Evaluation of the Primary Care Mental Health Specialist role: Final Report

This report details an evaluation to assess the impact of the new primary care mental health specialist (PCMHS) role in Kent and Medway. The evaluation was undertaken by the Centre for Health Services Studies (CHSS) at the University of Kent and was conducted June 2013 to December 2014. The evaluation was commissioned by NHS Kent and Medway and supported by Kent and Medway Commissioning Support. The evaluation encompasses six CCG areas across Kent and Medway, with 13 PCMHS employed in these areas (see Table 1-1 for breakdown). The number of posts per CCG is dependent on the amount CCGs invest (roughly equating to population size), rather than prevalence of illness. The PCMHS have been seconded from Kent and Medway NHS and Social Care Partnership Trust (KMPT) for the duration of the pilot, and are either community psychiatric nurses (CPN) or occupational therapists (OT) by profession. The majority of PCMHS are hosted by a voluntary organisation (mcch); three are hosted by GP practices and two by a community Interest Company, Invicta CIC. The main objectives of the evaluation are: 1. To assess the impact on patients by capturing their experience of the service; 2. To assess the impact by capturing experiences of those delivering the service (i.e., PCMHS); 3. To assess the impact by capturing experiences of other professions who work alongside the service (i.e., mental health professionals in secondary care, GPs); 4. To assess the economic cost of the new service via a unit cost analysis

Understanding what works, why and in what circumstances in Hospice at Home Services for End of Life Care: applying a realist logic of analysis to a systematically searched literature review

Background: We have undertaken a systematically searched literature review using a realist logic of analysis to help synthesise the diverse range of literature available on hospice at home services. Aim: To find out in the existing literature what features of hospice at home models work best, for whom and under what circumstances. Design: A realist logic of analysis was applied to synthesise the evidence focusing on mechanisms by which an intervention worked (or did not work). An initial programme theory was developed using the National Association for Hospice at Home standards, Normalisation Process Theory and through refinement using stakeholder engagement. Data sources: PubMed, Science Direct, AMED, BNI, CINAHL, EMBASE, Health Business Elite, HMIC, Medline, PsychINFO, SCOPUS, Web of Science, DARE, Google Scholar, NHS Evidence, NIHR CRN portfolio database, NIHR journal library of funded studies, including searches on websites of relevant professional bodies [August 2014, June 2017, June 2019]. Results: Forty-nine papers were reviewed, of which 34 wereincluded contributing evidence to at least one of eight theory areas: marketing and referral, sustainable funding model, service responsiveness and availability, criteria for service admission, knowledge and skills of care providers, integration and co-ordination, anticipatory care, support directed at carers. Conclusions: Our literature review showed how it was possible to develop a coherent framework and test it against 34 published papers and abstracts. Central to this review was theory building, and as further evidence emerges, our programme theories can be refined and tested against any new empirical evidence

Privacy and Dignity in Continence Care Project Phase 2.

This report provides an account of the methods and findings of Phase 2 of the Privacy and Dignity in Continence Care for Older People study funded by the Royal College of Physicians and the British Geriatrics Society. The overall objectives of this two year project were to: • Identify and validate person-centred attributes of dignity in relation to continence; • Develop reflective guidelines for dignified care; • Produce recommendations for best practice

Evaluation of a pilot service to facilitate discharge of patients with stable long-term mental health needs from secondary to primary care: the role of Primary Care Mental Health Specialists

We aimed to evaluate a pilot service to facilitate discharge of patients with stable long-term mental health needs from secondary to primary care. Patients with stable long-term mental health conditions are often not discharged from secondary mental health services when no longer needed due to insufficient systems and processes to enable safe, effective, recovery-focussed treatment and support. The Primary Care Mental Health Specialist (PCMHS) Service was developed to address this gap; new PCMHS posts were introduced to act as a conduit for patients being discharged from secondary care and a single point of referral back into secondary care, should it be required. The two-year pilot, across six Clinical Commissioning Groups in South East England, began in March 2013. Interviews were conducted with all PCMHS employed in the pilot service (n=13) and a sample of service users (n=12). The views of professionals working alongside the service, including GPs, Psychiatrists and Mental Health Nurses, were captured using a brief online questionnaire (n=50). Time and Activity Recording Sheets were used to capture data required for economic analysis. Our findings indicate that the service is working well from the perspective of patients; staff employed within the service and professionals working alongside the service. Patients described the service as a ‘safety net’ they could fall back on in case of difficulties, whereas staff used the analogy of a ‘bridge’ to describe the way the service improved communication and collaboration between the various professionals and organisations involved in the patient’s care. Improvements in well-being were seen to result from increased support for those transitioning from secondary to primary care, a more pro-active approach to relapse prevention and increased engagement in daily activities. Each PCMHS covered 36 patients in a one-month period, with a unit cost of £73.01 per patient

Results of the feasibility phase of the Managed Activity Graded Exercise iN Teenagers and PreAdolescents (MAGENTA) Randomised Controlled Trial of treatments for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/ Myalgic Encephalomyelitis

