Improving outcomes for people in mental health crisis: a rapid synthesis of the evidence for available models of care

BACKGROUND: Crisis Concordat was established to improve outcomes for people experiencing a mental health crisis. The Crisis Concordat sets out four stages of the crisis care pathway: (1) access to support before crisis point; (2) urgent and emergency access to crisis care; (3) quality treatment and care in crisis; and (4) promoting recovery. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the models of care for improving outcomes at each stage of the care pathway. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases were searched for guidelines, reviews and, where necessary, primary studies. The searches were performed on 25 and 26 June 2014 for NHS Evidence, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, and the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) and PROSPERO databases, and on 11 November 2014 for MEDLINE, PsycINFO and the Criminal Justice Abstracts databases. Relevant reports and reference lists of retrieved articles were scanned to identify additional studies. STUDY SELECTION: When guidelines covered a topic comprehensively, further literature was not assessed; however, where there were gaps, systematic reviews and then primary studies were assessed in order of priority. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: Systematic reviews were critically appraised using the Risk Of Bias In Systematic reviews assessment tool, trials were assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool, studies without a control group were assessed using the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) prognostic studies tool and qualitative studies were assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme quality assessment tool. A narrative synthesis was conducted for each stage of the care pathway structured according to the type of care model assessed. The type and range of evidence identified precluded the use of meta-analysis. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: One review of reviews, six systematic reviews, nine guidelines and 15 primary studies were included. There was very limited evidence for access to support before crisis point. There was evidence of benefits for liaison psychiatry teams in improving service-related outcomes in emergency departments, but this was often limited by potential confounding in most studies. There was limited evidence regarding models to improve urgent and emergency access to crisis care to guide police officers in their Mental Health Act responsibilities. There was positive evidence on clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of crisis resolution teams but variability in implementation. Current work from the Crisis resolution team Optimisation and RElapse prevention study aims to improve fidelity in delivering these models. Crisis houses and acute day hospital care are also currently recommended by NICE. There was a large evidence base on promoting recovery with a range of interventions recommended by NICE likely to be important in helping people stay well. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Most evidence was rated as low or very low quality, but this partly reflects the difficulty of conducting research into complex interventions for people in a mental health crisis and does not imply that all research was poorly conducted. However, there are currently important gaps in research for a number of stages of the crisis care pathway. Particular gaps in research on access to support before crisis point and urgent and emergency access to crisis care were found. In addition, more high-quality research is needed on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of mental health crisis care, including effective components of inpatient care, post-discharge transitional care and Community Mental Health Teams/intensive case management teams. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014013279. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research HTA programme

Mortality and pulmonary complications in patients undergoing surgery with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection: an international cohort study

Background: The impact of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) on postoperative recovery needs to be understood to inform clinical decision making during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. This study reports 30-day mortality and pulmonary complication rates in patients with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods: This international, multicentre, cohort study at 235 hospitals in 24 countries included all patients undergoing surgery who had SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed within 7 days before or 30 days after surgery. The primary outcome measure was 30-day postoperative mortality and was assessed in all enrolled patients. The main secondary outcome measure was pulmonary complications, defined as pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, or unexpected postoperative ventilation. Findings: This analysis includes 1128 patients who had surgery between Jan 1 and March 31, 2020, of whom 835 (74·0%) had emergency surgery and 280 (24·8%) had elective surgery. SARS-CoV-2 infection was confirmed preoperatively in 294 (26·1%) patients. 30-day mortality was 23·8% (268 of 1128). Pulmonary complications occurred in 577 (51·2%) of 1128 patients; 30-day mortality in these patients was 38·0% (219 of 577), accounting for 81·7% (219 of 268) of all deaths. In adjusted analyses, 30-day mortality was associated with male sex (odds ratio 1·75 [95% CI 1·28–2·40], p\textless0·0001), age 70 years or older versus younger than 70 years (2·30 [1·65–3·22], p\textless0·0001), American Society of Anesthesiologists grades 3–5 versus grades 1–2 (2·35 [1·57–3·53], p\textless0·0001), malignant versus benign or obstetric diagnosis (1·55 [1·01–2·39], p=0·046), emergency versus elective surgery (1·67 [1·06–2·63], p=0·026), and major versus minor surgery (1·52 [1·01–2·31], p=0·047). Interpretation: Postoperative pulmonary complications occur in half of patients with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection and are associated with high mortality. Thresholds for surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic should be higher than during normal practice, particularly in men aged 70 years and older. Consideration should be given for postponing non-urgent procedures and promoting non-operative treatment to delay or avoid the need for surgery. Funding: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, NIHR Academy, Sarcoma UK, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research

Outcomes from elective colorectal cancer surgery during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic

This study aimed to describe the change in surgical practice and the impact of SARS-CoV-2 on mortality after surgical resection of colorectal cancer during the initial phases of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic

Liaison & Diversion Minimum Dataset

The Liaison & Diversion Minimum Dataset (MDS) was developed in collaboration between staff at Northumbria University, Manchester University, South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust. The MDS was used by 39 liaison & diversion services to identify the needs of clients, interventions undertaken and outcomes achieved

Qualitative Systematic Review Data - women's breast cancer risk appraisals

The data stored here is related to the following review, published in the British Journal of Cancer: How do women who are informed that they are at increased risk of breast cancer appraise their risk? A systematic review of qualitative research.This qualitative review of the literature aimed to explore what is already known and what are the knowledge gaps surrounding how women who are at increased risk appraise their risk following notification of a clinically-derived risk estimate

Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis Data - in-depth interviews with women at increased risk of breast cancer

