Background The Covid-19 pandemic has imposed extraordinary strains on healthcare workers. But, in contrast with acute settings, relatively little attention has been given to those who work in mental health settings. We aimed to characterise the experiences of those working in English NHS secondary mental health services during the first wave of the pandemic. Methods The design was a qualitative interview-based study. We conducted semi-structured, remote (telephone or online) interviews with 35 members of staff from NHS secondary (inpatient and community) mental health services in England. Analysis was based on the constant comparative method. Results Participants reported wide-ranging changes in the organisation of secondary mental health care and the nature of work in response to the pandemic, including pausing of all services deemed to be “non-essential”, deployment of staff across services to new and unfamiliar roles, and moves to remote working. The quality of participants’ working life was impaired by increasing levels of daily challenge associated with trying to provide care in trying and constrained circumstances, the problems of forging new ways of working remotely, and constraints on ability to access informal support. Participants were confronted with difficult dilemmas relating to clinical decision-making, prioritisation of care, and compromises in ability to perform the therapeutic function of their roles. Other dilemmas centred on trying to balance the risks of controlling infection with the need for human contact. Many reported features of moral injury linked to their perceived failures in providing the quality or level of care that they felt service users needed. They sometimes sought to compensate for deficits in care through increased advocacy, taking on additional tasks, or making exceptions, but this led to further personal strain. Many experienced feelings of grief, helplessness, isolation, distress, and burnout. These problems were compounded by sometimes poor communication about service changes and by staff feeling that they could not take time off because of the potential impact on others. Some reported feeling poorly supported by organisations. Conclusions Mental health workers faced multiple adversities during the pandemic that were highly consequential for their wellbeing. These findings can help in identifying targets for support.

ObjectivesTo explore the experiences of service users, carers and staff seeking or providing secondary mental health services during the COVID-19 pandemic.DesignQualitative interview study, codesigned with mental health service users and carers.MethodsWe conducted semistructured, telephone or online interviews with a purposively constructed sample; a lived experience researcher conducted and analysed interviews with service users. Analysis was based on the constant comparison method.SettingNational Health Service (NHS) secondary mental health services in England between June and August 2020.ParticipantsOf 65 participants, 20 had either accessed or needed to access English secondary mental healthcare during the pandemic; 10 were carers of people with mental health difficulties; 35 were members of staff working in NHS secondary mental health services during the pandemic.ResultsExperiences of remote care were mixed. Some service users valued the convenience of remote methods in the context of maintaining contact with familiar clinicians. Most participants commented that a lack of non-verbal cues and the loss of a therapeutic ‘safe space’ challenged therapeutic relationship building, assessments and identification of deteriorating mental well-being. Some carers felt excluded from remote meetings and concerned that assessments were incomplete without their input. Like service users, remote methods posed challenges for clinicians who reported uncertainty about technical options and a lack of training. All groups expressed concern about intersectionality exacerbating inequalities and the exclusion of some service user groups if alternatives to remote care are lost.ConclusionsThough remote mental healthcare is likely to become increasingly widespread in secondary mental health services, our findings highlight the continued importance of a tailored, personal approach to decision making in this area. Further research should focus on which types of consultations best suit face-to-face interaction, and for whom and why, and which can be provided remotely and by which medium.

ObjectivesTo explore the experiences of service users, carers and staff seeking or providing secondary mental health services during the COVID-19 pandemic.DesignQualitative interview study, co-designed with mental health service users and carers.MethodsWe conducted semi-structured, telephone or online interviews with a purposively constructed sample; a peer researcher with lived experience conducted and analysed interviews with service users. Analysis was based on the constant comparison method.SettingNHS secondary mental health services in England between June and August 2020.ParticipantsOf 65 participants, 20 had either accessed or needed to access English secondary mental healthcare during the pandemic; 10 were carers of people with mental health difficulties; 35 were members of staff working in NHS secondary mental health services during the pandemic.ResultsExperiences of remote care were mixed. Some service users valued the convenience of remote methods in the context of maintaining contact with familiar clinicians. Most participants commented that a lack of non-verbal cues and the loss of a therapeutic ‘safe space’ challenged therapeutic relationship building, assessments, and identification of deteriorating mental wellbeing. Some carers felt excluded from remote meetings and concerned that assessments were incomplete without their input. Like service users, remote methods posed challenges for clinicians who reported uncertainty about technical options and a lack of training. All groups expressed concern about intersectionality exacerbating inequalities and the exclusion of some service user groups if alternatives to remote care are lost.ConclusionsWhilst remote mental healthcare is likely to become increasingly widespread in secondary mental health services, our findings highlight the continued importance of a tailored, personal approach to decisions about remote mental healthcare. Further research should focus on which types of consultations best suit face-to-face interaction, and for whom and why, and which can be provided remotely and by which medium.ARTICLE SUMMARYStrengths and limitations of this studyStrengths include its qualitative approach in speaking to a large sample of participants with varied mental health difficulties, carers, and a diverse range of mental healthcare staff.Its novelty lies in a deep exploration of the views and experiences of remote mental healthcare during a pandemic.The methods are strengthened by the involvement of experts-by-experience and the use of peer research methods.We did not adopt a narrative method; the interviews were one-off conversations so we could not explore change as the pandemic progressed and people may have become accustomed to remote care.The study used remote methods to comply with UK lockdown regulations; this will have excluded some groups without the ability to engage remotely.