Background: Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) also known as myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) is relatively common in young people and causes significant disability. Graded exercise therapy (GET) and activity management are recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) despite a limited evidence-base for either treatment in paediatric CFS/ME. This paper reports on feasibility and acceptability measures from the feasibility phase of the ongoing MAGENTA randomised controlled trial (RCT) investigating GET versus activity management for young people with CFS/ME. Methods: Setting: Three specialist secondary care National Health Service (NHS) Paediatric CFS/ME services (Bath, Cambridge and Newcastle). Participants: Young people aged 8-17 years with a diagnosis of mild to moderate CFS/ME. Young people were excluded if they were severely affected, referred to cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) at initial assessment or unable to attend clinical sessions. Interventions: GET and activity management delivered by physiotherapists, occupational therapists, nurses and psychologists. Families and clinicians decided the number (typically 8-12) and frequency of appointments (typically every 2-6 weeks). Outcome Measures: Recruitment and follow-up statistics. We used integrated qualitative methodology to explore the feasibility and acceptability of the trial processes and the interventions. Results: 80/161 (49.7%) of eligible young people were recruited at two sites between September 2015 and August 2016, indicating recruitment to the trial was feasible. Most recruitment (78/80; 97.5%) took place at one centre. Recruitment consultations, online consent and interventions were acceptable, with less than 10% in each arm discontinuing trial treatment. Response rate to the primary outcome (the SF36-PFS at 6 months) was 91.4%. Recruitment, treatment and data collection were not feasible at one centre. The site was withdrawn from the study. In response to data collected, we optimised trial processes including using Skype for recruitment discussions; adapting recruiter training to improve recruitment discussions; amending the accelerometer information leaflets; shortening the resource use questionnaires; and offering interventions via Skype. These amendments have been incorporated into the full trial protocol. Conclusions: Conducting an RCT investigating GET versus activity management is feasible and acceptable for young people with CFS/ME. Trial registration: ISRCTN23962803 https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN23962803, date of registration: 03 September 2015</p

Results of the feasibility phase of the Managed Activity Graded Exercise iN Teenagers and PreAdolescents (MAGENTA) Randomised Controlled Trial of treatments for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/ Myalgic Encephalomyelitis

Background: Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) also known as myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) is relatively common in young people and causes significant disability. Graded exercise therapy (GET) and activity management are recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) despite a limited evidence-base for either treatment in paediatric CFS/ME. This paper reports on feasibility and acceptability measures from the feasibility phase of the ongoing MAGENTA randomised controlled trial (RCT) investigating GET versus activity management for young people with CFS/ME. Methods: Setting: Three specialist secondary care National Health Service (NHS) Paediatric CFS/ME services (Bath, Cambridge and Newcastle). Participants: Young people aged 8-17 years with a diagnosis of mild to moderate CFS/ME. Young people were excluded if they were severely affected, referred to cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) at initial assessment or unable to attend clinical sessions. Interventions: GET and activity management delivered by physiotherapists, occupational therapists, nurses and psychologists. Families and clinicians decided the number (typically 8-12) and frequency of appointments (typically every 2-6 weeks). Outcome Measures: Recruitment and follow-up statistics. We used integrated qualitative methodology to explore the feasibility and acceptability of the trial processes and the interventions. Results: 80/161 (49.7%) of eligible young people were recruited at two sites between September 2015 and August 2016, indicating recruitment to the trial was feasible. Most recruitment (78/80; 97.5%) took place at one centre. Recruitment consultations, online consent and interventions were acceptable, with less than 10% in each arm discontinuing trial treatment. Response rate to the primary outcome (the SF36-PFS at 6 months) was 91.4%. Recruitment, treatment and data collection were not feasible at one centre. The site was withdrawn from the study. In response to data collected, we optimised trial processes including using Skype for recruitment discussions; adapting recruiter training to improve recruitment discussions; amending the accelerometer information leaflets; shortening the resource use questionnaires; and offering interventions via Skype. These amendments have been incorporated into the full trial protocol. Conclusions: Conducting an RCT investigating GET versus activity management is feasible and acceptable for young people with CFS/ME. Trial registration: ISRCTN23962803 https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN23962803, date of registration: 03 September 2015</p

Optimum hospice at home services for end-of-life care: protocol of a mixed-methods study employing realist evaluation.

INTRODUCTION: Hospice at home (HAH) services aim to enable patients to be cared for and die in their place of choice, if that is at home, and to achieve a 'good death'. There is a considerable range of HAH services operating in England. The published evidence focuses on evaluations of individual services which vary considerably, and there is a lack of consistency in terms of the outcome measures reported. The evidence, therefore, does not provide generalisable information, so the question 'What are the features of hospice at home service models that work, for whom, and under what circumstances?' remains unanswered. The study aims to answer this question. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a mixed-methods study in three phases informed by realist evaluation methodology. All HAH services in England will be invited to participate in a telephone survey to enable the development of a typology of services. In the second phase, case study sites representing the different service types will collect patient data and recruit carers, service managers and commissioners to gather quantitative and qualitative data about service provision and outcomes. A third phase will synthesise and refine the results through consensus workshops. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The first survey phase has university ethics approval and the second phase, Integrated Research Application System (IRAS) and Health Research Authority (HRA) approval (IRAS ID:205986, REC:17/LO/0880); the third phase does not require ethics approval. Dissemination will be facilitated by project coapplicants with established connections to national policy-making forums, in addition to publications, conference presentations and reports targeted to service providers and commissioners