BackgroundCollaborative care is an increasingly popular approach for improving quality of care for people with mental health problems through an intensified and structured collaboration between primary care providers and health professionals with specialized psychiatric expertise. Trials have shown significant positive effects for patients suffering from depression, but since collaborative care is a complex intervention, it is important to understand the factors which affect its implementation. We present a qualitative systematic review of the enablers and barriers to implementing collaborative care for patients with anxiety and depression.MethodsWe developed a comprehensive search strategy in cooperation with a research librarian and performed a search in five databases (EMBASE, PubMed, PsycINFO, ProQuest, and CINAHL). All authors independently screened titles and abstracts and reviewed full-text articles. Studies were included if they were published in English and based on the original qualitative data on the implementation of a collaborative care intervention targeted at depression or anxiety in an adult patient population in a high-income country. Our subsequent analysis employed the normalization process theory (NPT).ResultsWe included 17 studies in our review of which 11 were conducted in the USA, five in the UK, and one in Canada. We identified several barriers and enablers within the four major analytical dimensions of NPT. Securing buy-in among primary care providers was found to be critical but sometimes difficult. Enablers included physician champions, reimbursement for extra work, and feedback on the effectiveness of collaborative care. The social and professional skills of the care managers seemed critical for integrating collaborative care in the primary health care clinic. Day-to-day implementation was also found to be facilitated by the care managers being located in the clinic since this supports regular face-to-face interactions between physicians and care managers.ConclusionsThe following areas require special attention when planning collaborative care interventions: effective educational programs, especially for care managers; issues of reimbursement in relation to primary care providers; good systems for communication and monitoring; and promoting face-to-face interaction between care managers and physicians, preferably through co-location. There is a need for well-sampled, in-depth qualitative studies on the implementation of collaborative care in settings outside the USA and the UK.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-016-0519-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background Behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia are frequently experienced in the nursing home setting and place a substantial burden on patients, relatives, and nursing home staff. Despite guidelines recommending non-pharmacological treatments, psychotropic drugs are often prescribed to address these symptoms. This is the case despite their effects being limited, and there being a risk of side effects and adverse events for the patient. Several studies have aimed to reduce the use of psychotropic drugs, with varying results. The reasons behind these variations are not well understood. Objectives The objective of this systematic review was to investigate which factors nursing home general practitioners and nursing home staff experience as barriers or facilitators when attempting to deprescribe psychotropic drugs in nursing home residents. Methods We searched PubMed, EMBASE, psycINFO, Web of Science, and CINAHL between April and September 2020. An inductive method using thematic analysis of the qualitative findings was applied for the derivation of themes. Quantitative studies were included but described descriptively and separately. Results Of 8204 unique records, 14 studies were included in the review. Of these, nine were interview or focus group studies and five were survey studies. Thematic analysis resulted in five major themes identified as either facilitators or barriers or both: (1) 'Operationality and routines'; (2) 'Lack of resources and qualifications'; (3) 'Patient-related outcomes', which points to a strong belief in negative patient-related outcomes of discontinuation and a downplay of side effects of the medication; (4) 'Policies', including support and buy-in from nursing home leadership; and (5) 'Collaboration' between physicians and nursing home staff. Themes 1 and 4 consist of facilitators. Theme 2 consists of barriers. Theme 3 and 5 consist of both facilitators and barriers. Evaluation of closed-ended questions from the surveys supported the findings. Conclusions Deprescribing psychotropic drugs used for behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia in nursing home residents is challenging. Resources need to be in place for deprescribing, as well as there being a focus on the positive patient-related outcomes of doing so. Managerial support, staff routines, and interprofessional collaboration are some factors facilitating the process, in addition to there being routines and systematic procedures in place allowing for operationality and a common understanding. Addressing these barriers and facilitators is necessary to ensure that deprescribing can be understood as meaningful and pursued among healthcare professionals in the nursing home setting.

