Literature Collection

BACKGROUND: Liaison psychiatry services provide mental health care for patients in physical healthcare (usually acute hospital) settings including emergency departments. Liaison work involves close collaboration with acute hospital staff so that high quality care can be provided. Services however are patchy, relatively underfunded, heterogeneous and poorly integrated into acute hospital care pathways. METHODS: We carried out in-depth semi-structured interviews with 73 liaison psychiatry and acute hospital staff from 11 different acute hospitals in England. The 11 hospitals were purposively sample to represent hospitals in which four different types of liaison services operated. Staff were identified to ensure diversity according to professional background, sub-specialism within the team, and whether they had a clinical or managerial focus. All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. The data were analysed using a best-fit framework analysis. RESULTS: Several key themes emerged in relation to facilitators and barriers to the effective delivery of integrated services. There were problems with continuity of care across the secondary-primary interface; a lack of mental health resources in primary care to support discharge; a lack of shared information systems; a disproportionate length of time spent recording information as opposed to face to face patient contact; and a lack of a shared vision of care. Relatively few facilitators were identified although interviewees reported a focus on patient care. Similar problems were identified across different liaison service types. CONCLUSIONS: The problems that we have identified need to be addressed by both liaison and acute hospital teams, managers and funders, if high quality integrated physical and mental health care is to be provided in the acute hospital setting.

INTRODUCTION: Using patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) in a shared-space mental health-integrated specialty clinic, we explored the feasibility, acceptance, and experience of youth with asthma and diabetes, their families, and the healthcare team. METHOD: Using mixed methods, we examined feasibility, acceptability, and experience of PROM inclusion in caring for youth with asthma (n = 7) and diabetes (n = 11), their families (n = 18), and healthcare providers (n = 13). Completion and receipt of PROM (feasibility), postvisit surveys (acceptance), and structured interviews (experience) between June 2019 and February 2020. RESULTS: Targeted PROM met feasibility goals (80%) and exceeded youth and family acceptance (70%). Time and low confidence using PROM affected healthcare team acceptance (64%). Families' experiences included increased learning, trust, and partnership with the clinic team. Providers appreciated partnerships, resources, and mental health support for families. DISCUSSION: Integrating PROM into clinical services promoted engagement, partnership, and individualized, strength-based care among youth, their parent/guardian (family), and their healthcare team.

PURPOSE: To describe the therapy approaches and clinical outcomes of an integrated care model for patients with functional movement disorder (FMD). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted for all treated individuals with a primary diagnosis of FMD between January 2020 and July 2022. Patients received time-limited integrated therapy (n = 21) (i.e., simultaneous therapy delivered by psychiatry, neurology and physiotherapy), physiotherapy (n = 18) or virtual physiotherapy alone (n = 9). Primary outcomes included the Simplified-Functional Movement Disorders Rating Scale (S-FMDRS) and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement scale (CGI-I) collected at baseline and post-intervention. RESULTS: Forty-eight patients completed treatment (42% male; mean age, 48.5 ± 16.6 years, median symptom duration 30 months). The most common presentations were gait disorder, tremor and mixed hyperkinetic FMD. Common comorbidities included pain and fatigue. Three-quarters of patients had a comorbid psychiatric diagnosis. There was a significant reduction in S-FMDRS score following therapy (71%, p < 0.0001) and 69% had "much" or "very much" improved on the CGI-I. There was no difference between therapy groups. Attendance rates were high for both in-person (94%) and virtual (97%) visits. CONCLUSIONS: These findings support that a time-limited integrated model of care is feasible and effective in treating patients with FMD.; An integrated approach that draws from both mental health and physiotherapy-oriented strategies reframes functional movement disorder treatment targets and clinical outcomes, influences triage criteria, and produces new and innovative therapies.Successful outcomes depend on triaging suitable participants and individualized treatment plans that focus on functional goals.Virtual telerehabilitation in functional movement disorder is effective and offers the opportunity to work with patients in real-time in the environment where they most often experience functional neurological symptoms.; eng