The National High Secure Deaf Service at Rampton Hospital provides inpatient assessment, treatment and rehabilitation for D/deaf* males living with a range of difficulties including complex responses to trauma, mental health difficulties and/or learning disabilities. In 2011, the Deaf Prison In-Reach Service was established in conjunction with Yorkshire Specialist Commissioning Group and Nottinghamshire NHS Trust aiming to provide specialist support to D/deaf prisoners. * ‘D’ = Deafness as a culture, ‘d’ = deafness as a medical disability.

The team evaluated the service to raise awareness of the specific needs of D/deaf prisoners by identifying and describing characteristics, demographics, trends and patterns within existing data as well as highlighting the nature of offences, prevalence of trauma and length of time over tariff. A secondary aim was to identify areas for development to adequately meet the needs of D/deaf prisoners.

After reviewing data for 29 prisoners (female = 3, male = 26), the most common source of support offered by the DPRIS was signposting (over 50%), followed by direct individual work (with nursing or psychology), assessment and consultancy.

Since 2011, the DPRIS has assessed 30 individuals and completed over 717 prison visits for assessments and interventions. Whilst this has been acknowledged as a small number, it has been attributed to the difficulties locating D/deaf prisoners and lack of awareness regarding the DPRIS. Currently, referrals to the DPRIS come from prison healthcare staff, but this fails to address the wider specialist needs of this population: basic communication needs, occupational needs and risk reduction work. It also excludes individuals unknown to healthcare.

Direct engagement with the DPRIS included: focused risk reduction work, anger management, mental health monitoring, and 1:1 psychology work. Prior to involvement from the DPRIS, five individuals declined to engage in prison therapy. With support from the DPRIS, two were transferred to more appropriate placements, one was recommended for transfer (not transferred) and one received mental health monitoring (nursing). One continued to decline which could be attributed to potential (lack of) motivation/readiness.

This evaluation supports the need for specialist interventions to ensure equitable access to recovery and rehabilitation.

What Next?

It is hoped that the unique needs of this population will be communicated amongst professionals and steps will be made to address these as previously recommended in reports from the BDA (2016) and the Howard League.

Homosexuality was declassified as a mental illness in 1973 however LGBTQ+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer inclusive) service users still face discrimination within modern mental health services. This project assessed homophobia and LGBTQ+ abuse among service users on an acute male psychiatric ward. Our aims were to quantify the incidence of abuse, to explore staff attitudes toward LGBTQ+ abuse and to identify targets to improve LGBTQ+ service users’ experience. We hypothesised that incidents of abuse are common and not always challenged or escalated using appropriate channels.

Using a mixed methods approach we explored staff perceptions of LGBT+ abuse: quantitative data were generated from a questionnaire survey and qualitative data from a focus group.

Rates of homophobic incidents were assessed by analysing clinical documentation from two inpatient samples (n = 20), covering 2020–21 and 2021–22.

Analysis of clinical documentation found three incidents from the 2020–21 sample and two from 2021–22; only one of these was reported via DATIX.

The survey captured the views of the ward team including nurses, healthcare assistants (HCAs), doctors and psychologists (response n = 13). Staff attitudes towards LGBTQ+ were rated as “positive” by 77% of responders and “neutral” by 23%; 100% stated it was their professional duty to respect and protect LGBTQ+ clients. Almost two-thirds (62%) had witnessed homophobia on the ward however a similar proportion (61%) had never directly challenged homophobia. Whilst all staff felt able to care for LGBTQ+ clients, and all were familiar with key LGBTQ+ terminology, only 50% felt they had received adequate training to fully support LGBTQ+ clients.

The focus group identified a nursing “lead” for LGBTQ+ issues and agreed to incorporate a “diversity statement” into ward admission rules. LGBTQ+ visibility measures were promoted including LGBTQ+ posters across the ward and staff uptake of the Rainbow Badge Initiative.

Our findings suggest homophobia is prevalent in the male inpatient psychiatric setting and management is suboptimal. Enhanced LGBTQ+ training is required to support staff to challenge every homophobic incident and escalate appropriately.

Simple steps to increase LGBTQ+ visibility are feasible and popular among staff. Future work should assess the impact of such interventions, however measuring change may be hampered by underreporting.

Further evaluations are needed to assess female wards and patient perspectives to build a full picture of inpatient LGBTQ+ abuse.

The Staff Mental Health Service (SMHS) at the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust is a multidisciplinary team providing rapid access assessments and treatments to NHS staff in all roles. The service was launched in September 2020 and obtained recurrent funding in 2021. Previously we reported initial clinical findings from the service suggesting high rates of moderate to severe depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress symptoms (Kaser et al. 2021). In this report, we present the clinical and demographic findings, and post-treatment outcomes from the first-year evaluation of the SMHS.

