The psychosocial response to a terrorist attack at Manchester Arena, 2017: a process evaluation

The Resilience Hub approach for addressing mental health of health and social care workers during the COVID-19 pandemic: a mixed-methods evaluation

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.

A service mapping exercise of four health and social care staff mental health and wellbeing services, Resilience Hubs, to describe health service provision and interventions

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.

Implementing psychological support for health and social care staff affected by the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative exploration of staff well-being hubs ('Resilience Hubs') using normalisation process theory

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.

Psychosocial care responses to terrorist attacks: a country case study of Norway, France and Belgium

Background

The international terrorism threat urges societies to invest in the planning and organization of psychosocial care. With the aim to contribute to cross-national learning, this study describes the content, target populations and providers of psychosocial care to civilians after terrorist attacks in Norway, France and Belgium.

Methods

We identified and reviewed pre- and post-attack policy documents, guidelines, reports and other relevant grey literature addressing the psychosocial care response to terrorist attacks in Oslo/Utøya, Norway on 22 July 2011; in Paris, France on 13 November 2015; and in Brussels, Belgium on 22 March 2016.

Results

In Norway, there was a primary care based approach with multidisciplinary crisis teams in the local municipalities. In response to the terrorist attacks, there were proactive follow-up programs within primary care and occupational health services with screenings of target groups throughout a year. In France, there was a national network of specialized emergency psychosocial units primarily consisting of psychiatrists, psychologists and psychiatric nurses organized by the regional health agencies. They provided psychological support the first month including guidance for long-term healthcare, but there were no systematic screening programs after the acute phase. In Belgium, there were psychosocial intervention networks in the local municipalities, yet the acute psychosocial care was coordinated at a federal level. A reception centre was organized to provide acute psychosocial care, but there were no reported public long-term psychosocial care initiatives in response to the attacks.

Conclusions

Psychosocial care responses, especially long-term follow-up activities, differed substantially between countries. Models for registration of affected individuals, monitoring of their health and continuous evaluation of countries’ psychosocial care provision incorporated in international guidelines may strengthen public health responses to mass-casualty incidents.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-07691-2.