Child and adolescent mental health service in-patient beds are unevenly spread throughout England. Where demand outstrips bed availability, young people may be admitted at-distance or to adult psychiatric wards. The COVID-19 pandemic added pressures to already overstretched services. Understanding experiences during this period is vital to inform strategies for future emergencies.

To investigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on admissions to local, at-distance or adult psychiatric units, from the perspectives of young people, parents/carers and healthcare professionals.

Multi-methods data were collected from February 2021 to September 2022, as part of the Far Away from Home research programme. A 13-month national surveillance study collected information about admissions to general adolescent units >50 miles from home, out-of-region or to adult psychiatric units. Free-text data from respondents (n = 51) were analysed using content analysis. Interviews with young people (n = 30), parents/carers (n = 21) and healthcare professionals (n = 68) were analysed using thematic analysis.

Restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic affected young people's contact with others; the requirement to self-isolate on admission and following overnight leave felt distressing, and visiting was limited. This disincentivised overnight leave, leading to some discharges being delayed and others feeling rushed and high risk. The COVID-19 pandemic also accelerated the introduction of virtual meetings, enabling community teams and families to be more involved in therapies, meetings and decision-making.

Restrictions imposed during the COVID-19 pandemic were often negatively perceived. However, the increased use of technology was felt to be positive, widening inclusion and mitigating some negative effects of distance on admissions.

Catatonia is a neuropsychiatric disorder characterised by psychomotor changes that can affect individuals across the lifespan. Although features of catatonia have been described in adults, the most common clinical symptoms among paediatric patients with catatonia are not well characterised.

The goal of this study was to characterise the symptoms of catatonia demonstrated by paediatric patients, and to explore demographic and diagnostic factors associated with greater catatonia severity.

We conducted a multicentre retrospective cohort study, from 1 January 2018 to 6 January 2023, of patients aged 18 and younger with a clinical diagnosis of catatonia and symptom assessment using the Bush Francis Catatonia Rating Scale (BFCRS).

A total of 143 patients met inclusion criteria. The median age was 15 (interquartile range: 13–16) years and 66 (46.2%) patients were female. Neurodevelopmental disabilities were present in 55 (38.5%) patients. Patients demonstrated a mean of 6.0 ± 2.1 signs of catatonia on the Bush Francis Catatonia Screening Item, with a mean BFCRS score of 15.0 ± 5.9. Among the 23 items of the BFCRS, six were present in >50% of patients (staring, mutism, immobility/stupor, withdrawal, posturing/catalepsy, rigidity), and four were present in <20% of cases (waxy flexibility, mitgehen, gegenhalten, grasp reflex). In an adjusted model, patients with neurodevelopmental disorders demonstrated greater BFCRS severity than those with other diagnoses.

Catatonia was diagnosed in a range of mental health conditions. Further research is needed to define optimal diagnostic criteria for catatonia in paediatric patients, and clarify the clinical course of the disorder.

Constipation is overrepresented in people with intellectual disabilities. Around 40% of people with intellectual disabilities who died prematurely were prescribed laxatives. A quarter of people with intellectual disabilities are said to be on laxatives. There are concerns that prescribing is not always effective and appropriate. There are currently no prescribing guidelines specific to this population.

To develop guidelines to support clinicians with their decision-making when prescribing laxatives to people with intellectual disabilities.

A modified Delphi methodology, the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method, was used. Step 1 comprised development of a bespoke six-item, open-ended questionnaire from background literature and its external validation. Relevant stakeholders, including a range of clinical experts and experts by experience covering the full range of intellectual disability and constipation, were invited to participate in an expert panel. Panel members completed the questionnaire. Responses were divided into ‘negative consensus’ and ‘positive consensus’. Members were then invited to two panel meetings, 2 weeks apart, held virtually over Microsoft Teams, to build consensus. The expert-by-experience group were included in a separate face-to-face meeting.

A total of 20 people (ten professional experts and ten experts by experience, of whom seven had intellectual disability) took part. There were five main areas of discussion to reach a consensus i.e. importance of diagnosis, the role of prescribing, practicalities of medication administration, importance of reviewing and monitoring, and communication.

Laxative prescribing guidelines were developed by synthesising the knowledge of an expert panel including people with intellectual disabilities with the existing evidence base, to improve patient care.

Recovery colleges provide personalised educational mental health support for people who self-refer. The research evidence supporting them is growing, with key components and the positive experiences of attendees reported. However, the quantitative outcome evidence and impact on economic outcomes is limited.

