Background During the COVID-19 pandemic, 40 mental health and well-being hubs were funded in England to support health and social care staff affected by the pandemic.Aims To describe the characteristics of staff accessing four hubs for support and identify characteristics associated with clinically significant mental health difficulties and work and social functioning.Method Routinely collected screening data were analysed from 1973 individuals across 4 hubs, including mental health, demographic and occupational data and pandemic-related stressors. Factors associated with clinically significant mental health difficulties were identified via logistic regression.Results Most hub clients identified as white women who worked for the UK National Health Service; other groups were less well represented. Hub clients reported high levels of clinically significant mental health difficulties: 60% had severe and often co-occurring difficulties (ie, depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder or alcohol use) and 80% reported significantly impaired functioning. Younger age, disability status, identifying as from a minority ethnic group, and sexual orientations excluding heterosexual were associated with higher likelihood of having clinically significant mental health difficulties. Suffering financial loss during the pandemic, and prepandemic emotional well-being concerns were the most consistent factors associated with higher difficulties.Conclusions The hubs supported health and social care staff with significant mental health difficulties. Outreach and engagement with under-represented groups should be undertaken to address potential barriers to service access. The findings add to the knowledge base on the support needs of the health and social care workforce and the planning of support in response to future crises.

Abstract Key workers are vulnerable to adverse mental health. To ensure service sustainability during COVID-19, Resilience Hubs were established across England offering outreach, screening, and mental health support. This evaluation aimed to describe wider service use, associated costs, and satisfaction among Hub clients (key workers) accessing Hub support. Clients accessing support across four Hubs were invited to complete a service use questionnaire, between 5 and 8 months post referral, collecting satisfaction, wider service use and cost data. Exploratory linear regression assessed the relationship between demographic variables and service use. Most Hub clients reported Hub contact post referral (219/299, 73.2%), with many accessing mental health support (171/299, 57.2%) or on waitlists (34/299, 11.4%). Satisfaction was high, with median helpfulness rated 92 (out of 100), and many stating that Hubs either fully (148/299, 49.5%) or partially (54/299, 18.1%) met their needs. Mental health support accounted for most service use, with higher total service use and costs when including Hub services (£514 versus £213). Key workers have complex needs. Hub services helped clients to access support, with high reported satisfaction indicating that Hubs met clients needs. Further research is required to assess how service use varies according to occupation or demographic characteristics, and whether Hubs are clinically and cost-effective.

The aim of this chapter is to provide a conceptual overview for emergency planners and responders of the different patterns of emergencies, incidents, disasters, and disease outbreaks (EIDD) and the challenges that they pose for mounting a mental health response. Issues covered include anticipating who is affected, where they are located, and how they can be identified and contacted, as well as other implications for public health and clinical services.

The aim of this chapter is to provide an overview of the challenges that have affected healthcare staff in the UK through the COVID-19 pandemic, and to illustrate a selection of the responses of the UK's National Health Service in establishing support systems and services to help to mitigate the psychosocial and mental health impacts on staff. The topics covered include the context of the NHS at the start of the pandemic and the framework on which the NHS response was based, the impact of the pandemic on staff members and teams, the initiatives put in place to support staff, and challenges for the future.