Demographic and clinical data were collected as part of service evaluation at the SMHS. Depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress symptoms were evaluated by Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), Generalised Anxiety Disorder Assessment (GAD-7), and Posttraumatic Symptom Checklist – Civilian Version (PCL-C). Non-parametric Wilcoxon rank test was used to compare pre- and post-treatment symptom scores.

The service received 515 referrals in the first year. 39.6% of the patients were off work at the time of the referral. 81.2% patients were female and 75.3% were of white ethnicity. Median time from referral to assessment was 14 days. According to the clinical data (n = 320), 85.3% of the patients had moderate to severe depressive symptoms (mean PHQ-9: 16.25 ± 6.1), and 80.9% of the patients had moderate to severe levels of anxiety symptoms (mean GAD-7: 13.62 ± 4.7). Staff patients endorsed high levels of traumatic stress with 82.5% scoring higher than the established cut-off (PCL-C > 14) (PCL-C mean score: 19.14 ± 5.7). Analyses from patients completing treatment at the service showed significant improvements in depression (Z=−3.38, p = 0.001), anxiety (Z= -4.09, p < 0.001), and PTSD symptoms (Z= -4.99, p < 0.001).

The Staff Mental Health Service had a persistent noticeable demand in its first year corresponding to two percent of the total workforce of the local trusts. Healthcare workers presenting to the service had high rates of moderate to severe depression, anxiety, and PTSD symptoms. Multidisciplinary treatment at the SMHS led to significant improvements in psychiatric symptoms. A health economics analysis of the service is currently underway.

Patients who do not attend the appointments (DNA) pose a significant financial burden on the health care system. During the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been a shift from face-face to telephonic consultations. Our hypothesis was that pandemic can affect the prevalence of profile of clients who DNA. With this background, the aim of the current service evaluation was to assess the prevalence and profile of patients who did not attend their appointments through face-face consultation and telephonic consultations at the Complex care service south [CCS-South], Wolverhampton over a period of one year.

Retrospective evaluation of records of DNA appointments at CCS- South, Wolverhampton of Face-face appointments during March 17th 2019- March 16th 2020 [Pre-pandemic group] and telephonic consultations during March 17th 2020 – March 16th 2021 [pandemic group] was done. Prevalence of DNA was calculated as the number of DNA in CCS South/ number of DNA in total CCS × 100. Student t test, Mann U Whitney test, Chi square test were used to analyse the data.

The number of DNA in the pandemic group (625) was significantly higher than the pre-pandemic group (376) [χ2 = 86.31, p <0.00001]. Males had significantly higher DNA in pre-pandemic group (59.52%) whereas females had significantly higher DNA in the pandemic group (66.76%) [χ2 = 72.97, p <0.00001]. The mean (SD) age of clients in the pandemic group was 41.17 (12.39) years was significantly lower than the mean (SD) age of clients in the pre-pandemic group, 42.87 (13.72) years [t = 1.97; p = 0.049].

There was an increase in the Caucasian British (49.73% vs 38.40%) and Asian (29.52% vs 26.41%) in the pandemic group compared to pre-pandemic group. There was a decrease in the African-Caribbean group (10.11% vs 16.11%) and the mixed/other/unstated group (10.64% vs 19.20% vs) in the pandemic group compared to pre-pandemic group. It was the first DNA for twenty-four service users in the pre-pandemic group and none in the pandemic group. Those in the pandemic group (6.39 (6.79)) had significantly higher mean (SD) number of previous DNA than the pre-pandemic group (5.41 (7.50) [U = 98145; W = 293770; Z= -4.40; p = 0.000). There was no significant difference between the time of the appointment in both groups.

There was an increased number of DNA during the pandemic period and the profile of those who DNA during the pandemic was of that a female with a mean age of about 41 years with previous DNAs.

To evaluate and improve upon collection of data pertaining to substance misuse in opt-in questionnaires sent to patients accepted by a psychodynamic psychotherapy service in an inner London Trust, and to explore options for improving care for the population of patients identified as potentially having a substance misuse issue who are accepted by the service.

An initial audit of all opt-in questionnaires was conducted between September 2019 and September 2020. In this analysis of 144 responses, 72 were found to have indicated that they had experience of a substance misuse disorder. Of these responses, 55% of answers made it possible to discern the substance of misuse, and 31% of answers allowed for differentiation between historic and current misuse. In response to these findings, the AUDIT-C was incorporated into the opt in questionnaire with data subsequently collected and analysed between December 2020 and February 2021. Subsequently, patients identified as having and AUDIT-C score indicating possible harmful or dependent drinking were offered interventions stratified by score with a clinician supervised by the substance misuse service

In the re-audit period of opt-in questionnaires, there were 31 respondents, of whom 90% indicated that they or a contact had been concerned about their substance use. Inclusion of the AUDIT-C allowed for differentiation between alcohol and other substances in 100% of cases, and in 71% of cases it was possible to discern current vs historic substance misuse. In the period of December 2020- December 2021, four patients accepted the offer of a brief intervention.

