4 results
Mental Health Literacy in Foundation Doctors - a Survey in the York and Humber Area
- Ioana Varvari, Harry Foster, Pratibha Nirodi
-
- Journal:
- BJPsych Open / Volume 8 / Issue S1 / June 2022
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 20 June 2022, p. S38
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- Export citation
-
Aims
We aimed to measure the baseline mental health literacy in Foundation Doctors in the Yorkshire and Humber area, identify any gaps in knowledge with the purpose of addressing these within the new foundation psychiatry teaching program, developed by North Yorkshire Health Education England.
MethodsIn January 2021, a questionnaire comprising of O'Connor's Mental Health Literacy Scale was sent electronically to all Foundation Doctors in the York and Humber area, that were in a placement at that time. The O'Connor's Mental Health Literacy Scale (MHLS) has been used since its publication in 2015 and is a 35 item, univariate scale that demonstrated good internal and test-retest reliability. It covers the following attributes: a) ability to identify disorders, b) knowledge about seeking information, risk factors and etiology, self-treatment, resources and support available, c) attitudes about mental disorders and seeking professional help. The anonymized data were collected and analysed in Microsoft Excel.
ResultsIn total, we received 49 responses to the questionnaire. Overall, 85% of respondents demonstrated good mental health literacy. Breaking this down further, 91% demonstrated knowledge of core psychiatric diagnostic criteria, 68.4% were literate in etiology and risk factors, 92% and respectively 95.9% understand what resources for treatment and professional help are available. Importantly when looking at attitudes about mental disorders overall 17% of respondents showed a degree of stigma and barriers in seeking professional help. For example, 2% strongly agreed that mental health conditions are not real illnesses, 34.7% were unsure whether people with mental illness are dangerous, 40.9% neither agreed nor disagreed they would move next door with someone with a mental illness and 14.3% would not be willing to have someone with a mental illness marrying into the family. When looking at barriers to seeking help, 12% answered they would not tell someone if they had a mental health problem, with 16.3% unsure whether they would tell someone if they had a mental health problem.
ConclusionOverall, our survey demonstrated good mental health literacy in our cohort, however, there are areas of improvement, the main ones being etiology, risk factors, and attitudes towards mental health. It is important to recognize these deficits, as they have been linked with poor health outcomes and barriers in seeking and providing care. Moving forward, standardization of teaching programs and anti-stigma training could be an evidence-based approach to tackling these issues.
Recognizing Early Deterioration in Elderly Care Home Setting - a Snapshot
- Ioana Varvari, Pratibha Nirodi
-
- Journal:
- BJPsych Open / Volume 8 / Issue S1 / June 2022
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 20 June 2022, p. S38
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- Export citation
-
Aims
Our aim is to measure the baseline physical and mental health early deterioration recognition of carers in the care home setting in Harrogate, North Yorkshire. This is part of a larger undergoing quality improvement project that looks at improving elderly care in care homes in the region by implementing a training package.
MethodsThe approach was to contact local authorities, in this case, the NHS clinical commissioning group North Yorkshire to identify a struggling care home. We then engaged the care home and designated a leader to coordinate the project. We collected common themes by using focus groups with both carers and our professionals which led to the creation of a 16-item questionnaire covering deterioration literacy. Finally, we electronically and anonymously surveyed the carers (December 2021) and analysed the data via Google Forms.
ResultsWe had 22 responses out of 30 possible. As an overview, 100% felt confident in recognizing deterioration, however, 31.8% don't feel confident in managing deterioration. 90.9% need tools to aid recognition, from which 45.5% find tools confusing. Only 50% feel confident to appropriately escalate the incident, from which 36.4% did not know when or to whom to escalate and 13.6% were not sure if escalation was needed but will refer to secondary care regardless. 27.3% think their escalation process needs improvement. When it comes to deterioration themes, 4.6% don't feel confident in identifying confusion, 13.6% feel their knowledge on confusion could be improved and 9.1% don't know how to identify, manage, or escalate confusion. 22.7% don't feel confident in identifying mobility decline and 9.1% don't know how to manage this accordingly. 9.1% feel like their knowledge of skin changes needs improvement. 22.7% feel that their confidence in identifying toilet habits could be improved and 4.5% don't know how to manage or escalate these changes. In terms of carers’ mental health, 50% and 13.6% have mild and moderate anxiety, respectively.