Background NHS England funded 40 Mental Health and Wellbeing Hubs to support health and social care staff affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to document variations in how national guidance was adapted to the local contexts of four Hubs in the North of England.Methods We used a modified version of Price's (2019) service mapping methodology. Service level data were used to inform the analysis. A mapping template was adapted from a range of tools, including the European Service Mapping Schedule, and reviewed by Hub leads. Key data included service model; staffing; and interventions. Data were collected between March 2021 - March 2022 by site research assistants. Findings were accuracy-checked by Hub leads, and a logic model developed to theorise how the Hubs may effect change.Results Hub goals and service models closely reflected guidance; offering: proactive outreach; team-based support; clinical assessment; onward referral, and rapid access to mental health support (in-house and external). Implementation reflected a service context of a client group with high mental health need, and high waiting times at external mental health services. Hubs were predominantly staffed by experienced clinicians, to manage these mental health presentations and organisational working. Formulation-based psychological assessment and the provision of direct therapy were not core functions of the NHS England model, however all Hubs incorporated these adaptations into their service models in response to local contexts, such as extensive waiting lists within external services, and/or client presentations falling between gaps in existing service provision. Finally, a standalone clinical records system was seen as important to reassure Hub users of confidentiality. Other more nuanced variation depended on localised contexts.Conclusion This study provides a map for setting up services, emphasising early understandings of how new services will integrate within existing systems. Local and regional contexts led to variation in service configuration. Whilst additional Hub functions are supported by available literature, further research is needed to determine whether these functions should comprise essential components of staff wellbeing services moving forward. Future research should also determine the comparative effectiveness of service components, and the limits of permissible variation.Study registration researchregistry6303.

Background Resilience Hubs provide mental health screening, facilitation of access and direct provision of psychosocial support for health and social care keyworkers in England affected by the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Aim To explore implementation of the Hubs, including characteristics of staff using the services, support accessed, costing data and a range of stakeholder perspectives on the barriers and enablers to Hub use and implementation of staff well-being support within the context of the pandemic. Design Mixed-methods evaluation. Setting Four Resilience Hubs. Methods Findings were integrated via mixed-method case studies, including: analyses of Hub mental health screening (N = 1973); follow-up questionnaire data (N = 299) on service use and health status of Hub clients; economic information provided by the Hubs; 63 interviews with Hub staff, wider stakeholders, Hub clients and keyworkers who did not use the Hubs. Results Findings were consistent across Hubs and workstreams. Most Hub clients were NHS staff. Under-represented groups included men, keyworkers from minority ethnic communities, care homes and emergency services staff. Clients reported comorbid mental health needs across multiple domains (anxiety; depression; post-traumatic stress; alcohol use; functioning). Their health status was lower than population norms and relevant pre-pandemic data. Several factors predicted higher needs, but having pre-pandemic emotional well-being concerns was one of the most robust predictors of higher need. Sixty per cent of participants who completed follow-up questionnaires reported receiving mental health support since Hub screening, most of which was directly or indirectly due to Hub support. High levels of satisfaction were reported. As in many services, staffing was the central component of Hub cost. Hubs were predominantly staffed by senior clinicians; this staffing model was consistent with the generally severe difficulties experienced by clients and the need for systemic/team-based working. Costs associated with health and social care use for Hub clients were low, which may be due to barriers to accessing support in general. Enablers to accessing Hubs included: a clear understanding of the Hubs, how to self-refer, and managerial support. Barriers included confusion between Hubs and other support; unhelpful beliefs about job roles, unsupportive managers, negative workplace cultures and difficulties caused by systemic issues. Some keyworkers highlighted a perceived need for further diversity and cultural competency training to improve reach to under-represented communities. Other barriers for these groups included prior negative experiences of services, structural inequalities and stigma. Some wider stakeholders had concerns around growing waiting times for Hub-provided therapy, and insufficient data on Hub usage and outcomes. Feedback was otherwise very positive. Limitations Main limitations included lack of comparative and pre-pandemic/baseline data, small numbers from under-represented groups limiting fine-grained analysis, and participant self-selection. Conclusions Findings highlighted the value of the Hub model of outreach, screening, support navigation and provision of direct support during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, and as a potential model to respond to future crises. The research provided recommendations to improve Hub promotion, equality/diversity/inclusion access issues, management of specialist resources and collection of relevant data on Hub outcomes and activities. Broader recommendations for the primary prevention of mental health difficulties across the health and care system are made, as individual support offers should be an adjunct to, not a replacement for, resolutions to systemic challenges. Research recommendations are made to conduct more robust evaluations of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the Hubs, using larger data sets and comparative data. Study registration This study is registered as researchregistry6303. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR132269) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 29. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