It was felt that obtaining higher quality data pertaining to substance misuse in patients accepted for psychotherapy was beneficial in terms of being better able to understand needs of patients and also to guide clinical management. Furthermore, introduction of a pathway to guide interventions in cases identified as being potentially at risk appeared to be effective in addressing substance misuse within this population. It is hoped that this preliminary evaluation can guide further service model development within this psychotherapy department and within other services in order to better address the needs and improve access to services of patients with comorbid substance misuse disorders.

The Wolverhampton Memory Assessment Service (MAS) is nurse led and accepts referrals from primary and secondary care settings. There has been a rapid rise in the number of referrals as well as an increase in demand to provide a timely diagnosis. This poses a challenge to meet the national aspiration of referral to diagnosis in 6 weeks. The aim is to improve access to neuroimaging in order to avoid delays to diagnosis and management.

In January 2022, a retrospective sample of three groups of newly referred patients to MAS between 1st June-31st October 2021 was selected, each group consisting of 15 patients.

A dedicated tool was used to collect data. MAS follows NICE standards for neuroimaging in dementia guidance.

In Group 1 scans were not requested at referral but were requested after initial nursing assessment, in Group 2 scans were available at initial referral and in Group 3 scans were requested by the MAS Consultant Psychiatrist upon receipt of referral.

In group 1; 47% of patients have still not had a scan (with a waiting time of approximately 6 months) and 73% have not been given a diagnosis. Three patients were given a diagnosis due to exceptional circumstances and therefore the results of these patients can be disregarded.

In group 2, all (100%) patients had a scan either prior to the referral (73%) or requested by GPs at the time of referral (27%). 80% of patients have been given a diagnosis. The average days from referral to diagnosis was 82 days. Patients not given a diagnosis yet was due to cancellation/awaiting appointments.

In group 3, all (100%) patients have had a scan and 67% of patients have been given a diagnosis. The average days from referral to diagnosis was 102 days. Patients not given a diagnosis yet was due to cancellation/awaiting appointments.

Implementing a pathway whereby clinicians can either have access to prior neuroimaging or refer appropriate patients for scans at the point of referral, significantly reduces waiting times to diagnosis and management within a timely manner.

This reduces carer burden and provides increased support from appropriate services as well as reducing the chances of patients ending up on crisis pathways.

There is a need to implement an integrated care pathway that is responsive and accessible to all patients.

Patients with mental health disorders are known to have worse physical health outcomes. ‘Consultant Connect’ (CC) is an app-based communication platform which aims to improve patient outcomes and experience, by offering clinicians direct access to consultants working in a partnership acute Trust, so they can seek advice and guidance for their patients’ physical health problems. This creates whole system efficiencies by avoiding unnecessary referrals to an Emergency Department or outpatient clinics. This poster describes the implementation of CC in a large UK Mental Health Trust. Initially designed for GPs, this is the first time a UK Mental Health Trust has used CC.

Consultant Connect was launched in the Mental Health Trust's inpatient services in June 2020 as part of a Trust-wide programme of work aiming to improve the physical healthcare of mental health patients. In July 2021 it was rolled out across all services, including all community services. All platform activity was monitored and the implementation team collected data to determine: a) origin of call, b) which specialty was required, c) numbers of calls successfully connected, and in a subset of calls d) outcome of call. In addition, 183 call recordings were analysed, to identify clinical training needs and inform further development of the platform.

In the period June 2020 – December 2021, there were 1422 use episodes of the CC platform by Mental Health Trust clinicians. There were 401 Trust registered downloads of the CC App by the Trust clinicians. 53 different clinical specialties were contacted, with cardiology (414 calls), diabetes and endocrinology (243 calls), and haematology (124 calls) the most frequently called. 68% of queries received a response. 48% of calls had an outcome recorded, with 70% of these resulting in the physical healthcare being delivered by the mental health team, following the advice received (i.e. referral or admission avoided, or the patient treated out of hospital).

CC is being progressively embedded into clinical practice and has become a well-used pathway for mental health clinicians seeking immediate clinical advice from acute hospital Consultant colleagues. Further qualitative and quantitative work is planned with mental health clinicians, patients and carers to better understand their experience and determine if it improves care from both the clinicians’ and patients’ perspective.

The outbreak of COVID-19 in 2020 forced a sudden change in service delivery in CMHT. Remote consultations (RC) via telephone or video were introduced to facilitate safe contact between staff and patients. Traditional face to face (F2F) appointments have high rates of non-attendance (DNA). This project aimed to examine whether the DNA rate for CMHT appointments has been affected by the introduction of RC. In addition to this, patients were asked to give feedback about how they felt about the use of RC.

