Qualitative Analysis of Emotional Distress in Cardiac Patients From the Perspectives of Cognitive Behavioral and Metacognitive Theories: Why Might Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Have Limited Benefit, and Might Metacognitive Therapy Be More Effective?

Introduction: Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) alleviates emotional distress in mental health settings, but has only modest effects in cardiac patients. Metacognitive therapy (MCT) also alleviates depression and anxiety in mental health settings and is in its initial stages of evaluation for cardiac patients.Aim: Our objective is to compare how CBT and MCT models conceptualize cardiac patients' distress, and to explore why CBT has had limited benefit for cardiac patients and whether MCT has the potential to be more efficacious.Method: Forty-nine cardiac rehabilitation patients, who screened positively for anxiety and/or depression, provided semi-structured interviews. We analyzed transcripts qualitatively to explore the “fit” of patients' accounts of their distress with the main elements of cognitive behavioral and metacognitive theories. Four illustrative cases, representative of the diverse presentations in the broader sample, were analyzed in detail and are presented here.Results: Conceptualizing patients' distress from the perspective of CBT involved applying many distinct categories to describe specific details of patients' talk, particularly the diversity of their concerns and the multiple types of cognitive distortion. It also required distinction between realistic and unrealistic thoughts, which was difficult when thoughts were associated with the risk or consequences of cardiac events. From the perspective of MCT a single category—perseverative negative thinking—was sufficient to understand all this talk, regardless of whether it indicated realistic or unrealistic thoughts, and could also be applied to some talk that did not seem relevant from a CBT perspective.Discussion: Conceptualizing distress from the perspective of CBT presents multiple, diverse therapeutic targets, not all of which a time-limited therapy would be able to address. Given the difficulty of identifying them as unrealistic or not, thoughts about disease, death or disability may not be amenable to classic CBT techniques such as reality testing. MCT proved more parsimonious and, because it did not distinguish between realistic and unrealistic thoughts, might prove a better fit to emotional distress in cardiac patients

The art of the possible? Supporting a patient safety culture in mental healthcare to maximise safety

Purpose The current national patient safety strategy for the National Health Service (NHS) in England states that actions need to be taken to support the development of a patient safety culture. This includes that local systems should seek to understand staff perceptions of the fairness and effectiveness of serious incident management. This study aims to explore the perspectives of patient safety professionals about what works well and what could be done better to support a patient safety culture at the level of Trust strategy and serious incident governance. Approach A total of 15 professionals with a role in serious incident management, from five mental health Trusts in England, were interviewed using a semi-structured interview guide.  Thematic analysis and qualitative description was used to analyse the data. Findings Participants felt that actions to support a patient safety culture were challenging and required long-term and clinical commitment. Broadening the scope of serious incident investigations was felt to be one way to better understand patient safety culture issues. Organisational influences during the serious incident management process were highlighted, informing approaches to maximise the fairness and objectivity of investigation findings. Originality The findings of this study offer original insights that the NHS safety system can use to facilitate progression of the patient safety culture agenda. In particular, local mental health Trusts could consider the findings in the context of their current strategic objectives related to patient safety culture and operational delivery of serious incident management frameworks

One size doesn’t always fit all:professional perspectives of serious incident management systems in mental healthcare

PurposeThe need to develop effective approaches for responding to healthcare incidents for the purpose of learning and improving patient safety has been recognised in current national policy. However, research into this topic is limited. This study aims to explore the perspectives of professionals in mental health trusts in England about what works well and what could be done better when implementing serious incident management systems.Design/methodology/approachThis was a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews. In total, 15 participants were recruited, comprising patient safety managers, serious incident investigators and executive directors, from five mental health trusts in England. The interview data were analysed using a qualitative-descriptive approach to develop meaningful themes. Quotes were selected and presented based on their representation of the data.FindingsParticipants were dissatisfied with current systems to manage serious incidents, including the root cause analysis approach, which they felt were not adequate for assisting learning and improvement. They described concerns about the capability of serious incident investigators, which was felt to impact on the quality of investigations. Processes to support people adversely affected by serious incidents were felt to be an important part of incident management systems to maximise the learning impact of investigations.Originality/valueFindings of this study provide translatable implications for mental health trusts and policymakers, informed by insights into how current approaches for learning from healthcare incidents can be transformed. Further research will build a more comprehensive understanding of mechanisms for responding to healthcare incidents

Cardiac rehabilitation patients experiences and understanding of group metacognitive therapy: a qualitative study.

