity of care for patients and the bridging of gaps concerning information and support needs for relatives when providing integrated mental health services in the community

How does mental health care perform in respect to service users' expectations? Evaluating inpatient and outpatient care in Germany with the WHO responsiveness concept

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Health systems increasingly try to make their services more responsive to users' expectations. In the context of the World Health Report 2000, WHO developed the concept of health system <it>responsiveness </it>as a performance parameter. <it>Responsiveness </it>relates to the system's ability to respond to service users' legitimate expectations of non-medical aspects. We used this concept in an effort to evaluate the performance of mental health care in a catchment area in Germany.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In accordance with the method WHO used for its <it>responsiveness </it>survey, <it>responsiveness </it>for inpatient and outpatient mental health care was evaluated by a standardised questionnaire. <it>Responsiveness </it>was assessed in the following domains: <it>attention, dignity</it>, <it>clear communication</it>, <it>autonomy, confidentiality, basic amenities, choice </it>of health care provider, <it>continuity</it>, and <it>access to social support</it>. Users with complex mental health care needs (i.e., requiring social and medical services or inpatient care) were recruited consecutively within the mental health services provided in the catchment area of the Hanover Medical School.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>221 persons were recruited in outpatient care and 91 in inpatient care. Inpatient service users reported poor <it>responsiveness </it>(22%) more often than outpatients did (15%); however this was significant only for the domains <it>dignity </it>and <it>communication</it>. The best performing domains were <it>confidentiality </it>and <it>dignity</it>; the worst performing were <it>choice</it>, <it>autonomy </it>and <it>basic amenities </it>(only inpatient care). <it>Autonomy </it>was rated as the most important domain, followed by <it>attention </it>and <it>communication</it>. <it>Responsiveness </it>within outpatient care was rated worse by people who had less money and were less well educated. Inpatient <it>responsiveness </it>was rated better by those with a higher level of education and also by those who were not so well educated. 23% of participants reported having been discriminated against in mental health care during the past 6 months.</p> <p>The results are similar to prior <it>responsiveness </it>surveys with regard to the overall better performance of outpatient care. Where results differ, this can best be explained by certain characteristics that are applicable to mental health care and also by the users with complex needs. The expectations of <it>attention </it>and <it>autonomy</it>, including participation in the treatment process, are not met satisfactorily in inpatient and outpatient care.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p><it>Responsiveness </it>as a health system performance parameter provides a refined picture of inpatient and outpatient mental health care. Reforms to the services provided should be orientated around domains that are high in importance, but low in performance. Measuring <it>responsiveness </it>could provide well-grounded guidance for further development of mental health care systems towards becoming better patient-orientated and providing patients with more respect.</p

European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer (ECIBC): Plenary 2016

