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

HeadlineEvaluating service innovations in health care and public health requires flexibility, collaboration and pragmatism; this collection identifies robust, innovative and mixed methods to inform such evaluations.

ObjectiveTo identify the factors that promote and compromise the implementation of reasonably adjusted healthcare services for patients with intellectual disabilities in acute National Health Service (NHS) hospitals.DesignA mixed-methods study involving interviews, questionnaires and participant observation (July 2011–March 2013).SettingSix acute NHS hospital trusts in England.MethodsReasonable adjustments for people with intellectual disabilities were identified through the literature. Data were collected on implementation and staff understanding of these adjustments.ResultsData collected included staff questionnaires (n=990), staff interviews (n=68), interviews with adults with intellectual disabilities (n=33), questionnaires (n=88) and interviews (n=37) with carers of patients with intellectual disabilities, and expert panel discussions (n=42). Hospital strategies that supported implementation of reasonable adjustments did not reliably translate into consistent provision of such adjustments. Good practice often depended on the knowledge, understanding and flexibility of individual staff and teams, leading to the delivery of reasonable adjustments being haphazard throughout the organisation. Major barriers included: lack of effective systems for identifying and flagging patients with intellectual disabilities, lack of staff understanding of the reasonable adjustments that may be needed, lack of clear lines of responsibility and accountability for implementing reasonable adjustments, and lack of allocation of additional funding and resources. Key enablers were the Intellectual Disability Liaison Nurse and the ward manager.ConclusionsThe evidence suggests that ward culture, staff attitudes and staff knowledge are crucial in ensuring that hospital services are accessible to vulnerable patients. The authors suggest that flagging the need for specific reasonable adjustments, rather than the vulnerable condition itself, may address some of the barriers. Further research is recommended that describes and quantifies the most frequently needed reasonable adjustments within the hospital pathways of vulnerable patient groups, and the most effective organisational infrastructure required to guarantee their use, together with resource implications.

Background Telemental health care has been rapidly adopted for maintaining services during the COVID-19 pandemic, and a substantial interest is now being devoted in its future role. Service planning and policy making for recovery from the pandemic and beyond should draw on both COVID-19 experiences and the substantial research evidence accumulated before this pandemic. Objective We aim to conduct an umbrella review of systematic reviews available on the literature and evidence-based guidance on telemental health, including both qualitative and quantitative literature. Methods Three databases were searched between January 2010 and August 2020 for systematic reviews meeting the predefined criteria. The retrieved reviews were independently screened, and those meeting the inclusion criteria were synthesized and assessed for risk of bias. Narrative synthesis was used to report these findings. Results In total, 19 systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria. A total of 15 reviews examined clinical effectiveness, 8 reported on the aspects of telemental health implementation, 10 reported on acceptability to service users and clinicians, 2 reported on cost-effectiveness, and 1 reported on guidance. Most reviews were assessed to be of low quality. The findings suggested that video-based communication could be as effective and acceptable as face-to-face formats, at least in the short term. Evidence on the extent of digital exclusion and how it can be overcome and that on some significant contexts, such as children and young people’s services and inpatient settings, was found to be lacking. Conclusions This umbrella review suggests that telemental health has the potential to be an effective and acceptable form of service delivery. However, we found limited evidence on the impact of its large-scale implementation across catchment areas. Combining previous evidence and COVID-19 experiences may allow realistic planning for the future implementation of telemental health.