ConclusionDeterioration recognition in the elderly is currently a hot topic. Recent studies highlight the need to improve deterioration management to minimize inappropriate referrals and admissions and unnecessary infection exposure of a vulnerable elderly individual. Our results show that besides improving the theoretical knowledge we also must think about a clear escalation process, an easy-to-read deterioration tool, and managing carers' anxiety as part of the training package.
A Quality Improvement (Pilot) Project: Psychiatric Medical Education for Foundation Trainees
- Pratibha Nirodi, Imagbe Uwaifo, Christiana Elisha-Aboh, Ogba Onwuchekwa, Rahul Watts, Richard Johnson, Emma Brooks, Lauren Fitzmaurice, Emily Legg, Maggie Robinson, Jess Moncrieff
-
- Journal:
- BJPsych Open / Volume 8 / Issue S1 / June 2022
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 20 June 2022, p. S22
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- Export citation
-
Aims
Foundation Doctors are exposed to a range of specialties within the Foundation Programme, with 20.9% completing a psychiatry rotation. Those who do not have a psychiatry rotation may have little experience other than what was acquired in undergraduate training, despite being expected to care for patients with mental health problems. According to Mind (2017), one in four people will experience a mental health problem each year thus essential that our medical workforce know and understand the basic principles of psychiatry to aid their management of core psychiatric conditions. The aim of this project was to improve mental health literacy among Foundation Doctors by improving their communication, formulation and risk management skills. Another objective was to encourage uptake to Psychiatry and help plug the high number of unfilled Consultant posts.
MethodsThe initial pilot was carried out between January and June 2021 over zoom and the sessions were optional. A survey was completed to find out which topics were most relevant and common themes included MCA/MHA interface, risk management and treatment of various conditions. These themes were incorporated into 90-minute sessions which included interactive case-based discussion in small breakout groups and some didactic teaching. The six session topics were EUPD, Dementia, Depression, Delirium, Substance Misuse and Alcohol Misuse. The sessions were facilitated by clinicians of mixed experience from Foundation Doctors to Consultants. Participant knowledge was tested using pre- and post-session quizzes and a working group reviewed feedback, making relevant changes subsequently.
ResultsFeedback was majorly positive, and attendees valued the interactivity, breakout rooms, case studies and choice of topics. Suggested areas of improvement were having more time for discussion, technical difficulties, and less psychiatric ‘jargon’, but these tended to be isolated comments. Five out of six sessions showed an improvement in assessment scores afterwards, with an average improvement of 12.6% (average pre-session score of 70% and average post-session score of 82.6%). One session showed a decrease in the post-session quiz scores which on reflection showed that the questions in the assessment covered material not included in the session.
ConclusionThe virtual programme was an effective way of improving knowledge and confidence in psychiatry. Whilst the sessions were positively received and showed improvements in post-session scores, there were some limitations which will be addressed and used to develop future training. There is now more mental health woven throughout the new Foundation curriculum and expected that much of this content will be covered during Foundation Training.
Survey of expert second opinions in a tertiary psychiatric out-patient clinic in the Yorkshire region between 1988 and 2000
- Pratibha Nirodi, Alex J. Mitchell, Richard H. S. Mindham
-
- Journal:
- Psychiatric Bulletin / Volume 27 / Issue 11 / November 2003
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 02 January 2018, pp. 416-420
- Print publication:
- November 2003
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- HTML
- Export citation
-
Aims and Method
A medical second opinion is an expert clinical case evaluation requested by a colleague for a patient already under specialist care. There is no literature on the provision for second opinions in psychiatric practice other than those relating to the Mental Health Act 1983, and the availability of clinics offering second opinions varies greatly from one area to another. We undertook a survey of an expert second opinion service in Leeds over the period 1988–2000 and examined the case notes of 103 referred patients, of whom 71 were included in the analysis data.
ResultsIn the majority of cases diagnoses were not changed, but alternative treatment strategies were suggested. The exception was for patients with a diagnosis of personality disorder, in whom neither a new diagnosis nor alternative management was commonly suggested. Half of the assessments were completed in a single visit, but a substantial minority required further evaluation as outpatients, close follow-up or even hospital admission for detailed review.
Clinical ImplicationsWe believe that a second opinion service offers clinicians valuable support and expertise, especially in sector psychiatry. Evidence presented suggests that further therapeutic options are available for many patients regarded as ‘difficult to treat’. In some cases this may involve a period of observation free of all psychotropic medication. As in other specialities, psychiatrists should be aware of the value of further advice for patients with particularly refractory or unusual disorders.