The European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer (ECIBC) Plenaries are an opportunity to inform representatives from the 28 EU Member States and 7 other countries participating in the ECIBC, as well as patients and other stakeholders, policymakers, and the scientific and health policy communities, about the aims, activities and achievements of the ECIBC. They also provide a platform for the exchange of ideas, feedback and input into the ECIBC. The 2016 ECIBC Plenary, entitled “When science and policy collaborate for health”, took place on 24-25 November in Varese, Italy. Its main focus was the implementation of both the voluntary European Quality Assurance scheme for Breast Cancer Services (European QA scheme) and the European guidelines for breast cancer screening and diagnosis (European Breast Guidelines). In this context, the first concrete results were presented, with the launch of the first four European Breast Guidelines recommendations on screening. The first day of the Plenary was dedicated to the JRC informing the audience about the various tools that ECIBC is developing. The second day instead, gave the floor to the audience, who informed the JRC of their views in terms of the challenges and opportunities related to implementing the ECIBC in the respective European countries. The event opened with welcome speeches from the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC), a moving presentation from a breast cancer survivor and reflections on how to ensure science makes its way into policy. The JRC and ECIBC working group members then brought the audience up to date with progress on the European QA scheme, the European Breast Guidelines, as well as the Guidelines Platform, the template for training on digital mammography, as well as about how ECIBC plans to monitor its impact. Participants also received in-depth explanations of the accreditation framework selected for the European QA scheme, as well as two countries’ experiences of using the ISO 15189 standard for accreditation, which is foreseen for the European QA scheme. The second day saw a focus on the individual countries represented at the Plenary. Presentations assessed how the European QA scheme could potentially fit into three different health systems (Scotland, the Netherlands, Romania), while a special breakout session gave national representatives from the 27 countries present (out of the 35 countries participating in the ECIBC) the chance to discuss implementation of the European Breast Guidelines and the European QA scheme themselves. The results, collected through questionnaires, fed into a roundtable debate on what needs to be done at European and national level to ensure ECIBC implementation. The meeting was closed by Member of the European Parliament and President of MEPs Against Cancer (MACs), Alojz Peterle. An evaluation of the event revealed that the third ECIBC Plenary met its aims to inform stakeholders: all responding participants felt that the event succeeded in providing a comprehensive overview of how the ECIBC is progressing, and what the challenges are. Discussions also provided the JRC with valuable information and feedback. The fourth ECIBC Plenary will take place once the results from piloting the European QA scheme are available.JRC.F.1-Health in Societ

Psycho-oncological support for breast cancer patients: A brief overview of breast cancer services certification schemes and national health policies in Europe.

Psycho-oncology addresses the psychological, social, behavioural, and ethical aspects of cancer. Identification and proper management of the patients' psychosocial needs, as well as the needs of their caregivers and family are essential for a person-centred concept of breast cancer care. The aim of this overview is to describe how psychosocial support in breast cancer is incorporated in cancer-related policy documents, such as national cancer plans and breast cancer care certification schemes.post-print163 K

Report on the call for feedback about The Scope of the European guidelines for breast cancer screening and diagnosis: European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer

In 2015, the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer (ECIBC) started the development of the European guidelines for breast cancer screening and diagnosis (henceforth the European Breast Guidelines) under the auspices of the Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety (DG SANTE) and the technical and scientific coordination of the Directorate-General Joint Research Centre (JRC). To support the JRC in this task, a Guidelines Development Group (GDG), consisting of independent experts and individuals, was established. The European Breast Guidelines’ scope (The Scope) represented the first output of the development process of the European Breast Guidelines. Via a public call for feedback, stakeholders and individual citizens were invited to provide their feedback on The Scope. The call for feedback was open from 18 December 2015 to 17 January 2016 and an online questionnaire was made available on the ECIBC web hub via the EU Survey platform. The JRC received a total of 82 valid responses, from 40 individuals from 18 different countries and from 42 organisations from 20 different countries. During a meeting held in Varese (Italy) in March 2016, the GDG discussed the new version of The Scope which was prepared taking into account the results of the call for feedback. The Scope was finalised and approved by the GDG after some minor editing on 6 September 2016 and was later made publicly available together with this report.JRC.F.1-Health in Societ

European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer: Concept document

The European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer (ECIBC) is aimed at ensuring and harmonising breast cancer services quality across European countries. It is coordinated by Commission’s Joint Research Centre, under the supervision of the Directorate-General Health and Food Safety. This document describes the background of the initiative, its general goals and objectives, and its foreseen outcomes.JRC.F.1-Health in Societ

Systematic review on women's values and preferences concerning breast cancer screening and diagnostic services