To evaluate the impact of attending a UK recovery college for students who receive a full educational intervention.

This is a pre- and post-intervention study, with predominantly quantitative methods. Participants recruited over an 18-month period (01.2020–07.2021) completed self-reported well-being (Short Warwick–Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale (SWEMWBS)) and recovery (Process of Recovery (QPR)) surveys, and provided details and evidence of employment and educational status. Descriptive statistics for baseline data and Shapiro–Wilk, Wilcoxon signed-rank and paired t-tests were used to compare pre- and post-intervention scores, with Hedges’ g-statistic as a measure of effect size. Medical records were reviewed and a brief qualitative assessment of changes reported by students was conducted.

Of 101 student research participants, 84 completed the intervention. Well-being (mean SWEMWBS scores 17.3 and 21.9; n = 80) and recovery (mean QPR scores 27.2 and 38.8; n = 75) improved significantly (P < 0.001; Hedges’ g of 1.08 and 1.03). The number of economically inactive students reduced from 53 (69%) to 19 (24.4%). No research participants were referred for specialist mental health support while students. ‘Within-self’ and ‘practical’ changes were described by students following the intervention.

Findings detail the largest self-reported pre–post data-set for students attending a recovery college, and the first data detailing outcomes of remote delivery of a recovery college.

The concept of altruism is evidenced in various disciplines but remains understudied in end-of-life (EOL) contexts. Patients at the EOL are often seen as passive recipients of care, whereas the altruism of professionals and families receives more research and clinical attention. Our aim was to summarize the state of the scientific literature concerning the concept of patient altruism in EOL contexts.

In May 2023, we searched 11 databases for scientific literature on patient altruism in EOL contexts in consultation with a health information specialist. The scoping review is reported using the PRISMA checklist for scoping reviews. We used a data charting form to deductively extract data from the selected articles and then mapped data into 4 themes related to our research questions: how authors describe and employ the concept of patient altruism; expressions of patient altruism; consequences of patients’ altruistic acts; and possible interventions fostering patient altruism.

Excluding duplicates, 2893 articles were retrieved; 33 were included in the final review. Altruism was generally considered as an act or intention oriented toward the benefit of a specific (known) or non-specific (generic) recipient. Patients expressed altruism through care and support, decisions to withhold treatment or actively hasten death, and engagement in advance care planning. Consequences of altruism were categorized in patient-centered (contribution to meaning in life and quality of life), non-patient-centered (leaving a positive impact and saving money), and negative consequences (generating feelings of guilt, exposing individuals with low self-esteem). Interventions to encourage altruism comprised specific interventions, providing opportunities to plan for future care, and recognizing and respecting the patients’ altruistic motivations.

We identified heterogeneous and limited research conceptualization of patient altruism and its operationalization in palliative care settings. A deeper conceptual, empirical, and theoretical exploration of patient altruism in EOL is necessary.

There is currently a lack of monitoring and standardisation of diabetes care in the National Health Service (NHS) psychiatric in-patient setting. We surveyed healthcare professionals in psychiatric in-patient units across England to understand current diabetes care. A 13-item questionnaire was piloted via think-aloud interviews. The survey was completed by healthcare professionals across 19 wards in 11 NHS mental health trusts. Results were analysed via descriptive statistics and thematic analysis.

Of 150 respondents, 98% agreed that addressing physical health needs was an important part of the mental health team's role; 68% agreed that they had adequate skills and knowledge to manage diabetes safely. Thematic analysis identified themes relating to individual, organisational and patient-level factors.

Psychiatric admission could be used opportunistically to improve the healthcare disparities for people with comorbid diabetes and severe mental illness. This national survey highlights areas that need to be addressed to optimise diabetes care in this setting.

In palliative care, effective communication is essential to adequately meet the needs and preferences of patients and their relatives. Effective communication includes exchanging information, facilitates shared decision-making, and promotes an empathic care relationship. We explored the perspectives of patients with an advanced illness and their relatives on effective communication with health-care professionals.

A systematic review was conducted. We searched Embase, Medline, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Cochrane for original empirical studies published between January 1, 2015 and March 4, 2021.

