Mental health services continue to experience rising demand that exceeds capacity. The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated this crisis, with access to services being reduced. Although video consultations (VCs) are a solution, usage in UK community mental healthcare settings remains limited. This study aims to investigate psychiatrists’ and general practitioners’ (GPs) perceptions of the benefits and challenges of VC for the diagnosis and follow-up of general adult mental health patients in the community during the COVID-19 pandemic. Semi-structured interviews in NHS community mental healthcare settings were conducted. Psychiatrists (n = 11) and GPs (n = 12) were recruited through purposive sampling. An explorative qualitative approach was employed. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. Four key themes were identified: (1) patient access to VC, (2) suitability of VC for mental health consultations, (3) information gathering with VC and (4) clinician satisfaction with VC. This study provides valuable insights into the experiences of psychiatrists and GPs working in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic. To facilitate a digital-first future for the NHS, greater investment in remote technologies is required, particularly in the context of growing mental healthcare demand. Though face-to-face consultations remain the gold standard, VC provides an efficient way of communicating with patients, particularly those with less severe forms of mental illness.

Background: Current UK National Health Service (NHS) guidelines recommend appendicectomy as gold standard treatment for acute uncomplicated appendicitis. However, an alternative non-surgical management involves administrating antibiotic-only therapy with significantly lower costs. Therefore, a UK-based cost-utility analysis (CUA) was performed to compare appendicectomy with an antibiotic-only treatment from an NHS perspective. Methods: This economic evaluation modelled health-outcome data using the ACTUAA (2021) prospective multicentre trial. The non-randomised control trial followed 318 patients given either antibiotic therapy or appendicectomy, with quality of life (QOL) assessed using the SF-12 questionnaires administered 1-year post-treatment. A CUA was conducted over a 1-year time horizon, measuring benefits in quality adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs in pound sterling using a propensity score-matched approach to control for selection based on observable factors. Results: The CUA produced an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of −GBP 23,278.51 (−EUR 27,227.80) per QALY. Therefore, for each QALY gained using antibiotic-only treatment instead of appendicectomy, an extra GBP 23,278.51 was saved. Additionally, two sensitivity analyses were conducted to account for post-operative or post-treatment complications. The antibiotic-only option remained dominant in both scenarios. Conclusion: While the results do not rely on a randomized sample, the analysis based on a 1-year follow-up suggested that antibiotics were largely more cost-effective than appendicectomy and led to improved QOL outcomes for patients. The ICER value of −GBP 23,278.51 demonstrates that the NHS must give further consideration to the current gold standard treatment in acute uncomplicated appendicitis.