BackgroundThe internet has become a place of increased risk of abuse, including sexual abuse, for young people (YP). One potential risk factor to online abuse and exploitation is the ability to mentalise. We developed the i-Minds app, a mentalisation-based digital health intervention (DHI) for YP who have experienced technology assisted sexual abuse (TASA), which we tested in a clinical feasibility trial. Nested within the trial was a qualitative implementation study with clinicians who referred to the trial.ObjectiveTo explore the barriers and enablers to the future integration of i-Minds into clinical practice.Participants and settingTwelve HCPs were recruited from across two trial recruitment sites (Manchester and Edinburgh).MethodsSemi-structured interviews were informed by Normalisation Process Theory (NPT). Framework analysis was used; transcripts were coded deductively to NPT constructs.ResultsPractitioners were positive about the need for, and added value of, the i-Minds app over existing interventions, including other DHIs. While they felt confident with the app, concerns remained around the safety of using the app without practitioner support. i-Minds promoted changes in practitioners' work and impacted online behaviour of YP. There was an identified need for further training and organisational support.ConclusionsPractitioners are aware of TASA but have limited knowledge, skills and tools to work with TASA in clinical practice with YP. There is a need for awareness raising and education about TASA and DHI. i-Minds offers a theory-informed DHI for working with YP exposed to TASA that is acceptable to practitioners and YP.

Objectives Evaluate the implementation of Hubs providing access to psychological support for health and social care keyworkers affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.Design Qualitative interviews informed by normalisation process theory to understand how the Hub model became embedded into normal practice, and factors that disrupted normalisation of this approach.Setting Three Resilience Hubs in the North of England.Participants Hub staff, keyworkers who accessed Hub support (Hub clients), keyworkers who had not accessed a Hub, and wider stakeholders involved in the provision of staff support within the health and care system (N=63).Results Hubs were generally seen as an effective way of supporting keyworkers, and Hub clients typically described very positive experiences. Flexibility and adaptability to local needs were strongly valued. Keyworkers accessed support when they understood the offer, valuing a confidential service that was separate from their organisation. Confusion about how Hubs differed from other support prevented some from enrolling. Beliefs about job roles, unsupportive managers, negative workplace cultures and systemic issues prevented keyworkers from valuing mental health support. Lack of support from managers discouraged keyworker engagement with Hubs. Black, Asian and minority ethnic keyworkers impacted by racism felt that the Hubs did not always meet their needs.Conclusions Hubs were seen as a valuable, responsive and distinct part of the health and care system. Findings highlight the importance of improving promotion and accessibility of Hubs, and continuation of confidential Hub support. Policy implications for the wider health and care sector include the central importance of genuine promotion of and value placed on mental health support by health and social care management, and the creation of psychologically safe work environments. Diversity and cultural competency training is needed to better reach under-represented communities. Findings are consistent with the international literature, therefore, likely to have applicability outside of the current context.

Objective: Health care workers have been exposed to a variety of practical and emotional challenges because of the Covid-19 pandemic, leaving them vulnerable to experiencing moral injury and distress. However, there is currently sparse research which directly explores such experiences. This study aimed to explore and characterise the experiences and impacts of moral injury and distress among health care workers during the pandemic. Methods: Twenty semi-structured interviews were conducted with health care workers employed across both mental and physical health care services. Interviews were analysed from a critical realist perspective using thematic analysis. Results: Three key themes were identified: attitudes towards moral injury, experiences of moral injury and consequences of moral injury. Participants appeared to identify with the idea of acting against their morals to varying extents based on their job roles. Participants experienced a range of potentially morally injurious and distressing events throughout the pandemic and many ultimately felt that they provided sub-standard levels of care due to extreme pressures on services. Detrimental impacts upon wellbeing were commonly reported, including high levels of emotional distress and feelings of guilt and shame. Some reported a loss of enthusiasm for their job and a desire to leave the profession entirely. Conclusion: Moral injury and distress presents a real concern for staff wellbeing and retention within the profession. During and beyond the Covid-19 pandemic, there is an urgent need for health care providers to implement wider strategies to target moral injury and distress, and support staff within health care settings.

