scholarly journals COVID-19 and Telepsychiatry: Development of Evidence-Based Guidance for Clinicians

10.2196/21108 ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (8) ◽  
pp. e21108 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katharine Smith ◽  
Edoardo Ostinelli ◽  
Orla Macdonald ◽  
Andrea Cipriani

Background The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) presents unique challenges in health care, including mental health care provision. Telepsychiatry can provide an alternative to face-to-face assessment and can also be used creatively with other technologies to enhance care, but clinicians and patients may feel underconfident about embracing this new way of working. Objective The aim of this paper is to produce an open-access, easy-to-consult, and reliable source of information and guidance about telepsychiatry and COVID-19 using an evidence-based approach. Methods We systematically searched existing English language guidelines and websites for information on telepsychiatry in the context of COVID-19 up to and including May 2020. We used broad search criteria and included pre–COVID-19 guidelines and other digital mental health topics where relevant. We summarized the data we extracted as answers to specific clinical questions. Results Findings from this study are presented as both a short practical checklist for clinicians and detailed textboxes with a full summary of all the guidelines. The summary textboxes are also available on an open-access webpage, which is regularly updated. These findings reflected the strong evidence base for the use of telepsychiatry and included guidelines for many of the common concerns expressed by clinicians about practical implementation, technology, information governance, and safety. Guidelines across countries differ significantly, with UK guidelines more conservative and focused on practical implementation and US guidelines more expansive and detailed. Guidelines on possible combinations with other digital technologies such as apps (eg, from the US Food and Drug Administration, the National Health Service Apps Library, and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence) are less detailed. Several key areas were not represented. Although some special populations such as child and adolescent, and older adult, and cultural issues are specifically included, important populations such as learning disabilities, psychosis, personality disorder, and eating disorders, which may present particular challenges for telepsychiatry, are not. In addition, the initial consultation and follow-up sessions are not clearly distinguished. Finally, a hybrid model of care (combining telepsychiatry with other technologies and in-person care) is not explicitly covered by the existing guidelines. Conclusions We produced a comprehensive synthesis of guidance answering a wide range of clinical questions in telepsychiatry. This meets the urgent need for practical information for both clinicians and health care organizations who are rapidly adapting to the pandemic and implementing remote consultation. It reflects variations across countries and can be used as a basis for organizational change in the short- and long-term. Providing easily accessible guidance is a first step but will need cultural change to implement as clinicians start to view telepsychiatry not just as a replacement but as a parallel and complementary form of delivering therapy with its own advantages and benefits as well as restrictions. A combination or hybrid approach can be the most successful approach in the new world of mental health post–COVID-19, and guidance will need to expand to encompass the use of telepsychiatry in conjunction with other in-person and digital technologies, and its use across all psychiatric disorders, not just those who are the first to access and engage with remote treatment.

Author(s):  
Katharine Smith ◽  
Edoardo Ostinelli ◽  
Orla Macdonald ◽  
Andrea Cipriani