From Europe PMC via Jisc Publications RouterHistory: ppub 2021-07-01Publication status: PublishedObjectiveDepression and anxiety are up to three times more prevalent in cardiac patients than the general population and are linked to increased risks of future cardiac events and mortality. Psychological interventions for cardiac patients vary in content and are often associated with weak outcomes. A recent treatment, metacognitive therapy (MCT) has been shown to be highly effective at treating psychological distress in mental health settings. This is the first study to explore qualitatively, cardiac rehabilitation (CR) patients' experiences and understanding of group MCT with the aim of examining aspects of treatment that patients experienced as helpful.MethodsIn-depth qualitative interviews were conducted with 24 purposively sampled CR patients following group MCT. Data were analysed using thematic analysis.ResultsTwo main themes were identified: (1) general therapy factors that were seen largely as beneficial, where patients highlighted interaction with other CR patients and CR staff delivery of treatment and their knowledge of cardiology; (2) group MCT-specific factors that were seen as beneficial encompassed patients' understanding of the intervention and use of particular group MCT techniques. Most patients viewed MCT in a manner consistent with the metacognitive model. All the patients who completed group MCT were positive about it and described self-perceived changes in their thinking and well-being. A minority of patients gave specific reasons for not finding the treatment helpful.ConclusionCR patients with anxiety and depression symptoms valued specific group MCT techniques, the opportunity to learn about other patients, and the knowledge of CR staff. The data supports the transferability of treatment to a CR context and advantages that this might bring

Qualitative Analysis of Emotional Distress in Cardiac Patients From the Perspectives of Cognitive Behavioral and Metacognitive Theories: Why Might Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Have Limited Benefit, and Might Metacognitive Therapy Be More Effective?

<p>Introduction: Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) alleviates emotional distress in mental health settings, but has only modest effects in cardiac patients. Metacognitive therapy (MCT) also alleviates depression and anxiety in mental health settings and is in its initial stages of evaluation for cardiac patients.</p><p>Aim: Our objective is to compare how CBT and MCT models conceptualize cardiac patients' distress, and to explore why CBT has had limited benefit for cardiac patients and whether MCT has the potential to be more efficacious.</p><p>Method: Forty-nine cardiac rehabilitation patients, who screened positively for anxiety and/or depression, provided semi-structured interviews. We analyzed transcripts qualitatively to explore the “fit” of patients' accounts of their distress with the main elements of cognitive behavioral and metacognitive theories. Four illustrative cases, representative of the diverse presentations in the broader sample, were analyzed in detail and are presented here.</p><p>Results: Conceptualizing patients' distress from the perspective of CBT involved applying many distinct categories to describe specific details of patients' talk, particularly the diversity of their concerns and the multiple types of cognitive distortion. It also required distinction between realistic and unrealistic thoughts, which was difficult when thoughts were associated with the risk or consequences of cardiac events. From the perspective of MCT a single category—perseverative negative thinking—was sufficient to understand all this talk, regardless of whether it indicated realistic or unrealistic thoughts, and could also be applied to some talk that did not seem relevant from a CBT perspective.</p><p>Discussion: Conceptualizing distress from the perspective of CBT presents multiple, diverse therapeutic targets, not all of which a time-limited therapy would be able to address. Given the difficulty of identifying them as unrealistic or not, thoughts about disease, death or disability may not be amenable to classic CBT techniques such as reality testing. MCT proved more parsimonious and, because it did not distinguish between realistic and unrealistic thoughts, might prove a better fit to emotional distress in cardiac patients.</p

Effect of Ad Libitum vs. Limit Feeding Program at Receiving on Morbidity and Performance of Feedlot Calves

A two-phase study was conducted to determine the effects of two different feed delivery strategies during the receiving period of feedlot calves. Calves were fed either by limit-feeding at approximately 75% of ad libitum, or ad libitum feed offerings for the 30-d receiving period to determine effects on health and performance. During the receiving period, average daily gain and total weight gained was increased for the ad libitum treatment. No differences between ad libitum and limit-fed treatment groups were observed in either feed to gain or morbidity rates. During the second phase of the trial, a subset of calves was followed through finishing to observe the effect of the receiving strategies on the finishing period performance. At slaughter, no significant differences were observed between calves that were received on a limit fed diet or fed ad libitu

Terminology and methods used to differentiate injury intent of hospital burn patients in South Asia: Results from a systematic scoping review

Introduction: A key component in the classification of all injury types is to differentiate whether the injury was deliberately inflicted and by whom, commonly known as intent in the surveillance literature. These data guide patient care and inform surveillance strategies. South Asia is believed to have the greatest number of intentional burn injuries, but national surveillance data is not disaggregated by injury intent. Scientific literature can be used for injury surveillance where national data collection does not exist. In order to synthesise research findings, it is essential to assess the potential impact of misclassification bias. We therefore conducted a systematic scoping review to understand terminology and methods used to differentiate injury intent of hospital burn patients in South Asia.Methods: We followed the methods in our registered protocol (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/DCYNQ). Studies met defined population, concept, context, and study design criteria. The databases Embase, MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycInfo, and PakMediNet were searched. Two reviewers independently screened results. Data were extracted in a standardised manner and verified. The rigour of the method used to differentiate injury intent was appraised.Results: 1435 articles were screened. Of these, 89 met our inclusion criteria. Most articles were from India and Pakistan, and used an observational study design. There were 14 stem terms used in the articles. The most common was cause . There were 40 classifier terms. The most common were accident , suicide , and homicide . Few articles defined these terms. The method used to differentiate injury intent was only described explicitly in 17% of articles and the rigour of the methods used were low. Where methods of differentiation were described, they appear to be based on patient or family report rather than multidisciplinary assessment.Conclusion: The heterogeneity in terms, lack of definitions, and limited investigation of injury intent means this variable is likely to be prone to misclassification bias. We strongly recommend that the global burn community unites to develop a common data element, including definitions and methods of assessment, for the concept of burn injury intent to enable more reliable data collection practices and interstudy comparisons