Purpose: The COVID-19 pandemic has potential to disrupt and burden the mental health care system, and to magnify inequalities experienced by mental health service users. Methods: We investigated staff reports regarding the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in its early weeks on mental health care and mental health service users in the UK using a mixed methods online survey. Recruitment channels included professional associations and networks, charities, and social media. Quantitative findings were reported with descriptive statistics, and content analysis conducted for qualitative data. Results: 2,180 staff from a range of sectors, professions, and specialties participated. Immediate infection control concerns were highly salient for inpatient staff, new ways of working for community staff. Multiple rapid adaptations and innovations in response to the crisis were described, especially remote working. This was cautiously welcomed but found successful in only some clinical situations. Staff had specific concerns about many groups of service users, including people whose conditions are exacerbated by pandemic anxieties and social disruptions; people experiencing loneliness, domestic abuse and family conflict; those unable to understand and follow social distancing requirements; and those who cannot engage with remote care. Conclusion: This overview of staff concerns and experiences in the early COVID-19 pandemic suggests directions for further research and service development: we suggest that how to combine infection control and a therapeutic environment in hospital, and how to achieve effective and targeted tele-health implementation in the community, should be priorities. The limitations of our convenience sample must be noted.

Accessible summary: What is known on the subject?: During the COVID‐19 pandemic, there has been research considering the impact on medical healthcare professionals and the mental health needs of the general population. However, limited focus has been placed on mental health services or mental health staff providing care in the community and in hospitals. While nurses make up the largest section of the mental health workforce in the UK, the impact that this pandemic has had on their work has been largely ignored. What the paper adds to existing knowledge?: This paper provides a unique insight into the experiences and impact that the COVID‐19 pandemic has had on mental health nurses across a range of community and inpatient settings to understand what has changed in their work and the care they can and do provide during this crisis. This includes exploring how services have changed, the move to remote working, the impact of the protective equipment crisis on nurses and the difficult working conditions facing those in inpatient settings where there is minimal guidance provided. What are the implications for practice?: By understanding the impact the pandemic has had on mental health nursing care, we can understand the gaps in guidance that exist, the challenges being faced and the impact the crisis has had on care for mental health service users. By doing so, we can plan for the ongoing nature of this pandemic and the aftermath that the crisis may leave for our service users and workforce alike. Introduction: While evidence has emerged concerning the impact of COVID‐19 on the general population and the challenges facing health services, much less is known regarding how the pandemic has directly affected the delivery of mental health nursing care.Aim: This paper aimed to explore how COVID‐19 has affected the ability of mental health nurses to deliver care in community and inpatient mental health services in the UK.Method: We investigated staff reports regarding the impact of the COVID‐19 pandemic on mental healthcare and mental health service users in the UK, using a mixed‐methods online survey. A total of 897 nurses across a range of inpatient and community settings participated.Discussion: Key themes within the data explore the following: new ways of working; remote working; risks of infection/infection control challenges; and the impact on service users. Targeted guidelines are required to support mental health nurses providing care and support during a pandemic to people in severe mental distress, often in unsuitable environments.Implications for Practice: Service developments need to occur alongside tailored guidance and support for staff welfare supported by clear leadership. These findings identify areas requiring attention and investment to prepare for future crises and the consequences of the pandemic.

Introduction: Mental health rehabilitation services provide essential support to people with complex and longer term mental health problems. They include inpatient services and community teams providing clinical input to people living in supported accommodation services. This systematic review included international studies evaluating the effectiveness of inpatient and community rehabilitation services.Methods: We searched six online databases for quantitative studies evaluating mental health rehabilitation services that reported on one or both of two outcomes: move-on to a more independent setting (i.e. discharge from an inpatient unit to the community or from a higher to lower level of supported accommodation); inpatient service use. The search was further expanded by screening references and citations of included studies. Heterogeneity between studies was too great to allow meta-analysis and therefore a narrative synthesis was carried out.Results: We included a total of 65 studies, grouped as: contemporary mental health rehabilitation services (n = 34); services for homeless people with severe mental health problems (n = 13); deinstitutionalization programmes (n = 18). The strongest evidence was for services for homeless people. Access to inpatient rehabilitation services was associated with a reduction in acute inpatient service use post discharge. Fewer than one half of people moved on from higher to lower levels of supported accommodation within expected timeframes.Conclusions: Inpatient and community rehabilitation services may reduce the need for inpatient service use over the long term but more high quality research of contemporary rehabilitation services with comparison groups is required.Review registration: This review was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (ID: CRD42019133579).