INTRODUCTION:Workplace trauma in mental health settings is defined as exposure to verbal and physical aggression, witnessing self-harm or hearing about patients' histories of abuse. Support for workplace trauma is important for staff well-being, staff retention and ultimately patient care. Assessing the extent and adequacy of staff support for workplace trauma in mental health settings is important in identifying areas of need and good practice. AIM:To determine what staff support systems are in place for workplace trauma in mental health services across England. METHODS:Freedom of Information Act requests were sent to all 57 National Health Service Trusts providing mental health care in England to identify policies on the support to mental health staff after traumatic incidents that they have experienced in the course of their clinical duties. RESULTS:Fifty-five Trusts provided usable data. Only half provided evidence of a psychologically informed incident response that went beyond a fact-finding exercise and only a fifth of Trusts used an established model for the response process. A small proportion of policies acknowledged workplace traumas related to staff discrimination on the basis of protected characteristics. CONCLUSION:There is insufficient attention to supporting mental health staff with the effects of workplace trauma.

Background We have previously argued that psychiatric diagnosis, by focusing on pathology, minimises the role of psychosocial factors. Despite suggestions that traditional diagnosis is the only way to access treatment services, we have recommended standardised use of existing codes for possible social determinants and precise description of psychological phenomena. Aims This study examines the current use of social determinant and phenomenological codes in mental health care records. Methods Data provided by a local NHS Trust included 21,701 cases with a first contact date between 01 January 2015 and 01 January 2016, 4656 of whom received a primary diagnosis. Results Overall, codes for possible social determinants were used on only 43 occasions, for 39 individuals (0.8% of the 4656 people receiving a primary diagnosis). Comparison with relevant baseline frequencies revealed a highly significant under-reporting of key social determinants. 19 cases (0.4% of 4.656) used codes for precise description of specific psychological phenomena. Conclusions Available ICD codes for social determinants and specific psychological phenomena are under-used in clinical practice.

Background A 2017 terrorist attack in Manchester, UK, affected large numbers of adults and young people. During the response phase (first seven weeks), a multi-sector collaborative co-ordinated a decentralised response. In the subsequent recovery phase they implemented a centralised assertive outreach programme, ‘The Resilience Hub’, to screen and refer those affected. We present a process evaluation conducted after 1 year. Methods Case study, involving a logic modelling approach, aggregate routine data, and semi-structured interviews topic guides based on the Inter-Agency Collaboration Framework and May’s Normalisation Process Theory. Leaders from health, education and voluntary sectors (n = 21) and frontline Resilience Hub workers (n = 6) were sampled for maximum variation or theoretically, then consented and interviewed. Framework analysis of transcripts was undertaken by two researchers. Results Devolved government, a collaborative culture, and existing clinical networks meant that, in the response phase, a collaboration was quickly established between health and education. All but one leader evaluated the response positively, although they were not involved in pre-disaster statutory planning. However, despite overwhelming positive feedback there were clear difficulties. (1) Some voluntary sector colleagues felt that it took some time for them to be involved. (2) Other VCSE organisations were accused of inappropriate, harmful use of early intervention. (3) The health sector were accused of overlooking those below the threshold for clinical treatment. (4) There was a perception that there were barriers to information sharing across organisations, which was particularly evident in relation to attempts to outreach to first responders and other professionals who may have been affected by the incident. (5) Hub workers encountered barriers to referring people who live outside of Greater Manchester. After 1 year of the recovery phase, 877 children and young people and 2375 adults had completed screening via the Resilience Hub, 79% of whom lived outside Greater Manchester. Conclusions The psychosocial response to terrorist attacks and other contingencies should be planned and practiced before the event, including reviews of communications, protocols, data sharing procedures and workforce capacity. Further research is needed to understand how the health and voluntary sectors can best collaborate in the wake of future incidents.

