BackgroundMultidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings have been endorsed by the Department of Health as the core model for managing chronic diseases. However, the evidence for their effectiveness is mixed and the degree to which they have been absorbed into clinical practice varies widely across conditions and settings. We aimed to identify the key characteristics of chronic disease MDT meetings that are associated with decision implementation, a measure of effectiveness, and to derive a set of feasible modifications to MDT meetings to improve decision-making.MethodsWe undertook a mixed-methods prospective observational study of 12 MDTs in the London and North Thames area, covering cancer, heart failure, mental health and memory clinic teams. Data were collected by observation of 370 MDT meetings, completion of the Team Climate Inventory (TCI) by 161 MDT members, interviews with 53 MDT members and 20 patients, and review of 2654 patients’ medical records. We examined the influence of patient-related factors (disease, age, sex, deprivation indicator, whether or not their preferences and other clinical/health behaviours were mentioned) and MDT features (team climate and skill mix) on the implementation of MDT treatment plans. Interview and observation data were thematically analysed and integrated to explore possible explanations for the quantitative findings, and to identify areas of diverse beliefs and practice across MDT meetings. Based on these data, we used a modified formal consensus technique involving expert stakeholders to derive a set of indications of good practice for effective MDT meetings.ResultsThe adjusted odds of implementation were reduced by 25% for each additional professional group represented [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 0.87], though there was some evidence of a differential effect by type of disease. Implementation was more likely in MDTs with clear goals and processes and a good team climate (adjusted odds of implementation increased by 7%; 95% CI 1% to 13% for a 0.1-unit increase in TCI score). Implementation varied by disease category (with the lowest adjusted odds of implementation in mental health teams) and by patient deprivation (adjusted odds of implementation for patients in the most compared with least deprived areas were 0.60, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.91). We ascertained 16 key themes within five domains where there was substantial diversity in beliefs and practices across MDT meetings. These related to the purpose, structure, processes and content of MDT meetings, as well as to the role of the patient. We identified 68 potential recommendations for improving the effectiveness of MDT meetings. Of these, 21 engendered both strong agreement (median ≥ 7) and low variation in the extent of agreement (mean absolute deviation from the median of < 1.11) among the expert consensus panel. These related to the purpose of the meetings (e.g. that agreeing treatment plans should take precedence over other objectives); meeting processes (e.g. that MDT decision implementation should be audited annually); content of the discussion (e.g. that information on comorbidities and past medical history should be routinely available); and the role of the patient (e.g. concerning the most appropriate time to discuss treatment options). Panellists from all specialties agreed that these recommendations were both desirable and feasible. We were unable to achieve consensus for 17 statements. In part, this was a result of disease-specific differences including the need to be prescriptive about MDT membership, with local flexibility deemed appropriate for heart failure and uniformity supported for cancer. In other cases, our data suggest that some processes (e.g. discussion of unrelated research topics) should be locally agreed, depending on the preferences of individual teams.ConclusionsSubstantial diversity exists in the purpose, structure, processes and content of MDT meetings. Greater multidisciplinarity is not necessarily associated with more effective decision-making and MDT decisions (as measured by decision implementation). Decisions were less likely to be implemented for patients living in more deprived areas. We identified 21 indications of good practice for improving the effectiveness of MDT meetings, which expert stakeholders from a range of chronic disease specialties agree are both desirable and feasible. These are important because MDT meetings are resource-intensive and they should deliver value to the NHS and patients. Priorities for future work include research to examine whether or not the 21 indications of good practice identified in this study will lead to better decision-making; for example, incorporating the indications into a modified MDT and experimentally evaluating its effectiveness in a pragmatic randomised controlled trial. Other areas for further research include exploring the value of multidisciplinarity in MDT meetings and the reasons for low implementation in community mental health teams. There is also scope to examine the underlying determinants of the inequalities demonstrated in this study, for example by exploring patient preferences in more depth. Finally, future work could examine the association between MDT decision implementation and improvements in patient outcomes.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

ObjectiveMultidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings are assumed to produce better decisions and are extensively used to manage chronic disease in the National Health Service (NHS). However, evidence for their effectiveness is mixed. Our objective was to investigate determinants of MDT effectiveness by examining factors influencing the implementation of MDT treatment plans. This is a proxy measure of effectiveness, because it lies on the pathway to improvements in health, and reflects team decision making which has taken account of clinical and non-clinical information. Additionally, this measure can be compared across MDTs for different conditions.MethodsWe undertook a prospective mixed-methods study of 12 MDTs in London and North Thames. Data were collected by observation of 370 MDT meetings, interviews with 53 MDT members, and from 2654 patient medical records. We examined the influence of patient-related factors (disease, age, sex, deprivation, whether their preferences and other clinical/health behaviours were mentioned) and MDT features (as measured using the ‘Team Climate Inventory’ and skill mix) on the implementation of MDT treatment plans.ResultsThe adjusted odds (or likelihood) of implementation was reduced by 25% for each additional professional group represented at the MDT meeting. Implementation was more likely in MDTs with clear goals and processes and a good ‘Team Climate’ (adjusted OR 1.96; 95% CI 1.15 to 3.31 for a unit increase in Team Climate Inventory (TCI) score). Implementation varied by disease category, with the lowest adjusted odds of implementation in mental health teams. Implementation was also lower for patients living in more deprived areas (adjusted odds of implementation for patients in the most compared with least deprived areas was 0.60, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.91).ConclusionsGreater multidisciplinarity is not necessarily associated with more effective decision making. Explicit goals and procedures are also crucial. Decision implementation should be routinely monitored to ensure the equitable provision of care.

BackgroundEvery year, more than 800,000 people worldwide die by suicide. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review of the effectiveness of brief psychological interventions in addressing suicidal thoughts and behaviour in healthcare settings.MethodsFollowing PRISMA guidelines, systematic searches were conducted in MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and PsycINFO databases. A predefined search strategy was used. Two independent reviewers screened titles and abstracts followed by full texts against predefined inclusion criteria. Backward and forward citation tracking of included papers was conducted. Quality appraisal was conducted using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for Randomized Controlled Trials and the CASP tool for randomised controlled trials. The small number and heterogeneity of studies did not allow for meta-analysis to be conducted. A narrative synthesis was conducted.ResultsFour controlled studies of brief psychological interventions were included, conducted in Switzerland, the U.S. and across low and middle-income countries. Three studies were conducted with adults and one with adolescents. All studies were judged to be at low risk of bias. All of the interventions were implemented with patients after attending emergency departments and involved 3412 participants. The main outcomes were suicide, suicide attempts, suicidal ideation, depression and hospitalization. The components of the interventions were early therapeutic engagement, information provision, safety planning and follow-up contact for at least 12 months. The interventions drew to, different degrees, on psychological theory and techniques. Two trials that measured suicidal ideation found no impact. Two studies showed fewer suicide attempts, one showed fewer suicides and one found an effect on depression.ConclusionsAlthough the evidence base is small, brief psychological interventions appear to be effective in reducing suicide and suicide attempts. All studies to date have been conducted with people who had attended the ED but the interventions could potentially be adopted for inpatient and other outpatient settings. Early engagement and therapeutic intervention based on psychological theories of suicidal behaviour, sustained in follow-up contacts, may be particularly beneficial.Trial registrationSystematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42015025867.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12888-018-1663-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

ObjectivesTo explore people’s experiences of cognitive decline and receiving a diagnosis of dementia.Design61 semistructured interviews within 2 weeks of diagnosis. Audio recordings were transcribed, line-by-line coded using NVIVO V.11 and analysed using thematic analysis.Setting9 memory clinics (UK).ParticipantsPeople with mild/moderate dementia.ResultsMost participants were diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease (56% female, mean age 81 years). 104 codes were grouped into 22 categories, feeding into 9 subthemes and 4 overarching themes: (1) dissonance, threat to identity and visibility of dementia: dementia was associated with a progressive loss of competence, culminating in being an idiot, crazy and losing the plot. The stigma of dementia led people to hide their diagnosis from others, even close family members. However, decreasing competence in everyday tasks was becoming increasingly visible in family and wider social networks. (2) Vulnerability and being in limbo: people were frustrated by the impact of dementia on their lives and felt vulnerable. Moreover, people were disturbed by not knowing how much and when they would deteriorate further. (3) Loss of control and agency: loneliness, increasing dependence and becoming a burden foreshadowed increasing diminished personal agency. (4) Maintaining agency and self-worth: some people focused on what they could do and the benefits of diagnosis. This involved accepting the diagnosis, adapting to changes by using coping strategies and accepting support from others. This helped people to maintain personal agency and self-worth.ConclusionWhile personal acceptance of dementia is challenging, people are additionally troubled about disclosing their diagnosis to others. Limited time in diagnostic appointments and limited postdiagnostic support leave few opportunities to address the emotional impact of a dementia diagnosis. There may be opportunities for healthcare professionals to discuss with patients the benefits of staying positive, implementing coping strategies and accepting support to live well with dementia.