Background: Around 60 000 people in England live in mental health supported accommodation. There are three main types: residential care, supported housing and floating outreach. Supported housing and floating outreach aim to support service users in moving on to more independent accommodation within 2 years, but there has been little research investigating their effectiveness.Aims: A 30-month prospective cohort study investigating outcomes for users of mental health supported accommodation.Method: We used random sampling, accounting for relevant geographical variation factors, to recruit 87 services (22 residential care, 35 supported housing and 30 floating outreach) and 619 service users (residential care 159, supported housing 251, floating outreach 209) across England. We contacted services every 3 months to investigate the proportion of service users who successfully moved on to more independent accommodation. Multilevel modelling was used to estimate how much of the outcome and cost variations were due to service type and quality, after accounting for service-user characteristics.Results: Overall 243/586 participants successfully moved on (residential care 15/146, supported housing 96/244, floating outreach 132/196). This was most likely for floating outreach service users (versus residential care: odds ratio 7.96, 95% CI 2.92–21.69, P < 0.001; versus supported housing: odds ratio 2.74, 95% CI 1.01–7.41, P < 0.001) and was associated with reduced costs of care and two aspects of service quality: promotion of human rights and recovery-based practice.Conclusions: Most people do not move on from supported accommodation within the expected time frame. Greater focus on human rights and recovery-based practice may increase service effectiveness.

Background: Inpatient psychiatric care is unpopular and expensive, and development and evaluation of alternatives is a long-standing policy and research priority around the world. In England, the three main models documented over the past fifty years (teams offering crisis assessment and treatment at home; acute day units; and residential crisis services in the community) have recently been augmented by several new service models. These are intended to enhance choice and flexibility within catchment area acute care systems, but remain largely undocumented in the research literature. We therefore aimed to describe the types and distribution of crisis care models across England through a national survey. Methods: We carried out comprehensive mapping of crisis resolution teams (CRTs) using previous surveys, websites and multiple official data sources. Managers of CRTs were invited to participate as key informants who were familiar with the provision and organisation of crisis care services within their catchment area. The survey could be completed online or via telephone interview with a researcher, and elicited details about types of crisis care delivered in the local catchment area. Results: We mapped a total of 200 adult CRTs and completed the survey with 184 (92%). Of the 200 mapped adult CRTs, there was a local (i.e., within the adult CRT catchment area) children and young persons CRT for 84 (42%), and an older adults CRT for 73 (37%). While all but one health region in England provided CRTs for working age adults, there was high variability regarding provision of all other community crisis service models and system configurations. Crisis cafes, street triage teams and separate crisis assessment services have all proliferated since a similar survey in 2016, while provision of acute day units has reduced. Conclusions: The composition of catchment area crisis systems varies greatly across England and popularity of models seems unrelated to strength of evidence. A group of emerging crisis care models with varying functions within service systems are increasingly prevalent: they have potential to offer greater choice and flexibility in managing crises, but an evidence base regarding impact on service user experiences and outcomes is yet to be established.

The aim of this study was to explore staff perceptions of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health service delivery and outcomes for women who were pregnant or in the first year after birth (‘perinatal’ women). Secondary analysis was undertaken of an online mixed-methods survey open to all mental health care staff in the UK involving 363 staff working with women in the perinatal period. Staff perceived the mental health of perinatal women to be particularly vulnerable to the impact of stressors associated with the pandemic such as social isolation (rated by 79.3% as relevant or extremely relevant; 288/363) and domestic violence and abuse (53.3%; 192/360). As a result of changes to mental health and other health and social care services, staff reported feeling less able to assess women, particularly their relationship with their baby (43.3%; 90/208), and to mobilise safeguarding procedures (29.4%; 62/211). While 42% of staff reported that some women engaged poorly with virtual appointments, they also found flexible remote consulting to be beneficial for some women and helped time management due to reductions in travel time. Delivery of perinatal care needs to be tailored to women’s needs; virtual appointments are perceived not to be appropriate for assessments but may be helpful for some women in subsequent interactions. Safeguarding and other risk assessment procedures must remain robust in spite of modifications made to service delivery during pandemics.