Severe mental illness is a major driver of worldwide disease burden. Shared decision-making is critical for high quality care, and can enhance patient satisfaction and outcomes. However, it has not been translated into routine practice. This reflects a lack of evidence on the best way to implement shared decision-making, and the challenges of implementation in routine settings with limited resources. Our aim was to test whether we could deliver a practical and feasible intervention in routine community mental health services to embed shared decision-making for patients with severe mental illness, by improving patient and carer involvement in care planning. We cluster randomised community mental health teams to the training intervention or usual care, to avoid contamination. Training was co-delivered to a total of 350 staff in 18 teams by clinical academics, working alongside patients and carers. The primary outcome was the Health Care Climate Questionnaire, a self-report measure of ‘autonomy support’. Primary and secondary outcomes were collected by self-report, six months after allocation. In total, 604 patients and 90 carers were recruited to main trial cohort. Retention at six months was 82% (n = 497). In the main analysis, results showed no statistically significant difference in the primary outcome between the intervention and usual care at 6 months (adjusted mean difference -0.064, 95% CI -0.343 to 0.215, p = 0.654). We found significant effects on only 1 secondary outcome. An intervention to embed shared decision-making in routine practice by improving involvement in care planning was well attended and acceptable to staff, but had no significant effects on patient outcomes. Enhancing shared decision-making may require considerably greater investment of resources and effects may only be apparent over the longer term.

Background: Quality improvement collaboratives (QICs) bring together multidisciplinary teams in a structured process to improve care quality. How QICs can be used to support healthcare improvement in care homes is not fully understood. Methods: A realist evaluation to develop and test a programme theory of how QICs work to improve healthcare in care homes. A multiple case study design considered implementation across 4 sites and 29 care homes. Observations, interviews and focus groups captured contexts and mechanisms operating within QICs. Data analysis classified emerging themes using context-mechanism-outcome configurations to explain how NHS and care home staff work together to design and implement improvement. Results: QICs will be able to implement and iterate improvements in care homes where they have a broad and easily understandable remit; recruit staff with established partnership working between the NHS and care homes; use strategies to build relationships and minimise hierarchy; protect and pay for staff time; enable staff to implement improvements aligned with existing work; help members develop plans in manageable chunks through QI coaching; encourage QIC members to recruit multidisciplinary support through existing networks; facilitate meetings in care homes and use shared learning events to build multidisciplinary interventions stepwise. Teams did not use measurement for change, citing difficulties integrating this into pre-existing and QI-related workload. Conclusions: These findings outline what needs to be in place for health and social care staff to work together to effect change. Further research needs to consider ways to work alongside staff to incorporate measurement for change into QI.

An extended role being explored globally is the advanced clinical practitioner (ACP). In England this is an extended role for allied health professions, nurses and midwives in a range of settings. This paper focuses on three research questions: 1) What is the role of ACPs in England? 2) What are the barriers and facilitators to implementing the role? and 3) What is the contribution of ACPs to health services in England? A qualitative, exploratory study to explore perspectives on the ACP role in a range of clinical settings. We recruited 63 stakeholders, including 34 nurses, working in a ACP role or ACP education. A purposive snowball sampling technique identified participants meeting inclusion criteria. One-to-one semi-structured interviews throughout 2020, recorded and transcribed verbatim, anonymised and thematically analysed. The ACP role in England was undertaken in a broad range of clinical contexts. In England 'advanced clinical practitioner' was not a protected title. There were high levels of variability and ambiguity of understanding and deployment of the ACP role in England. Facilitators to the implementation process included training and education, clinical supervision and organisational support. Lack of protection for the role and variances in experience were barriers. Employer support facilitated development of the ACP role, however where support was limited, at either an individual or organisation level, this was a barrier. Our study highlighted the wide range of ways the ACP role benefitted patient outcomes and workforce development. This study outlines the contribution that ACPs can make to health services, contributing factors and key barriers and facilitators to implementing this role. The work showed the positive contribution ACPs can make to service redesign, workforce development and patient outcomes, whilst accepting there is much work to do to ensure protected status and parity across all professions and clinical contexts.

In England and Wales, decision-making in cases of uncertain mental capacity is regulated by the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The Act provides a legal framework for decision-making for adults (16 and over) who are shown to lack capacity and where best interest decisions need to be made on their behalf. Frail older people with cognitive impairments represent a growing demographic sector across England and Wales for whom the protective principles of the Act have great relevance, as they become increasingly dependent on the care of others. However, while the Act articulates core principles, applying the Act in everyday healthcare contexts raises challenges for care providers in terms of interpretation and application. This paper presents a review of the published evidence documenting the use of the Act in healthcare practice, with particular reference to frail older people. Our aim was to identify, review and critically evaluate published empirical studies concerned with the implementation and application of the Act in healthcare settings. A systematic approach was undertaken with pre-determined exclusion and inclusion criteria applied across five electronic bibliographic databases combined with a manual search of specific journals. This review reports on 38 empirical sources which met the inclusion criteria published between 2005 and 2013. From the 38 sources, three descriptive themes were identified: knowledge and understanding, implementation and tensions in applying the Act, and alternative perspectives of the Act. There is a need for improved knowledge and conceptualisation to enable successful incorporation of the Act into everyday care provision. Inconsistencies in the application of the Act are apparent across a variety of care settings. This review suggest staff need more opportunities to engage, learn and implement the Act, in order for it to have greater resonance to their individual practice and ultimately benefit patient care.