OBJECTIVES:This study explored the prevalence of childhood sexual/physical abuse (CSA/CPA) as identified by practitioners in Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) services and clarified differences in clients' characteristics with and without a history of CSA/CPA.METHODS:A retrospective analysis of a large dataset comprised of IAPT routine data and data from a local service evaluation reporting on clients' presenting problems.RESULTS:14% of IAPT clients (n = 1,315) were identified with a record of CSA/CPA. CSA/CPA history was associated with longer duration and earlier age of onset of condition(s), greater number of presenting problems and post-traumatic stress disorder co-occurrence, higher intensity treatment delivery, and lower recovery rates.CONCLUSIONS:CSA/CPA history appears as an important feature in a sizable minority of IAPT clients; further work is required to meet clients' trauma-related needs.PRACTITIONER POINTS:A sizable minority of IAPT clients (14%) present with a history of CSA/CPA as recorded in clinical notes. CSA/CPA history is associated with more complex and enduring presentations in IAPT clients. The reported CSA/CPA frequency is likely to be underestimates of the actual prevalence and impact of adverse childhood experiences in IAPT clients. Trauma-informed inquiry and trauma-specific screening tools would help practitioners to meet clients' trauma-related needs.

Clinical Impact Statement The findings show that one of the main aims of memorials and archives created after traumatic events is to provide therapeutic value for the general public and those directly affected. Professionals such as archivists may be negatively affected by working with these distressing materials. Limited research in this area has been undertaken to date. It is important that this evidence gap be addressed with more empirical research. Our recommendations include (a) exploring the use of memorial archives as an adjunct to therapy as part of the trauma recovery process, (b) exploring potential negative impacts of spontaneous memorials, and (c) large-scale data collection. Objective: The creation of spontaneous memorials has become an increasingly common response following a traumatic event, such as the Manchester Arena attack, the 2016 Paris attacks, and September 11, 2001, in New York. In many cases, spontaneous memorials are collected and archived. This article is the 1st to date to review the research literature on the potential psychological and therapeutic impact of such archives. Method: This study presents a literature review of 35 articles (including empirical research, discussion papers and gray literature) that explore the psychological functions of spontaneous memorials and why they may have been created. Results: Research has indicated that therapeutic impact is 1 of the main intended or assumed outcomes of such memorials and archives when it comes to those directly affected and the broader public. However, it has also been suggested that working with these materials can have a detrimental psychological impact on cultural professionals such as archivists, and research has recommended that mental health support should be in place for those working with the materials. This review indicates that there is limited research within this area and demonstrates a clear need to explore the impact of spontaneous memorials and their archives further, including avenues of support that may be helpful for professionals. Conclusion: Because spontaneous memorials are becoming an ever-increasing phenomenon, it is important to address this evidence gap to help guide cultural, health care, and other professionals in how best to present and potentially use these archives therapeutically in the future.

BACKGROUND:Diagnoses are controversial but ubiquitous in mental health; however, whether they are essential features of service entry has not been analysed.AIM:To investigate the use of diagnosis in the service entry criteria of UK NHS adult mental health services.METHODS:Freedom of Information requests were made to 17 NHS adult mental health Trusts; responses were analysed thematically.RESULTS:Four service types were identified: broadly diagnostic, problem-specific, supporting specific life circumstances and needs-led. Diagnoses were used frequently but not universally. Non-diagnostic factors were central to service entry criteria.CONCLUSIONS:Diagnoses were neither necessary nor sufficient in-service entry criteria. Broad clusters of difficulties were used rather than specific diagnoses. Extensive exceptions revealed diagnoses as inefficient proxies for risk, severity and need. Differences across criteria appeared largely driven by professional competencies. Implications for innovative care pathways include preventative services and working with psychosocial factors.

