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.

Objectives Compared with the majority population, those from minority ethnic groups in the UK are more likely to be admitted compulsorily during a first episode of psychosis (FEP). We investigated whether these disparities in pathways in to care continue. Methods We analysed data from two first episode psychosis studies, conducted in the same geographical area in south London 15 years apart: the Aetiology and Ethnicity in Schizophrenia and Other Psychosis (AESOP) and the Clinical Record Interactive Search-First Episode Psychosis (CRIS-FEP) studies. The inclusion/exclusion criteria for case ascertainment for first episode psychosis were identical across the two studies. We performed multivariable logistic regression to estimate odds of compulsory admission by ethnic group, controlling for confounders. Participants Two hundred sixty-six patients with first episode psychosis, aged 18–64 years, who presented to mental health services in south London in 1997–1999 and 446 with FEP who presented in 2010–2012. Results When the two samples  were compared, ethnic differences in compulsory admission appear to have remained the same for black African patients, i.e. three times higher than white British in both samples: AESOP (adj. OR = 3.96; 95% CI = 1.80–8.71) vs. CRIS-FEP (adj. OR = 3.12; 95% CI = 1.52–6.35). Black Caribbean patients were three times more likely to be compulsorily admitted in AESOP (adj. OR = 3.20; 95% CI = 1.56–6.54). This was lower in the CRIS-FEP sample (adj. OR = 1.68; 95% CI = 0.71–3.98) and did not meet conventional levels for statistical significance. Conclusion Ethnicity is strongly associated with compulsory admissions at first presentation for psychosis with evidence of heterogeneity across groups, which deserves further research.

IntroductionSevere mental illness (SMI) is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. People living with SMI often receive complex medication regimens. Optimising these regimens can be challenging. Non-adherence is common and addressing it requires a collaborative approach to decision making. MEDIATE uses a realist approach with extensive engagement with experts-by-experience to make sense of the complexities and identify potential solutions.Realist research is used to unpack and explain complexity using programme theory/theories that contain causal explanations of outcomes, expressed as context–mechanism–outcome–configurations. The programme theory/theories will enable MEDIATE to address its aim of understanding what works, for whom, in what circumstances, to optimise medication use with people living with SMI.Method and analysisMEDIATE will be conducted over six stages. In stage 1, we will collaborate with our service user/family carer lived experience group (LEG) and practitioner stakeholder group (SG), to determine the focus. In stage 2, we will develop initial programme theories for what needs to be done, by whom, how and why, and in what contexts to optimise medication use. In stage 3, we will develop and run searches to identify secondary data to refine our initial programme theories.Stage 4 involves selection and appraisal: documents will be screened by title, abstract/keywords and full text against inclusion and exclusion criteria. In stage 5, relevant data will extracted, recorded and coded. Data will be analysed using a realist logic with input from the LEG and SG. Finally, in stage 6, refined programme theories will be developed, identifying causal explanations for key outcomes and the strategies required to change contexts to trigger the key mechanisms that produce these outcomes.Ethics and disseminationPrimary data will not be collected, and therefore, ethical approval is not required. MEDIATE will be disseminated via publications, conferences and form the basis for future grant applications.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42021280980.

Aim Pathways to care are well studied in the First Episode Psychosis field, but less attention has been given to At‐Risk Mental States or prodromal psychosis. This is important because accessing appropriate help at the earliest opportunity is likely to improve outcomes, particularly for those who make transition to psychosis. The present systematic review aimed to synthesize the available literature on pathways to care in ARMS or prodromal psychosis, and investigate the barriers and facilitators to receiving care for ARMS. Methods The CINAHL Complete, EMBASE, Medline Complete, PsycINFO and PubMED databases were searched. Studies were included if they were published in English between 1985 and 2019, where reported data came exclusively from an At‐Risk Mental State population, and the study described or related to pathways to care. Results Ten studies met the inclusion criteria, of which 8 were quantitative. Screening tools and pathways to care instruments varied. Mental health professionals, and general practitioners played a key role in help seeking. Family involvement was also found to be an important factor. Conclusions Pathways to care research in At‐Risk Mental States are more scarce than in the field of First Episode Psychosis. More research is warranted, especially concerning the role of patient‐level characteristics on pathways to care. A validated measure of pathways to care may also be of benefit.

Natural language processing is being pressed into use to facilitate the selection of cases for medical research in electronic health record databases, though study inclusion criteria may be complex, and the linguistic cues indicating eligibility may be subtle. Finding cases of first episode psychosis raised a number of problems for automated approaches, providing an opportunity to explore how machine learning technologies might be used to overcome them. A system was delivered that achieved an AUC of 0.85, enabling 95% of relevant cases to be identified whilst halving the work required in manually reviewing cases. The techniques that made this possible are presented.