Purpose The COVID-19 pandemic has potential to disrupt and burden the mental health care system, and to magnify inequalities experienced by mental health service users. Methods We investigated staff reports regarding the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in its early weeks on mental health care and mental health service users in the UK using a mixed methods online survey. Recruitment channels included professional associations and networks, charities, and social media. Quantitative findings were reported with descriptive statistics, and content analysis conducted for qualitative data. Results 2,180 staff from a range of sectors, professions, and specialties participated. Immediate infection control concerns were highly salient for inpatient staff, new ways of working for community staff. Multiple rapid adaptations and innovations in response to the crisis were described, especially remote working. This was cautiously welcomed but found successful in only some clinical situations. Staff had specific concerns about many groups of service users, including people whose conditions are exacerbated by pandemic anxieties and social disruptions; people experiencing loneliness, domestic abuse and family conflict; those unable to understand and follow social distancing requirements; and those who cannot engage with remote care. Conclusion This overview of staff concerns and experiences in the early COVID-19 pandemic suggests directions for further research and service development: we suggest that how to combine infection control and a therapeutic environment in hospital, and how to achieve effective and targeted tele-health implementation in the community, should be priorities. The limitations of our convenience sample must be noted.

Purpose The COVID-19 pandemic has many potential impacts on people with mental health conditions and on mental health care, including direct consequences of infection, effects of infection control measures and subsequent societal changes. We aimed to map early impacts of the pandemic on people with pre-existing mental health conditions and services they use, and to identify individual and service-level strategies adopted to manage these. Methods We searched for relevant material in the public domain published before 30 April 2020, including papers in scientific and professional journals, published first person accounts, media articles, and publications by governments, charities and professional associations. Search languages were English, French, German, Italian, Spanish, and Mandarin Chinese. Relevant content was retrieved and summarised via a rapid qualitative framework synthesis approach. Results We found 872 eligible sources from 28 countries. Most documented observations and experiences rather than reporting research data. We found many reports of deteriorations in symptoms, and of impacts of loneliness and social isolation and of lack of access to services and resources, but sometimes also of resilience, effective self-management and peer support. Immediate service challenges related to controlling infection, especially in inpatient and residential settings, and establishing remote working, especially in the community. We summarise reports of swiftly implemented adaptations and innovations, but also of pressing ethical challenges and concerns for the future. Conclusion Our analysis captures the range of stakeholder perspectives and experiences publicly reported in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic in several countries. We identify potential foci for service planning and research.

Background Early in 2020, mental health services had to rapidly shift from face-to-face models of care to delivering the majority of treatments remotely (by video or phone call or occasionally messaging) due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This resulted in several challenges for staff and patients, but also in benefits such as convenience or increased access for people with impaired mobility or in rural areas. There is a need to understand the extent and impacts of telemental health implementation, and barriers and facilitators to its effective and acceptable use. This is relevant both to future emergency adoption of telemental health and to debates on its future use in routine mental health care. Objective To investigate the adoption and impacts of telemental health approaches during the COVID-19 pandemic, and facilitators and barriers to optimal implementation. Methods Four databases (PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Web of Science) were searched for primary research relating to remote working, mental health care, and the COVID-19 pandemic. Preprint servers were also searched. Results of studies were synthesized using framework synthesis. Results A total of 77 papers met our inclusion criteria. In most studies, the majority of contacts could be transferred to a remote form during the pandemic, and good acceptability to service users and clinicians tended to be reported, at least where the alternative to remote contacts was interrupting care. However, a range of impediments to dealing optimal care by this means were also identified. Conclusions Implementation of telemental health allowed some continuing support to the majority of service users during the COVID-19 pandemic and has value in an emergency situation. However, not all service users can be reached by this means, and better evidence is now needed on long-term impacts on therapeutic relationships and quality of care, and on impacts on groups at risk of digital exclusion and how to mitigate these. Trial Registration PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews CRD42021211025; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021211025

