Background: To describe the clinical activity patterns and nature of interventions of hospital-based liaison psychiatry services in England. Methods: Multi-site, cross-sectional survey. 18 acute hospitals across England with a liaison psychiatry service. All liaison staff members, at each hospital site, recorded data on each patient they had face to face contact with, over a 7 day period. Data included location of referral, source of referral, main clinical problem, type of liaison intervention employed, staff professional group and grade, referral onto other services, and standard assessment measures. Results: A total of 1475 face to face contacts from 18 hospitals were included in the analysis, of which approximately half were follow-up reviews. There was considerable variation across sites, related to the volume of Emergency Department (ED) attendances, number of hospital admissions, and work hours of the team but not to the size of the hospital (number of beds). The most common clinical problems were co-morbid physical and psychiatric symptoms, self-harm and cognitive impairment. The main types of intervention delivered were diagnosis/formulation, risk management and advice. There were differences in the type of clinical problems seen by the services between EDs and wards, and also differences between the work conducted by doctors and nurses. Almost half of the contacts were for continuing care, rather than assessment. Eight per cent of all referrals were offered follow up with the LP team, and approximately 37% were referred to community or other services. Conclusions: The activity of LP services is related to the flow of patients through an acute hospital. In addition to initial assessments, services provide a wide range of differing interventions, with nurses and doctors carrying out distinctly different roles within the team. The results show the volume and diversity of LP work. While much clinical contact is acute and confined to the inpatient episode, the LP service is not defined solely by an assessment and discharge function; cases are often complex and nearly half were referred for follow up including liaison team follow up.

Purpose There are calls for greater regulation of online content related to self-harm and suicide, particularly that which is user-generated. However, the online space is a source of support and advice, including an important sharing of experiences. This study aims to explore what it is about such online content, and how people interact with it, that may confer harm or offer benefit. Design/methodology/approach The authors undertook a systematic review of the published evidence, using customised searches up to February 2021 in seven databases. The authors included empirical research on the internet or online use and self-harm or suicide content that had been indexed since 2015. The authors undertook a theoretically driven narrative synthesis. Findings From 4,493 unique records, 87 met our inclusion criteria. The literature is rapidly expanding and not all the evidence is high quality, with very few longitudinal or intervention studies so little evidence to understand possible causal links. Very little content online is classifiable as explicitly harmful or definitively helpful, with responses varying by the individual and immediate context. The authors present a framework that seeks to represent the interplay in online use between the person, the medium, the content and the outcome. Originality/value This review highlights that content should not be considered separately to the person accessing it, so online safety means thinking about all users. Blanket removal or unthinking regulation may be more harmful than helpful. A focus on safe browsing is important and tools that limit time and diversify content would support this.

Resumo Cuidados colaborativos entre saúde mental e atenção primária são efetivos em melhorar desfechos de saúde. O apoio matricial tem semelhanças com cuidados colaborativos pouco exploradas na literatura. Este artigo compara os dois modelos e analisa o apoio matricial a partir de evidências sobre cuidados colaborativos. Revisão narrativa. Componentes de cada modelo (atividades e dimensões) foram identificados e comparados. Evidências sobre cuidados colaborativos informaram análise de componentes semelhantes do apoio matricial. Foram identificadas dimensões do apoio matricial – suporte educacional, cuidado especializado, regulação, cogestão – e dos cuidados colaborativos – cuidado multiprofissional, comunicação sistemática, cuidado estruturado, suporte organizacional. A principal semelhança entre os modelos está nas atividades colaborativas diretas em torno de problemas clínicos, relacionadas a efetividade em estudos sobre cuidados colaborativos. Atividades colaborativas diretas são ponto positivo do apoio matricial. Cuidado estruturado e suporte em nível organizacional devem ser encorajados. Futuros estudos devem refinar as categorias propostas e explorar seu uso para desenvolvimento do apoio matricial.

ObjectiveTo analyse temporal trends in diagnosis and treatment of mental disorders in primary care following implementation of a collaborative care intervention (matrix support).DesignDynamic cohort design with retrospective time-series analysis. Structured secondary data on medical visits to general practitioners of all study clinics were extracted from the municipal electronic records database. Annual changes in the odds of mental disorders diagnoses and antidepressants prescriptions were estimated by multiple logistic regression at visit and patient-year levels with diagnoses or prescriptions as outcomes. Annual changes during two distinct stages of the intervention (stage 1 when it was restricted to mental health (2005–2009), and stage 2 when it was expanded to other areas (2010–2015)) were compared by adding year–period interaction terms to each model.Setting49 primary care clinics in the city of Florianópolis, Brazil.ParticipantsAll adults attending primary care clinics of the study setting between 2005 and 2015.Results3 131 983 visits representing 322 100 patients were analysed. At visit level, the odds of mental disorder diagnosis increased by 13% per year during stage 1 (OR 1.13, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.14, p<0.001) and decreased by 5% thereafter (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.94 to 0.95, p<0.001). The odds of incident mental disorder diagnoses decreased by 1% per year during stage 1 (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.00, p=0.012) and decreased by 7% per year during stage 2 (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.92 to 0.93, p<0.001). The odds of antidepressant prescriptions in patients with a mental disorder diagnosis increased by 7% per year during stage 1 (OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.20, p<0.001); this was driven by selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor prescriptions which increased 14% per year during stage 1 (OR 1.14, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.18, p<0.001) and 9% during stage 2 (OR 1.09, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.10, p<0.001). The odds of incident antidepressant prescriptions did not increase during stage 1 (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.02, p=0.665) and increased by 3% during stage 2 (OR 1.03, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.04, p<0.001). Changes per year were all significantly greater during stage 1 than stage 2 (p values for interaction terms <0.05), except for antidepressant prescriptions during visits (p=0.172).ConclusionThe matrix support intervention may increase diagnosis and treatment of mental disorders when inter-professional collaboration is adequately supported. Competing demands to the primary care teams can subsequently reduce these effects. Future studies should assess clinical outcomes and identify active components and factors associated with successful implementation.