mental health hospitals
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

35
(FIVE YEARS 11)

H-INDEX

6
(FIVE YEARS 1)

BJPsych Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (S1) ◽  
pp. S307-S307
Author(s):  
Dalal Al-Bazz ◽  
Fareeba Anwar ◽  
Qaiser Javed

AimsTesting the compliance and completion rate of a transfer checklist (proforma) created in accordance with local hospital policies.BackgroundThe proforma was developed following serious incidents where medically unstable patients were inappropriately discharged to mental health hospitals, requiring readmission to acute medical hospitals. Frequently these events reported an inadequate handover from medical to mental health teams and patients were often prematurely deemed medically fit with evidence to the contrary.Although parity of esteem between mental and physical health has been a high profile political issue in the UK since 2011, evidence indicates that parity is far from being achieved. This first ever checklist was designed to improve safety of patient transfer from acute physical health hospitals to mental health hospitals by ensuring patients are medically fit and better communication between the two trusts.MethodData were collected retrospectively over a six-month period between August 2018 and January 2019 and retrieved from patient notes available at relevant trusts. Electronic notes were obtained from medical wards, accident and emergency and Mersey Care electronic systems. Notes were specifically scrutinised for presence of the proforma, quality of completion and, number and reasons for readmission from mental health hospitals to acute physical health hospitals following their medical optimization. Readmissions were considered as admissions to physical health hospitals up to one month following discharge with evidence of ongoing concerns.Result6597 referrals were made to liaison services from Liverpool University Hospitals, of which 5–6 % were admitted to inpatient mental health units. 31% of admissions from Liverpool University Hospitals were readmitted to a physical health hospital within one month of discharge indicating inappropriate and unsafe discharges. Of all those readmitted, 10% had ongoing acute medical concerns prior to admission to a mental health hospital. The proforma was filled in 13% of admissions from Liverpool University Hospitals. None of the forms were fully complete.Conclusion10% of patient admissions to mental health hospitals were identified as inappropriate due to ongoing acute medical concerns. The proforma served as structured guidance and evidence of medical fitness at time of transfer. However poor compliance was observed, which could be secondary to lack of awareness of the proforma and inadequate dissemination of the policy. Findings were shared and discussed with the appropriate teams both in acute physical health and mental health hospitals and steps will be taken to raise awareness of the proforma before completing a second audit.


Author(s):  
Kim Jørgensen ◽  
Tonie Rasmussen ◽  
Morten Hansen ◽  
Kate Andreasson ◽  
Bengt Karlsson

Introduction: This study aimed to explore how healthcare professionals and users could perceive user involvement in the handover between mental health hospitals and community mental healthcare, drawing on the discourse analysis framework from Fairclough. Methods: A qualitative research design with purposive sampling was adopted. Five audio-recorded focus group interviews with nurses, users and other health professionals were explored using Fairclough’s discourse analysis framework. Ethical approval: The study was designed following the ethical principles of the Helsinki Declaration and Danish Law. Each study participant in the two intersectoral sectors gave their informed consent after verbal and written information was provided. Results: This study has shown how users can be subject to paternalistic control despite the official aims that user involvement should be an integral part of the care and treatment offered. As evidenced in discussions by both health professionals and the users themselves, the users were involved in plans with the handover on conditions determined by the health professionals who were predominantly focused on treating diseases and enabling the users to live a life independent of professional help. Conclusions: Our results can contribute to dealing with the challenges of incorporating user involvement as an ideology in the handover between mental health hospitals and community mental health. There is a need to start forming a common language across sectors and, jointly, for professionals and users to draw up plans for intersectoral care.


2021 ◽  
Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽  
Author(s):  
Ghadah H. Alshehri ◽  
Richard N. Keers ◽  
Andrew Carson-Stevens ◽  
Darren M. Ashcroft

2020 ◽  
pp. 002076402096663 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kim Jørgensen ◽  
Tonie Rasmussen ◽  
Morten Hansen ◽  
Kate Andreasson

Background: Recovery-oriented intersectoral care is described as an aim in mental healthcare to create a holistic framework for planning that provides integration of treatment and rehabilitation. Existing studies show that nurses and other professionals do not take responsibility for the collaborative element of intersectoral care between mental health hospitals and community mental health services. The users of mental healthcare do not experience their patient journey as a cohesive process when they are discharged from a mental health hospital to community mental health services. Aim: The integrative review aims to examine the professionals’ experience with recovery-oriented intersectoral care between mental health hospitals and community mental health services. Design: Since the aim was to review user experience, we chose an integrative review as an obvious choice for design. Ethical approval: Not applicable. Findings: Seven studies met the inclusion criteria. The interactive inductive and deductive analysis generated four themes, which clarify the experience of professionals with recovery-oriented intersectoral care between the mental health hospitals and community mental health services, namely ‘structurally routine care’, ‘unequal balance of power between the sectors’, ‘bureaucracy as a barrier to recovery-oriented intersectoral care’ and ‘flexible mental healthcare approaches’. Conclusion: This review achieves specific knowledge of recovery-oriented intersectoral care. The studies included show that recovery-oriented intersectoral care is not clearly defined. It is challenging to transfer intersectoral care to an organisation with different structural and linguistic barriers.


PLoS ONE ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. e0228868
Author(s):  
Richard N. Keers ◽  
Mark Hann ◽  
Ghadah H. Alshehri ◽  
Karen Bennett ◽  
Joan Miller ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document