Candidacy, a construct describing how people's eligibility for care is negotiated between themselves and services, has received limited attention in the context of mental health care. In addition, candidacy research has only rarely studied the views of carers and health professionals. In this article, we use concepts relating to candidacy to enable a theoretically informed examination of experiences of access to secondary mental health services during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in England. We report a qualitative study of the views and experiences of service users, carers, and healthcare professionals. Analysis of 65 in-depth interviews was based on the constant comparative method. We found that wide-ranging service changes designed to address the imperatives of the pandemic were highly consequential for people's candidacy. Macro-level changes, including increased emphasis on crisis and risk management and adapted risk assessment systems, produced effects that went far beyond restrictions in the availability of services: they profoundly re-structured service users' identification of their own candidacy, including perceptions of what counted as a problem worthy of attention and whether they as individuals needed, deserved, and were entitled to care. Services became less permeable, such that finding a point of entry to those services that remained open, required more work of service users and carers. Healthcare professionals were routinely confronted by complex decisions and ethical dilemmas about provision of care, and their implicit judgements about access may have important implications for equity. Many of the challenges of access exposed by the pandemic related to pre-existing resource deficits and institutional weaknesses in care for people living with mental health difficulties. Overall, these findings affirm the value of the construct of candidacy for explaining access to mental healthcare, but also enable deepened understanding of the specific features of candidacy, offering enduring learning and implications for policy and practice.

Background Active surveillance (AS) is the disease management option of choice for low-risk prostate cancer. Despite this, men with low-risk prostate cancer (LRPC) find management decisions distressing and confusing. We developed Navigate, an online decision aid to help men and their partners make management decisions consistent with their values. The aims are to evaluate the impact of Navigate on uptake of AS; decision-making preparedness; decisional conflict, regret and satisfaction; quality of illness communication; and prostate cancer-specific quality of life and anxiety. In addition, the healthcare cost impact, cost-effectiveness and patterns of use of Navigate will be assessed. This paper describes the study protocol. Methods Three hundred four men and their partners are randomly assigned one-to-one to Navigate or to the control arm. Randomisation is electronically generated and stratified by site. Navigate is an online decision aid that presents up-to-date, unbiased information on LRPC tailored to Australian men and their partners including each management option and potential side-effects, and an interactive values clarification exercise. Participants in the control arm will be directed to the website of Australia’s peak national body for prostate cancer. Eligible patients will be men within 3 months of being diagnosed with LRPC, aged 18 years or older, and who are yet to make a treatment decision, who are deemed eligible for AS by their treating clinician and who have Internet access and sufficient English to participate. The primary outcome is self-reported uptake of AS as the first-line management option. Secondary outcomes include self-reported preparedness for decision-making; decisional conflict, regret and satisfaction; quality of illness communication; and prostate cancer-specific quality of life. Uptake of AS 1 month after consent will be determined through patient self-report. Men and their partners will complete study outcome measures before randomisation and 1, 3 and 6 months after study consent. Discussion The Navigate online decision aid has the potential to increase the choice of AS in LRPC, avoiding or delaying unnecessary radical treatments and associated side effects. In addition, Navigate is likely to reduce patients’ and partners’ confusion and distress in management decision-making and increase their quality of life. Trial registration Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry ACTRN12616001665426. Registered on 2 December 2016. All items from the WHO Trial Registration Data set can be found in this manuscript.