Background: Studies have shown that working in frontline healthcare roles during epidemics and pandemics was associated with PTSD, depression, anxiety, and other mental health disorders. Objectives: The objectives of this study were to identify demographic, work-related and other predictors for clinically significant PTSD, depression, and anxiety during the COVID-19 pandemic in UK frontline health and social care workers (HSCWs), and to compare rates of distress across different groups of HCSWs working in different roles and settings. Methods: A convenience sample (n = 1194) of frontline UK HCSWs completed an online survey during the first wave of the pandemic (27 May-23 July 2020). Participants worked in UK hospitals, nursing or care homes and other community settings. PTSD was assessed using the International Trauma Questionnaire (ITQ); Depression was assessed using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9); Anxiety was assessed using the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale (GAD-7). Results: Nearly 58% of respondents met the threshold for a clinically significant disorder (PTSD = 22%; anxiety = 47%; depression = 47%), and symptom levels were high across occupational groups and settings. Logistic regression analyses found that participants who were concerned about infecting others, who could not talk with their managers if there were not coping, who reported feeling stigmatized and who had not had reliable access to personal protective equipment (PPE) were more likely to meet criteria for a clinically significant mental disorder. Being redeployed during the pandemic, and having had COVID were associated with higher odds for PTSD. Higher household income was associated with reduced odds for a mental disorder. Conclusions: This study identified predictors of clinically significant distress during COVID-19 and highlights the need for reliable access to PPE and further investigation of barriers to communication between managers and staff.

Accessible summary What is known on the subject? During the COVID‐19 pandemic, there has been research considering the impact on medical healthcare professionals and the mental health needs of the general population. However, limited focus has been placed on mental health services or mental health staff providing care in the community and in hospitals. While nurses make up the largest section of the mental health workforce in the UK, the impact that this pandemic has had on their work has been largely ignored. What the paper adds to existing knowledge? This paper provides a unique insight into the experiences and impact that the COVID‐19 pandemic has had on mental health nurses across a range of community and inpatient settings to understand what has changed in their work and the care they can and do provide during this crisis. This includes exploring how services have changed, the move to remote working, the impact of the protective equipment crisis on nurses and the difficult working conditions facing those in inpatient settings where there is minimal guidance provided. What are the implications for practice? By understanding the impact the pandemic has had on mental health nursing care, we can understand the gaps in guidance that exist, the challenges being faced and the impact the crisis has had on care for mental health service users. By doing so, we can plan for the ongoing nature of this pandemic and the aftermath that the crisis may leave for our service users and workforce alike. Abstract IntroductionWhile evidence has emerged concerning the impact of COVID‐19 on the general population and the challenges facing health services, much less is known regarding how the pandemic has directly affected the delivery of mental health nursing care. AimThis paper aimed to explore how COVID‐19 has affected the ability of mental health nurses to deliver care in community and inpatient mental health services in the UK. MethodWe investigated staff reports regarding the impact of the COVID‐19 pandemic on mental healthcare and mental health service users in the UK, using a mixed‐methods online survey. A total of 897 nurses across a range of inpatient and community settings participated. DiscussionKey themes within the data explore the following: new ways of working; remote working; risks of infection/infection control challenges; and the impact on service users. Targeted guidelines are required to support mental health nurses providing care and support during a pandemic to people in severe mental distress, often in unsuitable environments. Implications for PracticeService developments need to occur alongside tailored guidance and support for staff welfare supported by clear leadership. These findings identify areas requiring attention and investment to prepare for future crises and the consequences of the pandemic.