The theory and practice of psychiatric diagnosis are central yet contentious. This paper examines the heterogeneous nature of categories within the DSM-5, how this heterogeneity is expressed across diagnostic criteria, and its consequences for clinicians, clients, and the diagnostic model. Selected chapters of the DSM-5 were thematically analysed: schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorders; bipolar and related disorders; depressive disorders; anxiety disorders; and trauma- and stressor-related disorders. Themes identified heterogeneity in specific diagnostic criteria, including symptom comparators, duration of difficulties, indicators of severity, and perspective used to assess difficulties. Wider variations across diagnostic categories examined symptom overlap across categories, and the role of trauma. Pragmatic criteria and difficulties that recur across multiple diagnostic categories offer flexibility for the clinician, but undermine the model of discrete categories of disorder. This nevertheless has implications for the way cause is conceptualised, such as implying that trauma affects only a limited number of diagnoses despite increasing evidence to the contrary. Individual experiences and specific causal pathways within diagnostic categories may also be obscured. A pragmatic approach to psychiatric assessment, allowing for recognition of individual experience, may therefore be a more effective way of understanding distress than maintaining commitment to a disingenuous categorical system.

BACKGROUND:Terrorist attacks have increased globally since the late 1990s with clear evidence of psychological distress across both adults and children and young people (CYP). After the Manchester Arena terrorist attack, the Resilience Hub was established to identify people in need of psychological and psychosocial support.AIMS:To examine the severity of symptoms and impact of the programme.METHOD:The hub offers outreach, screening, clinical telephone triage and facilitation to access evidenced treatments. People were screened for trauma, depression, generalised anxiety and functioning who registered at 3, 6 and 9 months post-incident. Baseline scores were compared between screening groups (first screen at 3, 6 or 9 months) in each cohort (adult, CYP), and within groups to compare scores at 9 months.RESULTS:There were significant differences in adults' baseline scores across screening groups on trauma, depression, anxiety and functioning. There were significant differences in the baseline scores of CYP across screening groups on trauma, depression, generalised anxiety and separation anxiety. Paired samples t-tests demonstrated significant differences between baseline and follow-up scores on all measures for adults in the 3-month screening group, and only depression and functioning measures for adults in the 6-month screening group. Data about CYP in the 3-month screening group, demonstrated significant differences between baseline and follow-up scores on trauma, generalised anxiety and separation anxiety.CONCLUSIONS:These findings suggest people who register earlier are less symptomatic and demonstrate greater improvement across a range of psychological measures. Further longitudinal research is necessary to understand changes over time.DECLARATION OF INTEREST:None.

Serious problems identified after the 2005 London bombings still remain, argue Kate Allsopp and colleagues Mental health responses for people caught up in terror attacks are often inadequate. Internationally, existing services repeatedly fail to identify those with short and long term needs, resulting in an increased prevalence of post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, and anxiety disorders compared with the general population.1 Health services should plan for short and longer term psychosocial care and mental health treatment for the substantial minority who need interventions.2 But the UK has been slow to learn. Many shortcomings in the response to the 2005 London bombings remained at the time of the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing, despite proposals for a new approach. Here, we discuss how services have evolved since 2005 and what still needs to be done. The demographics of the affected population are central to the design of any mental health response (box 1). The organisational challenges include specifying a responsible lead and chain of command; obtaining funding; providing reassurance, guidance, and messaging on trauma responses aimed at health services, other organisations, and the public; and identifying those affected and creating information handling arrangements that are flexible but compliant with data protection legislation. Coordination of a cross-agency response, involving health services, the third sector, and voluntary organisations is necessary to identify people who may develop mental health needs, arrange equitable access to evidence based care, and monitor use and outcomes. Box 1 ### Matching the mental health response to the population affected by mass casualty incidentsRETURN TO TEXT