Search results

Hearing voices can be a debilitating and traumatic experience, and psychiatric hospitals can feel unsafe and overstimulating to voice hearers. Research suggests this may prolong a service user’s admission time and lead to an unhelpful experience. Therefore, a hearing voices group (HVG) was developed to create a safe space where voice hearers could share their story with others with lived experience and access support.

The group was developed by the first author under the supervision of the inpatient psychology lead. Both a practice-based and expert by experience-based approach were considered during the development of the group structure. The group also aligned with the Hearing Voices Network and the Trust’s values. A questionnaire was developed to evaluate the effectiveness of the group using six five-point Likert scale questions and three open questions to collect the data, which was then analysed.

The themes from the qualitative data showed that staff and ward-based promotion of the group were paramount to ensuring patient engagement. The results also showed that voice hearers found the group therapeutic, and some found the coping skills shared to be beneficial and effective.

A large percentage of women (76%) reported that they had attended a HVG before. This was not the case for service users from the male unit and psychiatric intensive care unit. This result is considered to reflect the fact that women in that unit had the opportunity to attend more than once during their admission, rather than that they had accessed these groups in other settings or in the community. Therefore, in the future, it would be useful to change this question to “have you attended any other HVGs in the past, prior to this admission?”, which might be more appropriate for data collection.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the original work of the first author, who is an expert by experience and an assistant psychologist. The results suggest that HVGs can be beneficial for patients in acute and intensive mental health care and highlight some necessary adaptations and the importance of adopting an MDT approach in promoting therapeutic groups.

Institutional abuse is a worldwide phenomenon with the UK also subject to several high-profile abuse scandals perpetuated on people with learning disabilities and/or mental health conditions living within institutional settings. This study aims to provide a broad perspective of safeguarding practices within institutional care to inform practice and service development in this area.

A narrative overview was undertaken of a range of empirical evidence, discussion papers, enquiry reports, reports from regulatory bodies and professional guidance to explore safeguarding practices within institutional care for individuals with learning disabilities and/or mental health conditions.

A range of literature was identified that exposed and explored abuse in this context. Three key themes were identified: failings within institutional care; safeguarding issues and concerns; and good practice within institutional care. Whilst guidance is available, standards are explicit and protocols facilitate improvement potential in this area, a consistent message was that statutory recommendations for reform have not been effective.

This paper provides an important resource for practitioners and service providers involved in institutional care. An accessible overview of both the empirical evidence and grey literature on adult safeguarding within institutional settings is provided, along with a range of standards and resources that specify practice in these settings.

A quantitative observational study was conducted. The purpose of this study is to examine the continuing adherence to the stopping over-medication of people with intellectual disability and/or autism guidelines for a cohort of outpatients seen in the outpatients’ clinics in the two teams who participated in this study to review the trend of psychotropic prescribing with a prescription indication along with the utilisation of non-pharmacological interventions.

Data was retrospectively collected over a period of one year for patients sampled conveniently in the outpatient’s clinic. The data was collected from two sites from psychiatric letters to the general practitioners (GPs), with the focus being psychotropic prescription indication and their adherence to British National Formulary limits, inclusion of a wider multi-disciplinary team or MDT (including nurses, psychologists and health support workers), use of Clinical Global Impression (CGI) scale for assessing medication side effects and response to treatment.

Most of the patients had at least one review in the previous six months. Antipsychotics were the highest prescribed medications without an indication for their use (13.3%) followed by anxiolytics and other medications. CGI recording was suboptimal, with 26% of the patient population did not have medication side effects and effectiveness monitored through this method. In total, 41% of patients were open to community nurses followed by other disciplines.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is an original article following the pilot study completed by the authors.

This service evaluation aims to understand the experiences of service users (SUs) who accessed an early intervention in psychosis (EIP) service during the Coronavirus pandemic using qualitative and quantitative methodologies and compare these to a previous pre-pandemic study conducted within the same service (Watkins et al., 2018).

This paper collated experiences of individuals accessing an EIP service to inform service development. Questionnaires and individual interviews were conducted to provide quantitative and qualitative data. Descriptive statistics and T-test confidence intervals were created from the results and compared to findings of Watkins et al. (2018). Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using Braun and Clarke’s (2006) thematic analysis.

Data showed participants were largely satisfied with all areas of the service with “work or education”, “living skills”, and “addictions” scoring highest. Though participants reported no overall dissatisfaction, satisfaction levels dropped in “social activities” compared to the findings of Watkins et al. (2018), perhaps due to the national restrictions put in place to manage the spread of Coronavirus during this time. Interview analysis identified three themes of importance consistent with prior literature, highlighting the importance of relationships and validation during recovery.

This evaluation did not consider whether participants had accessed the service prior to the pandemic or only during, meaning that some participants could have a point of comparison with the service pre-pandemic, whereas others might not. Similarly, the participants were not the same as those of the Watkins et al.’s (2018) evaluation, meaning that direct comparisons of pre- and post-pandemic experiences were not possible. In addition, this evaluation collected data at only one time point early in the pandemic; therefore, it is unknown if client experiences of services differed as the pandemic and restrictions continued over time.

The Covid-19 pandemic has been an unprecedented challenge for health services, and the effects of this are becoming widely reported. This evaluation of clinical services offers a valuable perspective of service user experience of receiving mental health services during a global health crisis further offering a comparison to pre-pandemic services and the experiences of those who used them.