BACKGROUND The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) presents unique challenges in health care, including mental health care provision. Telepsychiatry can provide an alternative to face-to-face assessment and can also be used creatively with other technologies to enhance care, but clinicians and patients may feel underconfident about embracing this new way of working. OBJECTIVE The aim of this paper is to produce an open-access, easy-to-consult, and reliable source of information and guidance about telepsychiatry and COVID-19 using an evidence-based approach. METHODS We systematically searched existing English language guidelines and websites for information on telepsychiatry in the context of COVID-19 up to and including May 2020. We used broad search criteria and included pre–COVID-19 guidelines and other digital mental health topics where relevant. We summarized the data we extracted as answers to specific clinical questions. RESULTS Findings from this study are presented as both a short practical checklist for clinicians and detailed textboxes with a full summary of all the guidelines. The summary textboxes are also available on an open-access webpage, which is regularly updated. These findings reflected the strong evidence base for the use of telepsychiatry and included guidelines for many of the common concerns expressed by clinicians about practical implementation, technology, information governance, and safety. Guidelines across countries differ significantly, with UK guidelines more conservative and focused on practical implementation and US guidelines more expansive and detailed. Guidelines on possible combinations with other digital technologies such as apps (eg, from the US Food and Drug Administration, the National Health Service Apps Library, and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence) are less detailed. Several key areas were not represented. Although some special populations such as child and adolescent, and older adult, and cultural issues are specifically included, important populations such as learning disabilities, psychosis, personality disorder, and eating disorders, which may present particular challenges for telepsychiatry, are not. In addition, the initial consultation and follow-up sessions are not clearly distinguished. Finally, a hybrid model of care (combining telepsychiatry with other technologies and in-person care) is not explicitly covered by the existing guidelines. CONCLUSIONS We produced a comprehensive synthesis of guidance answering a wide range of clinical questions in telepsychiatry. This meets the urgent need for practical information for both clinicians and health care organizations who are rapidly adapting to the pandemic and implementing remote consultation. It reflects variations across countries and can be used as a basis for organizational change in the short- and long-term. Providing easily accessible guidance is a first step but will need cultural change to implement as clinicians start to view telepsychiatry not just as a replacement but as a parallel and complementary form of delivering therapy with its own advantages and benefits as well as restrictions. A combination or hybrid approach can be the most successful approach in the new world of mental health post–COVID-19, and guidance will need to expand to encompass the use of telepsychiatry in conjunction with other in-person and digital technologies, and its use across all psychiatric disorders, not just those who are the first to access and engage with remote treatment.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jiancheng Ye

BACKGROUND The COVID-19 pandemic is a global public health crisis that has not only endangered the lives of patients but also resulted in increased psychological issues among medical professionals, especially frontline health care workers. As the crisis caused by the pandemic shifts from acute to protracted, attention should be paid to the devastating impacts on health care workers’ mental health and social well-being. Digital technologies are being harnessed to support the responses to the pandemic, which provide opportunities to advance mental health and psychological support for health care workers. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study is to develop a framework to describe and organize the psychological and mental health issues that health care workers are facing during the COVID-19 pandemic. Based on the framework, this study also proposes interventions from digital health perspectives that health care workers can leverage during and after the pandemic. METHODS The psychological problems and mental health issues that health care workers have encountered during the COVID-19 pandemic were reviewed and analyzed based on the proposed MEET (Mental Health, Environment, Event, and Technology) framework, which also demonstrated the interactions among mental health, digital interventions, and social support. RESULTS Health care workers are facing increased risk of experiencing mental health issues due to the COVID-19 pandemic, including burnout, fear, worry, distress, pressure, anxiety, and depression. These negative emotional stressors may cause psychological problems for health care workers and affect their physical and mental health. Digital technologies and platforms are playing pivotal roles in mitigating psychological issues and providing effective support. The proposed framework enabled a better understanding of how to mitigate the psychological effects during the pandemic, recover from associated experiences, and provide comprehensive institutional and societal infrastructures for the well-being of health care workers. CONCLUSIONS The COVID-19 pandemic presents unprecedented challenges due to its prolonged uncertainty, immediate threat to patient safety, and evolving professional demands. It is urgent to protect the mental health and strengthen the psychological resilience of health care workers. Given that the pandemic is expected to exist for a long time, caring for mental health has become a “new normal” that needs a strengthened multisector collaboration to facilitate support and reduce health disparities. The proposed MEET framework could provide structured guidelines for further studies on how technology interacts with mental and psychological health for different populations.


2022 ◽  
Vol 07 (01) ◽  
pp. 37-41
Author(s):  
Ramdas Ransing ◽  
Sujita Kumar Kar ◽  
Vikas Menon

In recent years, the Indian government has been promoting healthcare with an insufficient evidence base, or which is non-evidence-based, alongside delivery of evidence-based care by untrained practitioners, through supportive legislation and guidelines. The Mental Health Care Act, 2017, is a unique example of a law endorsing such practices. In this paper, we aim to highlight the positive and negative implications of such practices for the delivery of good quality mental healthcare in India.