We retrospectively studied the outcome of outpatient medical appointments within City CMHT over two periods, namely pre COVID-19 which was between April to June 2019 and during COVID-19 which corresponded to the same period in 2020. A list of patients over these two periods were extracted from trust electrical medical record: System One (S1). Further review patients’ notes on S1 was conducted to identify DNA group, among which detailed information including gender, age groups, types of outpatient clinics (urgent or routine, first review or follow-up review), types of consultations (remote or F2F).

In addition, an anonymous patient feedback form on RC was given out to 30 patients attending F2F appointments at the clinic between May and August 2021.

94% appointments were conducted remotely in 2020 while 100% were F2F in 2019 during the periods studied. 2020 saw a 16% increase in attendance rate and a nearly half reduction in cancelled appointments from 30% to 16%. There was a slight drop in DNA rate by 2%.

19 patient feedbacks indicated at least one RC experience. Among them, 47% rated it as very good and 58% felt RC offered the same level of care and treatment as F2F. On the other hand, 74% would like to be seen F2F for future appointments when given a choice.

Free comments about RC were captured including ‘Not everything gets covered’, ‘it makes me anxious to talk to a medical team over the phone’ and ‘things like bruises could be missed in a RC’. However, one patient said they found RC is less stressful.

A massive shift from F2F to RC was seen due to COVID-19 restriction. Attendance rated was improved with RC, however, it was mainly achieved by a significant reduction in cancelled appointments. Its impact on overall DNA rate appeared minuscule.

Despite nearly half of the patients indicated RC is as good as F2F. Most patients prefer f2f for future consultation.

General hospital inpatients are routinely risk assessed for hospital associated venous thromboembolism (HAT) and given appropriate thromboprophylaxis if indicated. However, mental health trusts have not taken a similar approach in psychiatric inpatients, despite known risk factors, including some unique to psychiatric inpatients. We explored current practice of HAT prevention in English psychiatric inpatients.

A Freedom of Information Act (FOI) request was sent to all 71 English mental health trusts, asking whether there was a Venous Thromboembolism (VTE) policy, whether a VTE risk assessment tool was being used, what is looked like, and the incidence of HAT in their psychiatric inpatients i.e., VTE during admission or occurring up to 90 days post discharge.

We received 54 unique responses (76%) to the FOI. Of these, 36 (86%) shared their VTE policy, 26 (72%) of which had been adapted for this population; 38 (90%) shared their VTE risk assessment tool, of which 17 (45%) were adapted from the Department of Health VTE risk assessment tool.

Only five trusts out of 42 (12%) monitored VTE events up to 90 days post-discharge and 4 of these shared their monitoring policy. Only 18 (43%) were able to provide data on the number of psychiatric patients diagnosed with a VTE during their stay and up to 90 days post discharge between February 2016–2021, 6 (14%) said they would incur costs to collect this data and 9 (21%) were unable to access this data. Where information was provided, the number of HAT events ranged from 0–224 within each trust. Of the 18 trusts who provided data, a total of 514 events were recorded between Feb 2016-Feb 2021, but none of the trusts were able to confirm if this included VTE events up to 90 days post discharge.

Our FOI survey suggest a high incidence of VTE in psychiatric patients and indicate wide variation in HAT prevention in English hospitalised psychiatric patients. Most had a VTE Trusts had a policy in place, with 45% having a VTE risk assessment tool that listed risk factors unique to psychiatric patients, adapting VTE risk assessment tools in this way may lead to a greater use of thromboprophylaxis. The lack of access to data on HAT by mental health trusts is concerning. Further research is required to understand the rates of VTE, validate a VTE risk assessment tool and conduct trials looking at the benefit of thromboprophylaxis in psychiatric inpatients.

Within a multidisciplinary team of medical and non medical prescribers the aim of this project was to improve SSRI prescribing safety by 30% by June 2022. This was with view to enhance prescribing provision across the trust.

Multiple methods were done to improve staffs perception of safety. Criteria were set out in keeping with NICE guidance, RCPSYCH and BAP guidance on prescribing. Psychoeducation and focus groups were held to gauge colleagues thoughts on SSRI prescribing. This was along with pulse surveys.

An SSRI clinic was set up, with referral pathway, protocol for referral and staff clinics for reviews and new prescribing. This was to improve prescribing safety.

Health promotion leaflets were also made for the clinic in terms of non pharmacological methods to improve mental health.

Improved staff safety from a Good (3) to Excellent (5).

Established SSRI clinic which will be spread trust wide to the other clinics.

Better monitoring and education of SSRIs.

Health promotion benefits.

Improved staff safety from a Good (3) to Excellent (5).

Established SSRI clinic which will be spread trust wide to the other clinics.

Better monitoring and education of SSRIs.

Health promotion benefits.