The data stored here is related to an in-depth IPA interview study published in the British Journal of Health Psychology, titled: How do women at increased risk of breast cancer make sense of their risk? An interpretative phenomenological analysis.This study aimed to assess how women think about breast cancer and how they appraise their risk of developing the disease following notification of their risk from a breast cancer risk trial (BC-Predict) which was running alongside the NHS Breast Screening Programme (population screening).Due to the sensitivity of the topic, interview transcripts are not available here but can be requested from the lead author under a data sharing agreement

Automatic tracking of implanted fiducial markers in cone beam CT projection images

Purpose: This paper describes a novel method for simultaneous intrafraction tracking of multiple fiducial markers. Although the proposed method is generic and can be adopted for a number of applications including fluoroscopy based patient position monitoring and gated radiotherapy, the tracking results presented in this paper are specific to tracking fiducial markers in a sequence of cone beam CT projection images. Methods: The proposed method is accurate and robust thanks to utilizing the mean shift and random sampling principles, respectively. The performance of the proposed method was evaluated with qualitative and quantitative methods, using data from two pancreatic and one prostate cancer patients and a moving phantom. The ground truth, for quantitative evaluation, was calculated based on manual tracking preformed by three observers. Results: The average dispersion of marker position error calculated from the tracking results for pancreas data (six markers tracked over 640 frames, 3840 marker identifications) was 0.25 mm (at iscoenter), compared with an average dispersion for the manual ground truth estimated at 0.22 mm. For prostate data (three markers tracked over 366 frames, 1098 marker identifications), the average error was 0.34 mm. The estimated tracking error in the pancreas data was < 1 mm (2 pixels) in 97.6% of cases where nearby image clutter was detected and in 100.0% of cases with no nearby image clutter. Conclusions: The proposed method has accuracy comparable to that of manual tracking and, in combination with the proposed batch postprocessing, superior robustness. Marker tracking in cone beam CT (CBCT) projections is useful for a variety of purposes, such as providing data for assessment of intrafraction motion, target tracking during rotational treatment delivery, motion correction of CBCT, and phase sorting for 4D CBCT

Co-production practice and future research priorities in United Kingdom-funded applied health research: a scoping review

Abstract Background Interest in and use of co-production in healthcare services and research is growing. Previous reviews have summarized co-production approaches in use, collated outcomes and effects of co-production, and focused on replicability and reporting, but none have critically reflected on how co-production in applied health research might be evolving and the implications of this for future research. We conducted this scoping review to systematically map recent literature on co-production in applied health research in the United Kingdom to inform co-production practice and guide future methodological research. Methods This scoping review was performed using established methods. We created an evidence map to show the extent and nature of the literature on co-production and applied health research, based on which we described the characteristics of the articles and scope of the literature and summarized conceptualizations of co-production and how it was implemented. We extracted implications for co-production practice or future research and conducted a content analysis of this information to identify lessons for the practice of co-production and themes for future methodological research. Results Nineteen articles reporting co-produced complex interventions and 64 reporting co-production in applied health research met the inclusion criteria. Lessons for the practice of co-production and requirements for co-production to become more embedded in organizational structures included (1) the capacity to implement co-produced interventions, (2) the skill set needed for co-production, (3) multiple levels of engagement and negotiation, and (4) funding and institutional arrangements for meaningful co-production. Themes for future research on co-production included (1) who to involve in co-production and how, (2) evaluating outcomes of co-production, (3) the language and practice of co-production, (4) documenting costs and challenges, and (5) vital components or best practice for co-production. Conclusion Researchers are operationalizing co-production in various ways, often without the necessary financial and organizational support required and the right conditions for success. We argue for accepting the diversity in approaches to co-production, call on researchers to be clearer in their reporting of these approaches, and make suggestions for what researchers should record. To support co-production of research, changes to entrenched academic and scientific practices are needed. Protocol registration details: The protocol for the scoping review was registered with protocols.io on 19 October 2021: https://dx.doi.org/10.17504/protocols.io.by7epzje

Understanding what matters most to patients in acute care in seven countries, using the flash mob study design

Abstract Background Truly patient-centred care needs to be aligned with what patients consider important, and is highly desirable in the first 24 h of an acute admission, as many decisions are made during this period. However, there is limited knowledge on what matters most to patients in this phase of their hospital stay. The objective of this study was to identify what mattered most to patients in acute care and to assess the patient perspective as to whether their treating doctors were aware of this. Methods This was a large-scale, qualitative, flash mob study, conducted simultaneously in sixty-six hospitals in seven countries, starting November 14th 2018, ending 50 h later. One thousand eight hundred fifty adults in the first 24 h of an acute medical admission were interviewed on what mattered most to them, why this mattered and whether they felt the treating doctor was aware of this. Results The most reported answers to “what matters most (and why)?” were ‘getting better or being in good health’ (why: to be with family/friends or pick-up life again), ‘getting home’ (why: more comfortable at home or to take care of someone) and ‘having a diagnosis’ (why: to feel less anxious or insecure). Of all patients, 51.9% felt the treating doctor did not know what mattered most to them. Conclusions The priorities for acutely admitted patients were ostensibly disease- and care-oriented and thus in line with the hospitals’ own priorities. However, answers to why these were important were diverse, more personal, and often related to psychological well-being and relations. A large group of patients felt their treating doctor did not know what mattered most to them. Explicitly asking patients what is important and why, could help healthcare professionals to get to know the person behind the patient, which is essential in delivering patient-centred care. Trial registration NTR (Netherlands Trial Register) NTR7538

Additional file 2 of Co-production practice and future research priorities in United Kingdom-funded applied health research: a scoping review

Additional file 2: Conceptualization and implementation of co-production in the included papers