An interventional study of Intervention in Mental Health, sponsored by University of Manchester. Status unknown at 2 sites in United Kingdom. Open to participants aged 17 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2021-09-29.
Sponsored by University of Manchester · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment
The Care Quality Commission (2017) concludes that too often care for people with severe mental health problems on mental health inpatient wards institutionalises people, rather than helping them to have an independent life in the community. There is good evidence that psychological interventions improve patient well-being and independent living, but patients on acute mental health wards often do not have access to evidence-based psychological therapies which are strongly advised by NICE guidance for severe mental health problems (e.g. NICE, 2011). The overall aim of this programme of work is to increase patient access to psychological therapies on acute mental health inpatient wards. Stage one of the programme aimed to identify barriers and facilitators to delivering therapy in these settings through a large qualitative study. The key output of stage one was an intervention protocol that is designed to be delivered on acute wards to increase patient access to psychologically-informed care and therapy. Stage two of the programme aims to test the effects of the intervention on patient wellbeing and serious incidents on the ward which are routinely collated by wards and patient and staff contact is not required (primary outcomes), patient social functioning and symptoms, staff burnout, ward atmosphere from staff and patient perspectives and cost effectiveness of the intervention (secondary outcomes). The study is a single blind, pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial and will recruit thirty-four wards across England that will be randomised to receive the new intervention plus treatment as usual, or treatment as usual only. Primary and secondary outcomes will be assessed at baseline and 6-month and 9-month follow-ups, with serious incidents on the ward collected at an additional 3-month follow-up. A process evaluation will be nested within the trial to understand factors that influence the effects of the intervention and implementation in real world settings.
University of Manchester is the lead sponsor of 194 studies on the registry; 43 are open to participants now.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Ward:
Staff (RCT Outcome Measures):
Patient (RCT Outcome Measures):
Staff (Semi-structured interviews):
Patients (Semi-structured interviews):
Exclusion Criteria:
Ward:
Staff (RCT Outcome Measures):
Patient (RCT Outcome Measures):
Staff (Semi-structured interviews):
Patient (Semi-structured interviews):
Behavioral: Intervention
Wards randomly assigned to receive the intervention will have a Band 8a Psychologist based on the ward for 0.5FTE for 7 months. During this time, all patients will be involved with the proposed stepped model of care intervention at one of three levels. The level the patient receives will be decided by the multidisciplinary ward team. At Step one, all patients will have a psychological formulation developed by the psychologist in conjunction with the patient or members of the ward team. At Step 2, all qualified nurses will be trained and supervised to deliver guided self-help material of psychological interventions targeting key problem areas for patients. At Step 3, patients will be offered up to 16, one-to-one therapy sessions with the psychologist.
Patient wellbeing
Patient well being using the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Questionnaire. WEMWBS: Scale: 1= None of the time, 2 = Rarely, 3 = Some of the time, 4 = Often, 5 = All of the time. Participants are asked to select an option considering the statement over the past 2 weeks. WEMWBS is a 14 item scale with 5 response categories, summed to provide a single score ranging from 14-70. The items are all worded positively and cover both feeling and functioning aspects of mental wellbeing, thereby making the concept more accessible.
Time frame: Baseline, 6 months and 9 months
Serious incidents on ward
Report taken from each Trust about the number of different serious incidents reported on a ward across a 3 month time period. Serious Incidents: Taken from current reports pulled by each trust to monitor the number of incidents which occur within a ward. Categorised by each Trust using a levelling system of 1-5 with 5 being the most serious level. The incidents are also categorised by event type which varies at each Trust and again is the responsibility of each data entry personnel to assign a category. Data to be taken at baseline for the 3 months prior, at 3 months for the 3 months prior, at 6 months for the 3 months prior and at 9 months for the 3 months prior
Time frame: Baseline, 3 months, 6 months and 9 months
Whether the intervention improves patients' symptoms
Using Brief Symptom Inventory questionnaire. Scale: 0= Not at all; 1 = a little bit, 2 = moderately, 3= quite a bit, 4 = extremely, R= refused Duration: answers based on past 7 days including day of completion Score: The items are all worded positively and cover both feeling and functioning aspects of mental wellbeing.Respondents rank each feeling item (e.g., "your feelings being easily hurt") on a 5-point scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 4 (extremely). Rankings characterize the intensity of distress during the past seven days. The items comprising each of the 9 primary symptom dimensions are as follows: * Somatization: Items 2, 7, 23, 29, 30, 33, and 37 * Obsession-Compulsion: Items 5, 15, 26, 27, 32, and 36 * Interpersonal Sensitivity: Items 20, 21, 22, and 42 * Depression: Items 9, 16, 17, 18, 35, and 50 * Anxiety: Items 1, 12, 19, 38, 45, and 49 * Hostility: Items 6, 13, 40, 41, and 46 * Phobic Anxiety: Items 8, 28, 31, 43, and 47 * Paranoid Ideation: Items
Time frame: Baseline, 6 months and 9 months
Whether the intervention improves staff perceptions of ward atmosphere.