A mental health promotion programme called ‘Healthy Me’, was a collaboration between Action Mental Health (AMH) MensSana, Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) in the Southern Health and Social Care Trust and the Royal College of Psychiatry (RCPsych) in Northern Ireland in 2014. Adapting ‘Healthy Me’ for delivery in special schools was recommended in evaluation of this pilot programme. A co-produced pilot adapted ‘healthy me’ programme, for young people with ID was taken forward by Action Mental Health (AMH) MensSana and Intellectual Disability Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service (ID CAMHS) in the Southern Health and Social Care Trust (SHSCT). To determine the feasibility of adaptation and delivery of the programme for the needs of the ID population. To inform changes to be made before wider roll-out. To promote children's social and emotional well-being and emotional literacy through the teaching of problem-solving, coping skills, conflict management and managing feelings. To evaluate the effectiveness of this intervention with children being able to retain learning, information and ideas.

Evaluation

• • Pre programme quiz July 2021 (young people)

• • Post session 1–5 quizzes (young people)

• • Post programme quiz October 2021 (young people)

• • Simple visual blob tree (young people)

• • Pre programme initial outcome measure (parent) The Mood, Interest and Pleasure Questionnaire-short form (MIPQ-S) July 2021

• • Pre programme initial outcome measure (parent) non standardised, based on the strength and difficulties questionnaire (SDQ) and the Child and Youth Resilience Measure-Revised Person Most Knowledgeable version (PMK-CYRM-R) July 2021

• • Post programme repeated outcome measure (parent) MIPQ-S October 2021

• • Post programme repeated outcome measure (parent) Based on SDQ & PMK-CYRM-R October 2021

Six participants identified at outset and four attended and engaged consistently, young people aged between 14 and 17 years. Participants were supported 1:1 to fill in a simple evaluation forms after sessions rating their enjoyment and what they had learnt. Repeating the MIPQ-S with parents highlighted some improved scores indicating positive affect and elevated interest and pleasure.

The programme will be offered to in the next stage of the pilot to Special Schools in NI. It is hoped to show that similar positive gains can be made in the school settings for children and young people with intellectual disability in terms of promoting positive mental health and social and emotional well-being.

The first 7 days following discharge from inpatient to community psychiatric services is a period that is associated with an increased risk of suicide. NICE Guideline 53 recommends that patients discharged from inpatient psychiatric services should be reviewed by relevant community services within 7 days. We aim to determine how different teams in NHS Lothian performed in meeting this recommendation, and to ascertain the outcome of a specific intervention in North-West Edinburgh (NW).

We collected data of NW, North-East (NE), South-West (SW), South-East (SE) Edinburgh, East Lothian and Midlothian patients discharged from General Adult Psychiatry wards in the Royal Edinburgh Hospital for the calendar year of 2021. East and Midlothian were used as a comparison to Edinburgh services as the former have an integrated inpatient and community team.

The data focused on the percentage of patients followed-up within 7 days of discharge. We also collected data for all NW CMHT patients discharged between January 2018 and November 2021 to analyse the intervention of using ‘Estimated Discharge Dates’ in ward rounds implemented in June 2020. Data were collected from NHS Lothian Analytical Services and anonymised in line with NHS Information Governance Policy.

Furthermore, qualitative data were collected anonymously from staff within NHS Lothian in the form of an online questionnaire to ascertain strengths and weaknesses of the current systems.

Over the calendar year of 2021, 1,398 patients were discharged. The average age was 41 years old.

Regarding percentage of patients receiving 7 day follow-up, East Lothian (n = 191/249; 76.7%) and Midlothian (n = 95/122; 77.9%) performed better than Edinburgh services; NW (n = 173/268; 64.6%), NE (n = 172/301, 57.1%), SW (n = 155/247, 62.8%), SE (n = 123/211; 58.3%).

The intervention in NW in June 2020 did not have a significant impact on 7 day follow-up.

The questionnaire identified difficulties in transitions from inpatient to community care, particularly communication between teams.

The performance of East and Midlothian versus Edinburgh services is interesting given their integrated model. This appears to support the findings of the questionnaire.

The lack of impact of the intervention in NW will need explored further with the team to identify difficulties.

Rather than complete service remodelling, perhaps moving towards a more integrated approach such as allocated discharge-coordinating community and inpatient nurses would be worthwhile. We will involve the NHS Lothian Quality Improvement team in exploring this to improve patient outcomes.

Background: Although social determinants of health (SDOH) are to some extent incorporated within preclinical medical education, little validated educational methodology exists to provide guidance on how to integrate teaching about SDOH within the competency-based training of medical students’ clinical years. This is potentially important. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the importance of SDOH, and social determinants have become topical, with increasing discussion in journals about equity, inequality, and sustainability. Sir Michael Marmot's 2020 review has highlighted these issues. Consequently, the evaluation of medical students’ experience of prison placements is an interesting area to investigate. This will help us to explore their understanding of SDOH, and implications of gained knowledge for their future practice. Aims: This study explores changes in year four psychological medicine students’ knowledge and attitude towards SDOH during prison placements.