In total, 56 articles on 53 unique studies were included. We found 7 themes that from the perspectives of patients and relatives contribute to effective communication: (1) open and honest information. However, this open and honest communication can also trigger anxiety, stress, and existential disruption. Patients and relatives also indicated that they preferred (2) health-care professionals aligning to the patient’s and relative’s process of uptake and coping with information; (3) empathy; (4) clear and understandable language; (5) leaving room for positive coping strategies, (6) committed health-care professionals taking responsibility; and (7) recognition of relatives in their role as caregiver. Most studies in this review concerned communication with physicians in a hospital setting.

Most patients and relatives appreciate health-care professionals to not only pay attention to strictly medical issues but also to who they are as a person and the process they are going through. More research is needed on effective communication by nurses, in nonhospital settings and on communication by health-care professionals specialized in palliative care.

Little is known about the experiences of parents who are in receipt of in-patient psychiatric care or about what interventions are employed to support them in their parenting role.

The objective of the current study is to review two complementary areas of research: (a) research examining interventions developed to support the parent–child relationship within these settings; and (b) research focused on the experience of parents in in-patient settings.

For studies reporting on parents’ experience, qualitative accounts of past or present psychiatric in-patients (child aged 1–18 years) were included. For intervention studies, the intervention had to focus on supporting the parenting role and/or the parent–child dyad of parents (child aged 1–18 years) in current receipt of in-patient care. Four bibliographic databases (PubMed, SCOPOS, Web of Science and PsychINFO) were searched for relevant published and unpublished literature from 1 January 1980 to 26 July 2022. Intervention studies were appraised using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Qualitative papers were assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool. Data were extracted using tools designed for the study. Qualitative data were synthesised using thematic analysis. The protocol was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (reference CRD42022309065).

Twenty-four papers (eight intervention studies and 16 studies examining parent experience) were included in the review. In-patient parents commonly reported hospital admission as having a negative impact on their parenting. Very few robust reports of interventions designed to support parents in receipt of psychiatric in-patient care were found.

Despite the identified need for support by parents who are receiving in-patient care, there is currently no intervention of this nature running in the UK health service.

Protecting all human rights of people with mental health conditions is globally important. However, to facilitate practical implementation of rights, it is often necessary to decide which of these rights should be given priority, especially when they conflict with each other.

The aim of the Priorities of Human Rights and Mental Health (PHRAME) project is to develop a replicable approach to establish a proposed set of high-priority human rights of people with mental health conditions, to facilitate practical decision-making and implementation of such rights.

A two-stage Delphi-style study with stakeholders was conducted to generate a list of key rights of people with mental health conditions, and rank priorities among these rights in terms of feasibility, urgency and overall importance.

The stakeholders in this study consistently ranked three rights as top priorities: (a) the right to freedom from torture, cruel inhuman treatment and punishment; (b) the right to health and access to services/treatment; and (c) the right to protection and safety in emergency situations.

Insights from PHRAME can support decision-making about the priority to be given to human rights, to guide practical action. This approach can also be used to assess how human rights are prioritised in different settings and by different stakeholders. This study identifies the clear need for a central voice for people with lived experience in research and implementation of decisions about the priority of human rights, ensuring that action respects the opinion of people whose rights are directly affected.

Liaison psychiatry provision for children and young people in England is poorly evaluated.

We sought to evaluate paediatric liaison psychiatry provision and develop recommendations to improve practice.

The liaison psychiatry surveys of England (LPSE) cross-sectional surveys engage all liaison psychiatry services in England. Services are systematically identified by contacting all acute hospitals with emergency departments in England. Questions are developed in consultation with NHS England and the Royal College of Psychiatrists’ Faculty of Liaison Psychiatry, and updated based on feedback. Responses are submitted by email, post or telephone. Questions on paediatric services were included from 2015 (LPSE-2), and we analysed data from this and the subsequent four surveys.

The number of acute hospitals with access to paediatric liaison psychiatry services increased from 29 (15.9%) in 2015 to 46 (26.6%) in 2019, compared with 100% provision for adults. For LPSE-4, only one site met the Core-24 criteria of 11 full-time equivalent mental health practitioners and 1.5 full-time equivalent consultants, and for LPSE-5, just two sites exceeded them. Acute hospitals with access to 24/7 paediatric liaison psychiatry services increased from 12 to 19% between LPSE-4 and LPSE-5. The proportion of paediatric liaison psychiatry services based offsite decreased from 30 to 24%.

There is an unacceptable under-provision of paediatric liaison psychiatry services compared with provision for adults. Number of services, staffing levels and hours of operation have increased, but continued improvement is required, as few services meet the Core-24 criteria.