Objectives: The objectives of this study were to identify demographic, work-related and other predictors for clinically significant psychological distress, including PTSD, depression, and/or anxiety during the COVID-19 pandemic in UK frontline health and social care workers (HSCWs), and to compare rates of PTSD, depression and anxiety across different groups of HCSWs. Design: An online survey was conducted in the weeks following the initial peak in cases (27 May to 23 July 2020). Setting: The participants worked in a variety of healthcare roles UK hospitals, nursing or care homes and community settings. Participants: A convenience sample (n=1194) of frontline UK health and social care workers completed the survey (including allied healthcare professionals, carers, clinical support staff, nurses and midwives, and other health and social care roles). Main outcome measures: PTSD was assessed using the PTSD subscale of the International Trauma Questionnaire (ITQ); Depression assessed using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9); Anxiety was assessed using the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale (GAD-7). Results: Logistic regression analyses examined predictors for depression, anxiety and PTSD separately, and also investigated the predictors of meeting the criteria for at least one of the three conditions. Over 57% of respondents met the threshold for clinically significant PTSD, anxiety or depression, and symptom levels were reasonably high and comparable across occupational groups. Participants who were more concerned about infecting others, who felt they could not talk with their managers, who reported feeling stigmatised due to their role and who had not had reliable access to personal protective equipment (PPE) were more likely to meet criteria for a clinically significant mental disorder. Being redeployed during the pandemic, and having had COVID were associated with a higher likelihood of meeting criteria for PTSD. Higher household income was associated with reduced odds for a mental disorder. Conclusions: This study identifies predictors of clinically significant distress during COVID-19 and highlights the need for reliable access to PPE. Further research should investigate mental disorders in under-represented HSCW groups and examine barriers to communication between managers and staff. Identifying risk factors for PTSD, depression and anxiety among HSCWs, and providing treatment for those who need it, is critical given that subsequent waves of COVID-19 and other healthcare crises are inevitable.

Background Digital tools such as Smartphones have the potential to increase access to mental health support including self-management interventions for individuals with psychosis, and ultimately to improve outcomes. Self-management strategies, including relapse prevention and crisis planning and setting personal recovery goals, are intended to assist people with long-term conditions to take an active role in their recovery, with evidence for a range of benefits. However, their implementation is inconsistent, and access and uptake need to be improved. The current study explores the acceptability of a Smartphone app (My Journey 3) that has been developed to facilitate supported self-management in Early Intervention in Psychosis (EIP) services. Methods Semi-structured one-to-one interviews were conducted with twenty-one EIP service users who had access to My Journey 3 as part of a feasibility trial, and with thirteen EIP service clinicians who were supporting service users with the app. Interviews focused on the acceptability and usability of My Journey 3. Data was coded to themes based on the Acceptability of Healthcare Interventions framework. Results Many service user participants found My Journey 3 to be acceptable. The symptom and medication trackers in particular were described as helpful. A smaller number of service users disliked the intervention. Individual-level factors that appeared to influence acceptability and engagement included recovery stage and symptom severity. Clinicians tended to report that My Journey 3 was a potentially positive addition to service users’ care, but they often felt unable to provide support due to competing demands in their work, which in turn may have impacted acceptability and usage of the app. Conclusions Our findings suggest that the app is perceived as having potential to improve users’ capacity to self-manage and work towards recovery goals, but barriers prevented many clinicians providing consistent and effective support as intended. Further evaluation of supported self-management apps in psychosis is warranted but needs to address implementation challenges from the start.

Background Inpatient psychiatric care is unpopular and expensive, and development and evaluation of alternatives is a long-standing policy and research priority around the world. In England, the three main models documented over the past fifty years (teams offering crisis assessment and treatment at home; acute day units; and residential crisis services in the community) have recently been augmented by several new service models. These are intended to enhance choice and flexibility within catchment area acute care systems, but remain largely undocumented in the research literature. We therefore aimed to describe the types and distribution of crisis care models across England through a national survey. Methods We carried out comprehensive mapping of crisis resolution teams (CRTs) using previous surveys, websites and multiple official data sources. Managers of CRTs were invited to participate as key informants who were familiar with the provision and organisation of crisis care services within their catchment area. The survey could be completed online or via telephone interview with a researcher, and elicited details about types of crisis care delivered in the local catchment area. Results We mapped a total of 200 adult CRTs and completed the survey with 184 (92%). Of the 200 mapped adult CRTs, there was a local (i.e., within the adult CRT catchment area) children and young persons CRT for 84 (42%), and an older adults CRT for 73 (37%). While all but one health region in England provided CRTs for working age adults, there was high variability regarding provision of all other community crisis service models and system configurations. Crisis cafes, street triage teams and separate crisis assessment services have all proliferated since a similar survey in 2016, while provision of acute day units has reduced. Conclusions The composition of catchment area crisis systems varies greatly across England and popularity of models seems unrelated to strength of evidence. A group of emerging crisis care models with varying functions within service systems are increasingly prevalent: they have potential to offer greater choice and flexibility in managing crises, but an evidence base regarding impact on service user experiences and outcomes is yet to be established.