2018 ◽  
Vol 39 (9) ◽  
pp. 746-756
Author(s):  
Mari Lahti ◽  
Merle Linno ◽  
Janika Pael ◽  
Margit Lenk-Adusoo ◽  
Eeva Timonen-Kallio

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 263348952094320
Author(s):  
Kelly A Aschbrenner ◽  
Gary R Bond ◽  
Sarah I Pratt ◽  
Kenneth Jue ◽  
Gail Williams ◽  
...  

Background: Limited empirical evidence exists on the impact of adaptations that occur in implementing evidence-based practices (EBPs) in real-world practice settings. The purpose of this study was to measure and evaluate adaptations to an EBP (InSHAPE) for obesity in persons with serious mental illness in a national implementation in mental health care settings. Methods: We conducted telephone interviews with InSHAPE provider teams at 37 (95%) of 39 study sites during 24-month follow-up of a cluster randomized trial of implementation strategies for InSHAPE at behavioral health organizations. Our team rated adaptations as fidelity-consistent or fidelity-inconsistent. Multilevel regression models were used to estimate the relationship between adaptations and implementation and participant outcomes. Results: Of 37 sites interviewed, 28 sites (76%) made adaptations to InSHAPE ( M = 2.1, SD = 1.3). Sixteen sites (43%) made fidelity-consistent adaptations, while 22 (60%) made fidelity-inconsistent adaptations. The number of fidelity-inconsistent adaptations was negatively associated with InSHAPE fidelity scores (β = −4.29; p < .05). A greater number of adaptations were associated with significantly higher odds of participant-level cardiovascular risk reduction (odds ratio [ OR] = 1.40; confidence interval [CI] = [1.08, 1.80]; p < .05). With respect to the type of adaptation, we found a significant positive association between the number of fidelity-inconsistent adaptations and cardiovascular risk reduction ( OR = 1.59; CI = [1.01, 2.51]; p < .05). This was largely explained by the fidelity-inconsistent adaptation of holding exercise sessions at the mental health agency versus a fitness facility in the community (a core form of InSHAPE) ( OR = 2.52; 95% CI = [1.11, 5.70]; p < .05). Conclusions: This research suggests that adaptations to an evidence-based lifestyle program were common during implementation in real-world mental health practice settings even when fidelity was monitored and reinforced through implementation interventions. Results suggest that adaptations, including those that are fidelity-inconsistent, can be positively associated with improved participant outcomes when they provide a potential practical advantage while maintaining the core function of the intervention. Plain language abstract: Treatments that have been proven to work in research studies are not always one-size-fits-all. In real-world clinical settings where people receive mental health care, sometimes there are good reasons to change certain things about a treatment. For example, a particular treatment might not fit well in a specific clinic or cultural context, or it might not meet the needs of specific patient groups. We studied adaptations to an evidence-based practice (InSHAPE) targeting obesity in persons with serious mental illness made by teams implementing the program in routine mental health care settings. We learned that adaptations to InSHAPE were common, and that an adaptation that model experts initially viewed as inconsistent with fidelity to the model turned out to have a positive impact on participant health outcomes. The results of this study may encourage researchers and model experts to work collaboratively with mental health agencies and clinicians implementing evidence-based practices to consider allowing for and guiding adaptations that provide a potential practical advantage while maintaining the core purpose of the intervention.


2020 ◽  
pp. 153270862097065
Author(s):  
David Carless

A cowboy can be defined as “an unscrupulous tradesman” and a pirate can be “a person or organization broadcasting without official authorisation.” Looking through a subversive lens, I see both cowboys and pirates operating within the mental health care professions. Cowboys can be validated, authorized, rewarded, and empowered through the machinery of evidence-based medicine. Pirates may be criticized, restricted, marginalized, or dismissed by the same machinery. Through a layered performance of song and spoken word, I explore some of the personal consequences of all this for those living—and suffering—within differing paradigms of health care.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document