Abstract summary 

WHAT IS KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT?: Mental health care can be delivered remotely through video and telephone consultations. Remote consultations may be cheaper and more efficient than in person consultations.Accessing community mental health care through remote consultations is perceived as not possible or beneficial for all service users. Delivering remote consultations may not be practical or appropriate for all clinicians or community mental health teams. WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE?: Remote consultation cannot be a 'one-size-fits-all' model of community mental health care. A flexible approach is needed to offering remote consultation that considers its suitability for the service-user, service and clinician.INTRODUCTION: Responding to COVID-19, community mental health teams in the UK NHS abruptly adopted remote consultations. Whilst they have demonstrable effectiveness, efficiency, and economic benefits, questions remain around the acceptability, feasibility and medicolegal implications of delivering community mental health care remotely.To explore perceived advantages, challenges, and practice adaptations of delivering community mental health care remotely.Ten community mental health teams in an NHS trust participated in a service evaluation about remote consultation. Fifty team discussions about remote consultation were recorded April-December 2020. Data analysis used a framework approach with themes being coded within a matrix.Three major horizontal themes of operations and team functioning, clinical pathways, and impact on staff were generated, with vertical themes of advantages, challenges, equity and adaptations.Remote consultation is an attractive model of community mental healthcare. Clinical staff note benefits at individual (staff and service-user), team, and service levels. However, it is not perceived as a universally beneficial or practical approach, and there are concerns relating to access equality.The suitability of remote consultation needs to be considered for each service-user, clinical population and clinical role. This requires a flexible and hybrid approach, attuned to safeguarding equality.

Authors & Co-authors:  McCarron Moore Foreman Brewis Clarke Howes Parkin Luk Hirst Sach Shipp Stahly Bhardwaj

Study Outcome 

Source Link: Visit source