A mixed-methods study between Sep 2021 to Apr 2022 recruiting all year four medical students on their psychiatry placement in North Wales. Data collection involves baseline and mid-placement questionnaires and end-of-placement individual interviews to explore their understanding of SDOH.

Thematic analysis will be used to describe students’ reflection on placement satisfaction; explore impacts on trainee doctors and supporting staff; make suggestions to improve placement structure in the future; and evaluate the utility of placements in prison.

Data collection is in progress. However, early indications suggest that students view these placements favourably and find them a helpful learning experience. Preliminary results will be reported at the conference.

We are hopeful that this evaluation will suggest a way forward to raise awareness about SDOH during clinical placements and will give these students confidence in working with socially excluded populations in the future.

Findings of this study may provide exploration of means of capacity building and training with improved knowledge of the SDOH in partnership between the medical school, the local health board and the prison.

We have developed systems and processes to raise awareness of social factors to be considered by medical students in their future practice. These can guide further development of such placements at HMP Berwyn and in other prisons.

This research was funded by Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board and sponsored by Bangor University in North Wales, UK.

This study aimed to review if clinicians varied significantly in choosing rapid tranquillisation agents when using consistent clinical guidelines, analysing the rationale behind decision-making. It also aimed to assess confidence across varying grades and clinical experience, and to evaluate efficacy of current trust guidelines. We hypothesized that less experienced clinicians would be less willing to prescribe antipsychotics for rapid tranquillisation, and that current guidelines did not allow for consistent and uniform prescribing.

A qualitative survey was distributed to 165 clinicians within one mental health trust, including core psychiatry trainees, trust-grade doctors, higher trainees, staff-grade doctors & working-age adult consultants. This survey included a fictional but commonly occurring scenario which clinicians responded to with the aid of current trust guidance. Respondents were then asked to justify their choice and to rank their confidence in prescribing rapid tranquillisation, along with rating how useful the guideline was in aiding their decision. Thirty-six participants responded to this survey, with a response rate of around 22%. There was even representation across clinical grades.

Clinicians of all grades were equally willing to prescribe antipsychotic agents for rapid tranquillisation. Higher psychiatric trainees reported greatest self-confidence when prescribing tranquillisation, with consultants surprisingly lower in confidence. Intramuscular olanzapine was most favourable, but significant variability was observed in suggested management between clinicians. Main themes for suggested amendments to the guideline included clarity, when to use the various options, further specification on dosage ranges and options for specific instances, such as if a patient is antipsychotic naïve or there is minimal physical health information.

There was marked variability in choice of agent. The majority of clinicians felt that early commencement of antipsychotic was beneficial in acutely unwell patients, although the merits of initially assessing medication-free were also raised. Key themes for tranquillisation choice included a need for a prior electrocardiogram to prescribe intramuscular haloperidol, the potential lack of efficacy with aripiprazole, the risk of respiratory depression with concurrent olanzapine and lorazepam, and a surprisingly high proportion of respondents opting for combined use of haloperidol plus a further sedative.

Less experienced clinicians were not found to lack confidence to prescribe antipsychotics for rapid tranquillisation. However, clinicians responding to the same clinical scenario using the same guideline resulted in marked variability in choosing rapid tranquillisation agents. This highlights a need for clearer guidelines and education on this matter to ensure a consistent treatment approach to tranquillising medication.

The COVID-19 pandemic brought unprecedented disruptions in the ways we lived and interacted with one another. Research studies done in the immediate aftermath suggested that the COVID-19 pandemic and associated lockdown restrictions may have increased feelings of isolation and loneliness, which together with disruptions in services may have precipitated psychological distress and mental health deterioration, particularly among persons with pre-existing mental health conditions. Following the introduction of first national lockdown in late March 2020, all visits to the hospital by family and friends were ceased. VTC became one of the rapid interventions implemented across several NHS Hospitals to promote continued patient contact with carers. In October 2021, we set out to undertake an evaluation project to determine the level of patient satisfaction with the use of Skype for social visits, to understand patient and staff perspectives on its pros and cons, and to understand patient preference post-COVID-19 pandemic.

All ward-based staff who had ever facilitated Skype social visits and all patients who had had at least one social visit facilitated by Skype were approached to participate in the project. Data were collected using anonymous questionnaires with both quantitative and qualitative items.

A total of twenty-nine patients and thirty-nine nursing staff participated in the study.

Sixty-two per cent of patient-participants reported being satisfied with the Skype social visits and over half (52%) rated the Skype social visits as ‘the same’ as face-to-face visits. All participants reported patient-satisfaction with the process and speed of setting up a Skype visit, the benefits of visual contact and the reduction of travel costs. A few patient-participants noted that they relished the opportunity of seeing their home environment. Issues regarding increased demands on staffing resources, privacy, IT skills, and hardware and software glitches were identified.