Using the VOTE Scale: Strongly agree, agree, slightly agree, slightly disagree, disagree, strongly disagree
Time frame: 6 months
Whether the intervention improves patient perceptions of ward atmosphere.
Using the VOICE Scale: Strongly agree, agree, slightly agree, slightly disagree, disagree, strongly disagree
Time frame: 6 months
Whether the intervention reduces staff burnout.
Using Maslach Burnout Inventory questionnaire MBI: Scale:0 = Never, 1 = a few times a year or less, 2 = once a more or less, 3= a few times a month, 4 = once a week, 5 = a few times a week, 6 = every day. Duration: Based on 22 statements the participant is to note from 0-6 next to the statement that bests describes how frequently they feel that way. Score: The participants receive an emotional exhaustion score (EE) (Qs 1,2,3,6,8,13,14,16,20). A depersonalization score (Dep) (Qs 5,10,11,15,22) A professional accomplishment score (PA) (Qs 4,7,9,12,17,18,19,21). EE score is High (27 or over), Moderate (17-26) and low (0-16). Dep score is high (13 or over), Moderate (7-12) or Low (0-6). PA score is high (39 or over), moderate (32-38) or low (0-31).
Time frame: Baseline, 6 months and 9 months
Cost-effectiveness of the psychological service model using health economic measures.
Using Health Economics measures (using service use questionnaires) Service use inventory developed from CSRI.
Time frame: Baseline, 6 months and 9 months
Identify contextual factors that promote/inhibit implementation and routine incorporation of psychologically-informed care and therapies into everyday practice.
Using implementation fidelity data from the psychologist and ward nurses
Time frame: 6 months
Identify contextual factors that promote/inhibit implementation and routine incorporation of psychologically-informed care and therapies into everyday practice.
Using observation data - observe 6 chosen intervention wards
Time frame: 6 months
Identify contextual factors that promote/inhibit implementation and routine incorporation of psychologically-informed care and therapies into everyday practice.
Using interview data - interviews with patients and staff on intervention wards
Time frame: 6 months
Whether the intervention improves social functioning.
Using Personal and Social Performance Scale. One for the a-c areas and one specific to the d area. Degrees of severity areas a-c. Degrees of severity area d. Absent, Mild, Manifest, Marked, Severe, Very Severe. Overall score of between 0-100 to be given based on the scores for each of the areas (a-d)
Time frame: Baseline, 6 months and 9 months
Improves quality of life
EQ-5D-5L: Each of the 5 dimensions comprising the EQ-5D descriptive system is divided into 5 levels of perceived problems: Level 1: indicating no problem Level 2: indicating slight problems Level 3: indicating moderate problems Level 4: indicating severe problems Level 5: indicating extreme problems A unique health state is defined by combining 1 level from each of the 5 dimensions. Scoring: level 1 is coded as 1, level 2 as 2, level 3 as 3, level 4 as 4 and level 5 as 5. There should be only ONE response for each dimension NB: Missing values can be coded as '9'.NB: Ambiguous values (e.g. 2 boxes are ticked for a single dimension) should be treated as missing values. The EQ VAS should be coded as per where the X is placed on a scale of 0-100 with 100= the best health and 0= the worst health. Missing values should be coded as '999'.
Time frame: Baseline, 6 months and 9 months
This study is status unknown, as verified in Sep 2021. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.
University of Manchester