5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      What does safety in mental healthcare transitions mean for service users and other stakeholder groups: An open‐ended questionnaire study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Historically, safety mental health research has tended to focus on risks of homicide, suicide and deaths. Although wider safety issues are now recognized in regards to mental health services, the safety of mental health transitions, a key research and policy priority according to World Health Organisation, has not been explored.

          Objective

          The purpose of this study was to investigate perceptions of safety in mental health transitions (hospital to community) amongst five stakeholder groups.

          Design and setting

          An online, international cross‐sectional, open‐ended questionnaire.

          Participants

          There were five stakeholder participant groups: service users; families/carers; mental health‐care professionals; researchers; and end users of research.

          Results

          Ninety‐three participants from 12 different countries responded. Three overarching themes emerged: ‘individual/clinical’, ‘systems/services’ and ‘human, behavioural and social’ elements of safe mental health transitions. Whilst there was a great focus on clinical elements from researchers and healthcare professionals, service users and carers considered safety in terms of human, behavioural and social elements of transitional safety (ie loneliness, emotional readiness for discharge) and systems/services (ie inter‐professional communication).

          Discussion

          Safety in mental health‐care transitions is perceived differently by service users and families compared to healthcare professionals and researchers. Traditional safety indicators for care transitions such as suicide, self‐harm and risk of adverse drug events are raised as important. However, service users and families in particular have a much wider perception of transitions safety.

          Conclusion

          Future quality and safety research and policy should consider including a service user voice and consider integration of psychosocial elements in discharge interventions.

          Related collections

          Most cited references31

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Book Chapter: not found

          Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Demystifying theory and its use in improvement

            The role and value of theory in improvement work in healthcare has been seriously underrecognised. We join others in proposing that more informed use of theory can strengthen improvement programmes and facilitate the evaluation of their effectiveness. Many professionals, including improvement practitioners, are unfortunately mystified—and alienated—by theory, which discourages them from using it in their work. In an effort to demystify theory we make the point in this paper that, far from being discretionary or superfluous, theory (‘reason-giving’), both informal and formal, is intimately woven into virtually all human endeavour. We explore the special characteristics of grand, mid-range and programme theory; consider the consequences of misusing theory or failing to use it; review the process of developing and applying programme theory; examine some emerging criteria of ‘good’ theory; and emphasise the value, as well as the challenge, of combining informal experience-based theory with formal, publicly developed theory. We conclude that although informal theory is always at work in improvement, practitioners are often not aware of it or do not make it explicit. The germane issue for improvement practitioners, therefore, is not whether they use theory but whether they make explicit the particular theory or theories, informal and formal, they actually use.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Implementing shared decision making in routine mental health care.

              Mike Slade (2017)
              Shared decision making (SDM) in mental health care involves clinicians and patients working together to make decisions. The key elements of SDM have been identified, decision support tools have been developed, and SDM has been recommended in mental health at policy level. Yet implementation remains limited. Two justifications are typically advanced in support of SDM. The clinical justification is that SDM leads to improved outcome, yet the available empirical evidence base is inconclusive. The ethical justification is that SDM is a right, but clinicians need to balance the biomedical ethical principles of autonomy and justice with beneficence and non-maleficence. It is argued that SDM is "polyvalent", a sociological concept which describes an idea commanding superficial but not deep agreement between disparate stakeholders. Implementing SDM in routine mental health services is as much a cultural as a technical problem. Three challenges are identified: creating widespread access to high-quality decision support tools; integrating SDM with other recovery-supporting interventions; and responding to cultural changes as patients develop the normal expectations of citizenship. Two approaches which may inform responses in the mental health system to these cultural changes - social marketing and the hospitality industry - are identified.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Research Associatenatasha.tyler@manchester.ac.uk
                Role: Associate Professor
                Role: Senior Lecturer
                Role: PhD candidate
                Role: Professor
                Journal
                Health Expect
                Health Expect
                10.1111/(ISSN)1369-7625
                HEX
                Health Expectations : An International Journal of Public Participation in Health Care and Health Policy
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                1369-6513
                1369-7625
                20 January 2021
                May 2021
                : 24
                : Suppl 1 , Special Issue on Mental Health ( doiID: 10.1111/hex.v24.s1 )
                : 185-194
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health NIHR Greater Manchester Patient Safety Translational Research Centre (PSTRC) University of Manchester Manchester UK
                [ 2 ] School of Health Sciences University of Nottingham Nottingham UK
                [ 3 ] NIHR Greater Manchester Patients Safety Translational Research Centre University of Manchester Manchester UK
                [ 4 ] University of Nottingham Nottingham UK
                [ 5 ] Health Services Management Centre University of Birmingham Birmingham UK
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence

                Natasha Tyler, NIHR Greater Manchester Patient Safety Translational Research Centre (PSTRC), Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, Suite 1, Floor 6 Williamson Building, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.

                Email: natasha.tyler@ 123456manchester.ac.uk

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8257-1090
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7153-5745
                Article
                HEX13190
                10.1111/hex.13190
                8137494
                33471958
                82232875-6d7a-4d91-9534-f0832dcec648
                © 2021 The Authors. Health Expectations published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

                This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 30 November 2020
                : 03 April 2020
                : 14 December 2020
                Page count
                Figures: 0, Tables: 1, Pages: 10, Words: 6454
                Funding
                Funded by: NIHR Greater Manchester Patient Safety Translational Research Centre , open-funder-registry 10.13039/501100013235;
                Categories
                Special Issue Paper
                Special Issue on Mental Health
                Special Issue Papers
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                May 2021
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:6.0.2 mode:remove_FC converted:20.05.2021

                Health & Social care
                care transitions,discharge,mental health,patient safety,safety,thematic analysis
                Health & Social care
                care transitions, discharge, mental health, patient safety, safety, thematic analysis

                Comments

                Comment on this article