Overall, Skype social visits have been a positive experience for the patients and have not resulted in any significant risk concerns. Most patients (90%) indicated that they would like Skype social visits to continue post-COVID-19 pandemic.

The average length of stay (LOS) of patients is often longer in forensic compared to general adult mental health units and about 4.5 years at the study site. This evaluation found that the introduction of Skype for the purposes of social visits was considered a useful development by both patients and staff. The study findings were fed back to all stakeholders and certain changes have been implemented as a result.

Neuropsychiatry Service in East Kent typically receives referrals for patients with brain injury, progressive neurological conditions, epilepsy specific neuropsychiatric conditions, rare forms of dementia, and functional neurological conditions. COVID-19 pandemic disrupted routine functioning of the service requiring multiple service innovations including introduction of remote access assessments, skills development clinics, and video-conferencing based psychoeducation groups. We conducted a service evaluation with governance approval to understand the impact of COVID-19 work model changes on referral sources, patient attendance, discharge destinations and the mental health professionals’ involvement in the management of the patients referred to the service.

We applied to Service Evaluation and Audit Group of Kent and Medway NHS Partnership Trust for permission to collect service data using routinely collected clinical and business administration information. We used an approved data collection form for anonymized data collection. We analysed data for new patient assessments conducted over one-year prior to COVID-19 lockdown announced on 23rd March 2020 and compared it with one-year post-COVID lockdown period ending on 22 March 2021. We used Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) to carry out descriptive and statistical analysis of the data from two service evaluation period.

The total number of new patient assessments conducted during the two designated service evaluation periods was 365. 233 new patient assessments (64%) were conducted during the one-year pre-COVID-19 lockdown and 132 (36%) new patient assessments were conducted during the one-year post-COVID-19 lockdown.

Neurology teams in the local area were the main source of referrals during the two study periods, referring 59% and 51% of total referrals during the two evaluation periods respectively. Other referral sources included local memory service, inpatient psychiatric units, community mental health teams, neuropsychology, neurorehabilitation, palliative care and acute medicine. The primary management model was multidisciplinary. 49% of assessment contacts were made by specialist nursing during the first evaluation period. 48% of assessment contacts were made by the medical staff during the post-lockdown period. 13.3% of patients did not attend their appointments during the first period, dropping to 9.8% in the Post-Lockdown period.

Most patients who completed treatment were discharged to GP care (89% pre-COVID-19 and 94% post-lockdown). 12% patients from Pre-Lockdown period were still receiving care at the end of one year and 35% were still receiving care in at the end of post-lockdown period.

The service evaluation identifies systemic differences in service use characteristics during Pre-lockdown and Post-lockdown periods.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, many service lines needed to be transformed to enable more telemedicine and virtual consultations. This enabled seamless care across many service boundaries as all services adapted to operate virtually. During COVID-19, the mental health of many patients deteriorated. With easing of restrictions, we wanted the patient voice to be heard and to ensure our service was patient-centred. We undertook a service evaluation to understand our patients preferences. Our cross-sectional study evaluated patient preferences for their care which we felt was important as earlier during pandemic, patients did not have the choice to choose between virtual vs face-to-face consultations. We felt this was important to our patients so they could exercise choice of consultation and this would enable the patient voice to be heard.

591 patients across three practices in primary care were identified from the Serious Mental Illness (SMI) and on the depression register. They were asked about their preference of care: telemedicine vs face-to-face consultations. Using a simple questionnaire, in order to record their preference on the patient screen. Of these a total of 495 patients (83%) participated in the study.

Of the 495 respondents, 308 (52%) declined virtual telemedicine consultations and 175 (29%) patients were content with virtual consultations. Of the 175 patients who wanted telemedicine were 20 to 40 years of age. Reasons given included convenience (allows family and work commitment) and overall time management (reluctancy to travel). The 308 patients (52%) wanted face-to-face consultations because they wanted human contact, validation of their mental health problems, reassurance and were uncomfortable about discussions on the phone. They also had poor mobility especially the elderly who chose traditional models of care.

As services are restored to the new norm of patient care, patient choice should remain paramount if services are to remain patient centric. During the COVID-19 pandemic, many services transformed to virtual consultation of necessity without recognising the impact on patients themselves. Patients with serious mental health and depression are inherently vulnerable and our evaluation goes to show that despite the popularity of telemedicine. Patient choice should enable patients to access face-to-face care for greater patient satisfaction.