Background: There is still lack of consensus on the benefit‐harm balance of breast cancer screening. In this scenario, women's values and preferences are crucial for developing health‐related recommendations. In the context of the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer, we conducted a systematic review to inform the European Breast Guidelines. Methods: We searched Medline and included primary studies assessing women's values and preferences regarding breast cancer screening and diagnosis decision making. We used a thematic approach to synthesise relevant data. The quality of evidence was determined with GRADE, including GRADE CERQual for qualitative research. Results: We included 22 individual studies. Women were willing to accept the psychological and physical burden of breast cancer screening and a significant risk of overdiagnosis and false‐positive mammography findings, in return for the benefit of earlier diagnosis. The anxiety engendered by the delay in getting results of diagnostic tests was highlighted as a significant burden, emphasising the need for rapid and efficient screening services, and clear and efficient communication. The confidence in the findings was low to moderate for screening and moderate for diagnosis, predominantly because of methodological limitations, lack of adequate understanding of the outcomes by participants, and indirectness. Conclusions: Women value more the possibility of an earlier diagnosis over the risks of a false‐positive result or overdiagnosis. Concerns remain that women may not understand the concept of overdiagnosis. Women highly value time efficient screening processes and rapid result delivery and will accept some discomfort for the peace of mind screening may provide

What is health systems responsiveness? Review of existing knowledge and proposed conceptual framework

Responsiveness is a key objective of national health systems. Responsive health systems anticipate and adapt to existing and future health needs, thus contributing to better health outcomes. Of all the health systems objectives, responsiveness is the least studied, which perhaps reflects lack of comprehensive frameworks that go beyond the normative characteristics of responsive services. This paper contributes to a growing, yet limited, knowledge on this topic. Herewith, we review the current frameworks for understanding health systems responsiveness and drawing on these, as well as key frameworks from the wider public services literature, propose a comprehensive conceptual framework for health systems responsiveness. This paper should be of interest to different stakeholders who are engaged in analysing and improving health systems responsiveness. Our review shows that existing knowledge on health systems responsiveness can be extended along the three areas. First, responsiveness entails an actual experience of people’s interaction with their health system, which confirms or disconfirms their initial expectations of the system. Second, the experience of interaction is shaped by both the people and the health systems sides of this interaction. Third, different influences shape people’s interaction with their health system, ultimately affecting their resultant experiences. Therefore, recognition of both people and health systems sides of interaction and their key determinants would enhance the conceptualisations of responsiveness. Our proposed framework builds on, and advances, the core frameworks in the health systems literature. It positions the experience of interaction between people and health system as the centrepiece and recognises the determinants of responsiveness experience both from the health systems (eg, actors, processes) and the people (eg, initial expectations) sides. While we hope to trigger further thinking on the conceptualisation of health system responsiveness, the proposed framework can guide assessments of, and interventions to strengthen, health systems responsiveness

Structures and processes necessary for providing effective home treatment to severely mentally ill persons: a naturalistic study

Background: Home treatment for severely mentally ill persons is becoming increasingly popular. This research aims to identify structures and processes in home treatment that impact on patient-related outcomes. Methods: We analysed 17 networks that provide home treatment to severely mentally ill persons using a naturalistic approach. The networks were similar with regard to central components of home treatment such as case management, 24 h crisis hotline and home visits, but differed in all other aspects such as the multidisciplinary teams, time spent with patients, etc. To determine treatment outcome, patients’ psychosocial functioning was measured using the Health of the Nation Outcome Scales (HoNOS). Structures and processes were assessed using claims data and questionnaires answered by the different networks. Primary outcome was highlighted by the change in HoNOS scores from the start of home treatment compared with 6 months later. We sought to explain this outcome through patient and network characteristics using regression analysis. Data on 3,567 patients was available. Results: On average, psychosocial functioning improved by 0.84 across networks between t0 and t1. There were more similarities than differences between the networks with regard to the structures and processes that we tested. A univariate regression analysis found staff’s prior experience in mental health care and the effort that they invested in their work correlated positively with patient outcome. This needs to be interpreted under considering that univariate analysis does not show causal relationship. A high case load per case manager, increased and longer patient contact and more family intervention were correlated with worse patient outcome, probably indicating that sicker patients receive more care and intervention. Conclusion: Home treatment networks succeed in delivering care tailored to the needs of patients. In order to improve the quality of care in home treatment, this study suggests employing experienced staff who is ready to invest more effort in their patients. Further research needs to consider a longer follow-up time