BackgroundRecovery has become an increasingly prominent concept in mental health policy internationally. However, there is a lack of guidance regarding organisational transformation towards a recovery orientation. This study evaluated the implementation of recovery-orientated practice through training across a system of mental health services.MethodsThe intervention comprised four full-day workshops and an in-team half-day session on supporting recovery. It was offered to 383 staff in 22 multidisciplinary community and rehabilitation teams providing mental health services across two contiguous regions. A quasi-experimental design was used for evaluation, comparing behavioural intent with staff from a third contiguous region. Behavioural intent was rated by coding points of action on the care plans of a random sample of 700 patients (400 intervention, 300 control), before and three months after the intervention. Action points were coded for (a) focus of action, using predetermined categories of care; and (b) responsibility for action. Qualitative inquiry was used to explore staff understanding of recovery, implementation in services and the wider system, and the perceived impact of the intervention. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 16 intervention group team leaders post-training and an inductive thematic analysis undertaken.ResultsA total of 342 (89%) staff received the intervention. Care plans of patients in the intervention group had significantly more changes with evidence of change in the content of patient’s care plans (OR 10.94. 95% CI 7.01-17.07) and the attributed responsibility for the actions detailed (OR 2.95, 95% CI 1.68-5.18). Nine themes emerged from the qualitative analysis split into two superordinate categories. ‘Recovery, individual and practice’, describes the perception and provision of recovery orientated care by individuals and at a team level. It includes themes on care provision, the role of hope, language of recovery, ownership and multidisciplinarity. ‘Systemic implementation’, describes organizational implementation and includes themes on hierarchy and role definition, training approaches, measures of recovery and resources.ConclusionsTraining can provide an important mechanism for instigating change in promoting recovery-orientated practice. However, the challenge of systemically implementing recovery approaches requires further consideration of the conceptual elements of recovery, its measurement, and maximising and demonstrating organizational commitment.

BackgroundLittle is known about patients with a first episode of psychosis (FEP) who had first presented to prodromal services with an “at risk mental state” (ARMS) before making the transition to psychosis. We set out to identify the proportion of patients with a FEP who had first presented to prodromal services in the ARMS state, and to compare these FEP patients with FEP patients who did not have prior contact with prodromal services.MethodsIn this study information on 338 patients aged ≤37 years who presented to mental health services between 2010 and 2012 with a FEP was examined. The data on pathways to care, clinical and socio-demographic characteristics were extracted from the Biomedical Research Council Case Register for the South London and Maudsley NHS Trust.ResultsOver 2 years, 14 (4.1% of n = 338) young adults presented with FEP and had been seen previously by the prodromal services. These ARMS patients were more likely to enter their pathway to psychiatric care via referral from General Practice, be born in the UK and to have had an insidious mode of illness onset than FEP patients without prior contact with the prodromal services.ConclusionsIn the current pathways to care configuration, prodromal services are likely to prevent only a few at-risk individuals from transitioning to psychosis even if effective preventative treatments become available.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12888-017-1468-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

ObjectiveThe proportion of people with mental health disorders who participate in clinical research studies is much smaller than for those with physical health disorders. It is sometimes assumed that this reflects an unwillingness to volunteer for mental health research studies. We examined this issue in a large sample of patients with psychosis.DesignCross-sectional study.SettingAnonymised electronic mental health record data from the South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust (SLaM).Participants5787 adults diagnosed with a psychotic disorder.ExposureWhether approached prior to 1 September 2014 for consent to be approached about research participation.Main outcome measuresNumber of days spent in a psychiatric hospital, whether admitted to hospital compulsorily, and total score on the Health of the Nation Outcome Scale (HoNOS) between 1 September 2014 and 28 February 2015 with patient factors (age, gender, ethnicity, marital status and diagnosis) and treating clinical service as covariates.Results1187 patients (20.5% of the total sample) had been approached about research participation. Of those who were approached, 773 (65.1%) agreed to be contacted in future by researchers. Patients who had been approached had 2.3 fewer inpatient days (95% CI −4.4 to −0.3, p=0.03), were less likely to have had a compulsory admission (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.84, p=0.001) and had a better HoNOS score (β coefficient −0.9, 95% CI −1.5 to −0.4, p=0.001) than those who had not. Among patients who were approached, there was no significant difference in clinical outcomes between those agreed to research contact and those who did not.ConclusionsAbout two-thirds of patients with psychotic disorders were willing to be contacted about participation in research. The patients who were approached had better clinical outcomes than those who were not, suggesting that clinicians were more likely to approach patients who were less unwell.

Background A higher incidence of psychotic disorders has been consistently reported among black and other minority ethnic groups, particularly in northern Europe. It is unclear whether these rates have changed over time. Methods We identified all individuals with a first episode psychosis who presented to adult mental health services between 1 May 2010 and 30 April 2012 and who were resident in London boroughs of Lambeth and Southwark. We estimated age-and-gender standardised incidence rates overall and by ethnic group, then compared our findings to those reported in the Aetiology and Ethnicity of Schizophrenia and Other Psychoses (ÆSOP) study that we carried out in the same catchment area around 10 years earlier. Results From 9109 clinical records we identified 558 patients with first episode psychosis. Compared with ÆSOP, the overall incidence rates of psychotic disorder in southeast London have increased from 49.4 (95% confidence interval (CI) 43.6–55.3) to 63.1 (95% CI 57.3–69.0) per 100 000 person-years at risk. However, the overall incidence rate ratios (IRR) were reduced in some ethnic groups: for example, IRR (95% CI) for the black Caribbean group reduced from 6.7 (5.4–8.3) to 2.8 (2.1–3.6) and the ‘mixed’ group from 2.7 (1.8–4.2) to 1.4 (0.9–2.1). In the black African group, there was a negligible difference from 4.1 (3.2–5.3) to 3.5 (2.8–4.5). Conclusions We found that incidence rates of psychosis have increased over time, and the IRR varied by the ethnic group. Future studies are needed to investigate more changes over time and determinants of change.