If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.The authors affiliations can be found at the end of this article. AbstractPurpose -Previous research has identified a need for greater clarity regarding the functions of multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings in UK community mental health services. The purpose of this paper is to identify the functions of these meetings by systematically reviewing both primary research and academic discussion papers. Design/methodology/approach -Papers relating to adult community mental health teams (CMHTs) in the UK and published between September 1999 and February 2014 were reviewed and appraised using NICE quality checklists. The search was broad in scope to include both general CMHTs and specialist CMHTs such as early intervention psychosis services and forensic mental health teams. A thematic synthesis of the findings was performed to develop an overarching thematic framework of the reported functions of MDT meetings. Findings -None of the 4,046 studies identified directly investigated the functions of MDT meetings. However, 49 mentioned functions in passing. These functions were categorised into four thematic domains: discussing the care of individual patients, teamwork, team management and learning and development. Several papers reported a lack of clarity about the purpose of MDT meetings and the roles of different team members which hindered effective collaboration. Practical implications -Without clearly agreed objectives for MDT meetings, monitoring their effectiveness is problematic. Unwarranted variation in their functioning may undermine the quality of care. Originality/value -This is the first systematic review to investigate the functions of CMHT MDT meetings in the UK. The findings highlight a need for empirical research to establish how MDT meetings are being used so that their effectiveness can be understood, monitored and evaluated.

BackgroundMultidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings are the core mechanism for delivering mental health care but it is unclear which models improve care quality. The aim of the study was to agree recommendations for improving the effectiveness of adult mental health MDT meetings, based on national guidance, research evidence and experiential insights from mental health and other medical specialties.MethodsWe established an expert panel of 16 health care professionals, policy-makers and patient representatives. Five panellists had experience in a range of adult mental health services, five in heart failure services and six in cancer services. Panellists privately rated 68 potential recommendations on a scale of one to nine, and re-rated them after panel discussion using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method to determine consensus.ResultsWe obtained agreement (median ≥ 7) and low variation in extent of agreement (Mean Absolute Deviation from Median of ≤1.11) for 21 recommendations. These included the explicit agreement and auditing of MDT meeting objectives, and the documentation and monitoring of treatment plan implementation.ConclusionsFormal consensus development methods that involved learning across specialities led to feasible recommendations for improved MDT meeting effectiveness in a wide range of settings. Our findings may be used by adult mental health teams to reflect on their practice and facilitate improvement. In some other contexts, the recommendations will require modification. For example, in Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services, context-specific issues such as the role of carers should be taken into account. A limitation of the comparative approach adopted was that only five members of the panel of 16 experts were mental health specialists.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12888-015-0534-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Abstract. Background: In the United Kingdom, suicide risk is assessed in the emergency department (ED) in a face-to-face assessment with psychiatric liaison practitioners. This study aimed to explore patient experiences of psychosocial assessment after presenting with self-harm/suicidality. Method: A total of 28 patients were interviewed within 2 weeks of ED attendance for self-harm/suicidality. Interviews were transcribed and analyzed using inductive thematic analysis. Results: People described two different experiences. A therapeutic interaction was about the “person” and made people feel their life mattered and instilled hope for the future. This was characterized by: unscripted conversation; warmth promoting disclosure; psychological exploration of feelings; validation of distress; and a coproduced care plan. A formulaic assessment was about the “risk” and made people feel their life did not matter and hopeless about the future. This was characterized by: feeling judged and not worthy of help; a focus on risk and form filling; a trivial treatment plan; and loss of trust in services. Limitations: Our study comprised a single ED and used a non-diverse sample. Conclusion: Psychosocial assessment in the ED impacts on hope for people in crisis. A focus on therapeutic communication that is about the person, as well as the risk, improves patient experience, decreases distress, and instills hope that life is worth living.

Background: People with psychosis experience more social isolation than any other diagnostic group and have smaller social networks than the general population. This isolation can have a detrimental effect on quality of life. No direct, standardised interventions have been developed to specifically target this issue. Stakeholders input appears crucial in the process of developing such an intervention. This study aimed to identify the main considerations when developing an intervention aiming to reduce social isolation in people with psychosis. Methods: Focus groups and individual interviews were conducted with patients, carers and mental health staff. Data was thematically analysed. Results: Thirty four patients with psychosis, 26 carers of people experiencing psychosis and 22 mental health professionals participated in the study. Suggested aspects to be considered in a novel intervention were: i) finding and training the right staff member; ii) discussing negative social attitudes and patients' previous negative experiences, iii) addressing personal ambivalence; iv) establishing how best to provide information about social activities; v) facilitating access to social activities, vi) striking a balance between support and independence. Conclusion: The suggestions identified can help to develop more targeted approaches to reduce social isolation within this patient group. A patient-centred approach and generic communication skills appear to be underpinning most of the helpful elements identified, whilst specific techniques and skills can help to overcome negative past experiences and motivational barriers.