Outcome measurement in clinical genetics is challenging. Robust outcome measures are needed to provide evidence to support service development within genetic counseling. The Genetic Counselling Outcome Scale (GCOS-24), a Patient Reported Outcome Measure (PROM), was developed in English and validated with clinical genetics patients in the British NHS. This study reports the translation and adaptation of the GCOS-24 for use in Denmark. GCOS-24 was translated and back translated, supervised by an expert committee. Feedback on the first version was collected from genetic counseling patients in qualitative interviews focusing on instructions for use, response options and specific items considered semantically difficult. After further adjustment the adapted and translated version was administered to a second sample of patients, with responses analyzed using descriptive statistics. Eighteen interviews were conducted, and led to adjustment of item wording. Sixty-one patients completed the final version GCOS-24dk. Internal consistency is good (Cronbach's α =0.79), with an acceptable number of missing responses and no floor or ceiling effect observed. GCOS-24 has been successfully translated and adapted for use in a Danish setting. The study confirms the feasibility of local adaptation of patient reported outcome measures and stresses the importance of adaptation, even across quite similar populations and health care systems.

Introduction In collaborative care models for anxiety and depression, the care manager (CM), often a mental health nurse, has a key role. However, the work and challenges related to this role remain poorly investigated. Aim To explore CMs' experiences of their work and the challenges they face when implementing their role in a collaborative care intervention in the Capital Region of Denmark. Methods Interviews with eight CMs, a group interview with five CMs and a recording of one supervision session were analysed by thematic analysis. Results The CM carried out considerable implementation work. This included finding suitable locations; initiating and sustaining communication with the GPs and maintaining their engagement in the model; adapting to the patient population in general practice; dealing with personal security issues, and developing supportive peer relations and meaningful supervision. Discussion We compare our findings to previous studies of collaborative care and advanced nursing roles in general practice. The importance of organizational leadership to support the CM's bridge-building role is emphasized. Implications for practice The planners of new collaborative care interventions should not only focus on the CM's clinical tasks but also on ensuring the sufficient organizational conditions for carrying out the role.

Background Previous studies have indicated a need for increased psychosocial focus on children and their families to improve children’s wellbeing and mental health. Child developmental assessments could be a place to implement changes to achieve this. A standardised record might be helpful to clinicians trying to increase psychosocial focus. The aim of this study is to investigate clinical barriers and facilitators when introducing standardised child records with increased focus on psychosocial wellbeing and mental health into child developmental assessments. Methods This is a qualitative study based on 12 semi-structured interviews with four midwives and nine doctors who carry out child developmental assessments in general practice. Data is analysed in the framework of Normalisation Process Theory. Results General practice-based clinicians were positive towards increasing the psychosocial focus in child developmental assessments. The main barriers when clinicians used the standardised child records were: feeling forced to ask certain questions, in turn making the conversation rigid; leaving less room for parents to bring up other issues; making clinicians feel awkward when addressing problems that they cannot solve; the need for extended consultation time; and medico-legal concerns when registering findings. The experience of positive aspects when using the standardised child records facilitated continuous use of the records. Positive aspects included having a standardised approach to recording important findings, thereby uncovering psychosocial problems that could potentially be overlooked. Additionally, structured observation of parent–child interaction and gaining a new vocabulary to describe the findings were valued by clinicians. Balancing a standardised approach with clinicians’ ability to steer the consultation and explore topics in depth while preserving the potential for patients to bring up other issues became an important theme. Conclusion Clinicians need to be well-equipped to handle psychosocial problems through coping strategies, referral options and communication techniques in the psychosocial domain. The parent–child-interaction assessment might expose potentially dysfunctional parenting behaviours and could improve communication between health professionals. Implementing standardised child development records with an increased psychosocial focus is feasible but improvements could optimise the use of the records. Parental views on an increased psychosocial focus during child developmental assessments should be investigated prior to further implementation. Trial registration Trial registry number for the FamilieTrivsel (Family Wellbeing) trial: NCT04129359.