Springbank Ward, in the CPFT NHS trust, is a specialist unit for patients with a diagnosis of emotionally unstable personality disorder (EUPD). Psychiatric wards often use restrictive practices to try and minimise suicide risk. Using risk assessment checklists to decide whether to grant leave is one example. Research shows that it is not possible to predict suicide or self-harm risk at an individual level, regardless of the assessment method used, so we questioned the utility of such an approach. A previous evaluation of our leave protocol showed that patients and staff would favour a less restrictive and more personalised approach. We introduced a new protocol that eliminated use of checklists, replacing them with an optional 1:1 conversation with staff before leaving the ward. Our aim in this service evaluation was to determine whether there was any significant change in rates of incidents on the ward and during leave as a result of this new, less restrictive leave protocol.

Data were obtained from the records of incidents on Springbank ward from March 2019 to March 2021. These incidents were recorded by members of staff on the ward, and ranked according to the severity of harm that resulted from these incidents. The rankings from least severe to most severe recorded during the study were ‘No harm’, ‘Low (Minimal Harm)’, and ‘Moderate (Short term harm)’. The number of incidents which occurred for the year before and the year after the policy change were compared. The comparison compared both the total amount of incidents and the sub-types of incidents.

In the 365 days following the change in protocol, there was a 15.5% decrease in total incidents and a 51.0% decrease in incidents occurring off the ward compared to the 365 days before the change in protocol. Notably there was a 61% decrease in total (both on and off the ward) Moderate (Short term harm) incidents, the most harmful type of incident recorded, following the change in protocol.

The decrease in incidents following the change in protocol suggests that replacing the use of a formal risk assessment checklist with a holistic alternative improves patient safety.

Pain, depression, anxiety, and psychosis are common non-cognitive symptoms of dementia. They are often underdiagnosed and can cause significant distress and carer strain. Numerous standardised assessment tools (SATs) exist and are recommended for the assessment of non-cognitive symptoms of dementia. Anecdotal evidence suggests that SATs are used rarely and inconsistently. This study aims to explore which SATs to detect non-cognitive symptoms of dementia are recommended in local guidelines and used in practice across different organisations. Secondary aims were to identify barriers and facilitators to using these tools.

This service evaluation is cross-sectional in design. A questionnaire was developed and distributed to clinicians working with patients with advanced dementia in any setting, across four geographical locations (Leeds, Bradford, Hull, and Cambridge). Quantitative data were analysed descriptively, and qualitative data from free-text comments were interpreted using thematic analysis.

135 professionals from a range of backgrounds and clinical settings completed the survey. Respondents indicated that SATs for non-cognitive symptoms in dementia were rarely used or recommended. Respondents were unaware of the existence of most SATs listed. 80% respondents felt that SATs were a useful adjunct to a structured clinical assessment. The most recommended tool was the Abbey Pain Scale, with 41 respondents indicating its recommendation by their Trust. Perceived facilitators to using SATs include education and training, reliable IT systems and accessibility. Barriers include lack of time and training.

Numerous SATs are available for use in dementia, but they are rarely recommended in local policy or used in practice. There appears to be a lack of consensus on which, if any, are superior diagnostic tools, and on how or when they should be applied.

The aim of this project was to assess the efficacy of remote consultations in patients with Learning Disability (LD). In Aneurin Bevan University Health Board, teleconsultation or “Attend Anywhere” (Video) platforms are the two types of remote consultation that is being offered.

A 9- point Questionnaire was used to assess the efficiency of the consultation. During consultation (Either telephone or attend anywhere), data were collected by the consultants by answering the questionnaire. 23 clinics organised between 04/06/2020 to 23/06/2020 for Service Users' (SU) follow-up.

The following key points were covered in the questionnaire:

1. 1. Mode of consultation- telephone or attend anywhere

2. 2. Presence of the SU

3. 3. Introduction

4. 4. Availability of information (patient notes/shared drives) prior to consultation

5. 5. Time constraints

6. 6. Information not covered due to lack of face-to-face consult

7. 7. Technical difficulties

8. 8. Expectations from SU

9. 9. Feedback from SU

1. 1. The most common mode of consultation was via telephone (70%), followed by Attend Anywhere (30%)

2. 2. The majority of conversations were with SU's family or carers (70%); consultations with SU were only 30%. SU were unable to attend the consultation due to: Communication difficulty (26%), follow-ups provided by carer's/family's feedback (21.7%), SU away due to physical health reasons, or in day care (17.3%).

3. 3. Introductions were done and sufficient information regarding the service users were available in all consultations.

4. 4. Expectation of SU/carers/family was with regards to medication review (43%).

5. 5. 52% of remote consultation were disrupted due to technical problems, for instance call drops and line disruptions, microphone issues and SU not being able to use attend anywhere because of its complexity.

It was demonstrated that remote consultation could possibly be most effective for medication reviews or regular follow-up appointments.

Some of the aspects that were not covered due to the shortcomings of remote consultations were:

1. a. Difficulty in assessing body language and facial expressions

2. b. Difficulty in assessing the level of function of SU

3. c. Unable to monitor physical health parameters

4. d. Difficulty in picking up non-verbal cues, and assess eye contact to ascertain mood component of presentation.