BackgroundThere has been consistent evidence that people with learning disabilities experience health inequalities and poor NHS health-care provision, leading to avoidable harm and premature, avoidable death.ObjectivesTo describe the factors in NHS hospitals that promote or compromise a safe environment for patients with learning disabilities, in the light of national recommendations that hospitals should (1) identify patients with learning disabilities, (2) provide reasonably adjusted services, (3) involve carers as partners in care and (4) include patient and carer views in service development.DesignA 21-month mixed-method study carried out between 2011 and 2013, using questionnaire surveys, interviews, observation and monitoring of safety incidents.SettingSix NHS hospitals in the south of England.MethodsThe study employed mixed methodologies in three stages. Stage I involved mapping the systems and structural changes within each hospital site, with senior strategic managers asked to provide data on relevant policies. Stage II examined the effectiveness of implemented measures. Methods for this stage included an electronic questionnaire survey sent to all clinical staff (n = 990); face-to-face semi-structured interviews with clinical staff and strategic hospital managers (n = 68); semi-structured face-to-face interviews with adults with learning disabilities who had used the hospital in a 12-month period (n = 33); questionnaire survey (n = 88) and semi-structured interviews (n = 37) with carers of patients with learning disabilities who had been a patient during the 12-month period; and participant observation with patients (n = 8). Stage III assessed generalisability to other vulnerable patient groups and involved expert panel discussions with senior managers and senior clinicians at four sites (n = 42).ResultsExamples of good practice were not consistently replicated hospital-wide. The most common safety issues were delays and omissions of treatment and basic care. The main barriers to better and safer hospital care for people with learning disabilities were (1) the invisibility of patients with learning disabilities within hospitals, owing to a lack of effective flagging systems and a lack of staff knowledge and willingness to flag this group; (2) poor staff understanding of the specific vulnerabilities of people with learning disabilities, the reasonable adjustments to services that these patients may need and the Mental Capacity Act (Great Britain.Mental Capacity Act 2005. Chapter 9. London: The Stationery Office; 2005); (3) a lack of consistent and effective carer involvement and misunderstanding by staff of the carer role; and (4) a lack of clear lines of responsibility and accountability for the care of each patient with learning disabilities. The main enablers were the learning disability liaison nurse (LDLN), provided that this role was properly supported by senior management and carried sufficient authority to change practice; and ward managers who facilitated a positive ward culture and ensured consistent implementation of reasonable adjustments.ConclusionsThe vulnerabilities of people with learning disabilities can, and do, lead to compromised patient safety in NHS hospitals. Further research is needed as follows: (1) identifying the most frequently needed reasonable adjustments within the hospital care pathways of people with learning disabilities and their cost implications; (2) identifying the most effective structures for ensuring clear lines of responsibility and accountability for the care of patients with learning disabilities, including support needed by ward managers in order to carry day-to-day accountability; (3) investigating practical and effective ways of flagging patients with learning disabilities across NHS services and within NHS hospitals; (4) investigating, implementing and evaluating protocols for shared care; (5) evaluating LDLN posts nationwide; and (6) extending research recommendations (1) and (3) to patients with dementia and those with mental health problems.Study registrationComprehensive Clinical Research Network Portfolio, 10998; Integrated Research Application System Coordinated System for gaining NHS Permission, 74907.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Background Designing implementation research can be a complex and daunting task, especially for applied health researchers who have not received specialist training in implementation science. We developed the Implementation Science Research Development (ImpRes) tool and supplementary guide to address this challenge and provide researchers with a systematic approach to designing implementation research. Methods A multi-method and multi-stage approach was employed. An international, multidisciplinary expert panel engaged in an iterative brainstorming and consensus-building process to generate core domains of the ImpRes tool, representing core implementation science principles and concepts that researchers should consider when designing implementation research. Simultaneously, an iterative process of reviewing the literature and expert input informed the development and content of the tool. Once consensus had been reached, specialist expert input was sought on involving and engaging patients/service users; and economic evaluation. ImpRes was then applied to 15 implementation and improvement science projects across the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) South London, a research organisation in London, UK. Researchers who applied the ImpRes tool completed an 11-item questionnaire evaluating its structure, content and usefulness. Results Consensus was reached on ten implementation science domains to be considered when designing implementation research. These include implementation theories, frameworks and models, determinants of implementation, implementation strategies, implementation outcomes and unintended consequences. Researchers who used the ImpRes tool found it useful for identifying project areas where implementation science is lacking (median 5/5, IQR 4–5) and for improving the quality of implementation research (median 4/5, IQR 4–5) and agreed that it contained the key components that should be considered when designing implementation research (median 4/5, IQR 4–4). Qualitative feedback from researchers who applied the ImpRes tool indicated that a supplementary guide was needed to facilitate use of the tool. Conclusions We have developed a feasible and acceptable tool, and supplementary guide, to facilitate consideration and incorporation of core principles and concepts of implementation science in applied health implementation research. Future research is needed to establish whether application of the tool and guide has an effect on the quality of implementation research.

Tools developed and disseminated by guideline producers to promote the uptake of their guidelines. Cochrane

To ensure that voluntary agreements like the RD produce gains to public health that would not otherwise have occurred, government needs to: increase participation and compliance through incentives and sanctions, including those affecting organisational reputation; create greater visibility of voluntary agreements; and increase scrutiny and monitoring of partners' pledge activities.