Experiences of people seen in an acute hospital setting by a liaison mental health service: responses from an online survey.


Journal

BMC health services research
ISSN: 1472-6963
Titre abrégé: BMC Health Serv Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088677

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
05 Oct 2021
Historique:
received: 20 05 2021
accepted: 18 08 2021
entrez: 6 10 2021
pubmed: 7 10 2021
medline: 8 10 2021
Statut: epublish

Résumé

In recent years the UK has expanded the provision of liaison mental health services (LMHS). Little work has been undertaken to explore first-hand experiences of them. The aim of this study was to gain insights into the experiences of users of LMHS in both emergency departments and acute inpatient wards in the UK. This cross-sectional internet survey was initially advertised from May-July 2017 using the social media platform Facebook. Due to a paucity of male respondents, it was re-run from November 2017-February 2018, specifically targeting male respondents. The survey featured a structured questionnaire divided into three categories: the profile of the respondent, perceived professionalism of LMHS and overall opinion of the service. Responses to the structured questionnaire were analysed using descriptive statistics and latent class analysis. Free-text responses were transcribed verbatim and interpreted using thematic analysis. 184 people responded to the survey. 147 were service users and 37 were partners, friends or family members of service users. Only 31% of service users and 27% of close others found their overall contact helpful. Latent class analysis identified three clusters - 46% of service users generally disliked their contact, 36% had an overall positive experience, and 18% did not answer most questions about helpfulness or usefulness. Features most frequently identified as important were the provision of a 24/7 service, assessment by a variety of healthcare professionals and national standardisation of services. Respondents indicated that the least important feature was the provision of a separate service for older people. They desired faster assessments following referral from the parent team, clearer communication about next steps and greater knowledge of local services and third sector organisations. This survey identified mixed responses, but overall experiences were more negative than indicated in the limited previous research. The evaluation and adaptation of LMHS along the lines suggested in our survey should be prioritised to enhance their inherent therapeutic value and to improve engagement with treatment and future psychiatric care.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
In recent years the UK has expanded the provision of liaison mental health services (LMHS). Little work has been undertaken to explore first-hand experiences of them.
AIMS OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to gain insights into the experiences of users of LMHS in both emergency departments and acute inpatient wards in the UK.
METHODS METHODS
This cross-sectional internet survey was initially advertised from May-July 2017 using the social media platform Facebook. Due to a paucity of male respondents, it was re-run from November 2017-February 2018, specifically targeting male respondents. The survey featured a structured questionnaire divided into three categories: the profile of the respondent, perceived professionalism of LMHS and overall opinion of the service.
ANALYSIS METHODS
Responses to the structured questionnaire were analysed using descriptive statistics and latent class analysis. Free-text responses were transcribed verbatim and interpreted using thematic analysis.
RESULTS RESULTS
184 people responded to the survey. 147 were service users and 37 were partners, friends or family members of service users. Only 31% of service users and 27% of close others found their overall contact helpful. Latent class analysis identified three clusters - 46% of service users generally disliked their contact, 36% had an overall positive experience, and 18% did not answer most questions about helpfulness or usefulness. Features most frequently identified as important were the provision of a 24/7 service, assessment by a variety of healthcare professionals and national standardisation of services. Respondents indicated that the least important feature was the provision of a separate service for older people. They desired faster assessments following referral from the parent team, clearer communication about next steps and greater knowledge of local services and third sector organisations.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
This survey identified mixed responses, but overall experiences were more negative than indicated in the limited previous research. The evaluation and adaptation of LMHS along the lines suggested in our survey should be prioritised to enhance their inherent therapeutic value and to improve engagement with treatment and future psychiatric care.

Identifiants

pubmed: 34610845
doi: 10.1186/s12913-021-06974-4
pii: 10.1186/s12913-021-06974-4
pmc: PMC8493711
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

1050

Subventions

Organisme : Health Services and Delivery Research Programme
ID : 135808
Organisme : Health Services and Delivery Research Programme
ID : 135808
Organisme : Health Services and Delivery Research Programme
ID : 135808
Organisme : Health Services and Delivery Research Programme
ID : 135808
Organisme : Health Services and Delivery Research Programme
ID : 135808
Organisme : Health Services and Delivery Research Programme
ID : 135808

Informations de copyright

© 2021. The Author(s).

Références

Int J Ment Health Nurs. 2007 Apr;16(2):126-31
pubmed: 17348963
Issues Ment Health Nurs. 2018 Sep;39(9):738-745
pubmed: 30111203
Emerg Med Australas. 2021 Feb;33(1):74-81
pubmed: 32683792
J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2003 Jun;10(3):351-7
pubmed: 12755921
Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2015 Feb;49(2):104-5
pubmed: 25512953
Int J Ment Health Nurs. 2020 Dec;29(6):1202-1217
pubmed: 32789961
Int Emerg Nurs. 2016 May;26:14-9
pubmed: 26459607
Int J Ment Health Nurs. 2011 Dec;20(6):392-400
pubmed: 21457179
Int Emerg Nurs. 2021 Jul;57:101013
pubmed: 34134083
Scand J Caring Sci. 1997;11(1):56-62
pubmed: 9275823
Int J Qual Health Care. 2007 Dec;19(6):349-57
pubmed: 17872937
Nord J Psychiatry. 2017 May;71(4):315-323
pubmed: 28413938
J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2020 Dec;27(6):789-806
pubmed: 32083776
Can J Psychiatry. 2014 Oct;59(10 Suppl 1):S19-26
pubmed: 25565698
Qual Health Res. 2020 Feb;30(3):471-485
pubmed: 31933427
Nurs Times. 2002 May 21-27;98(21):34-6
pubmed: 12168440
Eur J Public Health. 2020 Jun 1;30(3):526-532
pubmed: 32531039
BMJ Open. 2018 Sep 1;8(8):e023091
pubmed: 30173160
Soc Sci Med. 1978 Jul;12(4A):283-92
pubmed: 675282
J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2006 Feb;13(1):70-7
pubmed: 16441396

Auteurs

Elspeth Guthrie (E)

Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.

Daniel Romeu (D)

Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK. danielromeu@doctors.org.uk.
Leeds and York Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Leeds, UK. danielromeu@doctors.org.uk.

Carolyn Czoski-Murray (C)

Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.

Samuel Relton (S)

Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.

Andrew Walker (A)

Clinical Research Network National Coordinating Centre, National Institute of Health Research Clinical Research Network, Leeds, UK.

Peter Trigwell (P)

National Inpatient Centre for Psychological Medicine, Leeds and York Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Leeds, UK.

Jenny Hewison (J)

Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.

Robert West (R)

Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.

Matt Fossey (M)

Veterans and Families Institute for Military Research, Faculty of Health, Social Care and Education, Anglia Ruskin University, Chelmsford, UK.

Claire Hulme (C)

College of Medicine and Health, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.

Allan House (A)

Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH