Objectives: To identify a generic set of face valid quality indicators for primary care mental health services which reflect a multi-stakeholder perspective and can be used for facilitating quality improvement. Design: Modified two-round postal Delphi questionnaire. Setting: Geographical spread across Great Britain. Participants: One hundred and fifteen panellists representing 11 different stakeholder groups within primary care mental health services (clinical psychologist, health and social care commissioner, community psychiatric nurse, counsellor, general practitioner, practice nurse/district nurse/health visitor, psychiatrist, social worker, carer, patient and voluntary organisations). Main outcome measures: Face validity (median rating of 8 or 9 on a nine point scale with agreement by all panels) for assessing quality of care. Results: A maximum of 334 indicators were rated by panels in the second round; 26% were rated valid by all panels. These indicators were categorised into 21 aspects of care, 11 relating to general practices and 10 relating to health authorities or primary care groups/trusts. There was variation in the total number of indicators rated valid across the different panels. Overall, GPs rated the lowest number of indicators as valid (41%, n=138) and carers rated the highest number valid (91%, n=304). Conclusions: The quality indicators represent consensus among key stakeholder groups in defining quality of care within primary care mental health services. These indicators could provide a guide for primary care organisations embarking on quality improvement initiatives in mental health care when addressing national targets and standards relating to primary care set out in the National Service Framework for Mental Health for England. Although many of the indicators relate to parochial issues in UK service delivery, the methodology used in the development of the indicators could be applied in other settings to produce locally relevant indicators.

Background: While mental health is a core part of primary care, there are few validated quality measures and little relevant internationally published research. Consensus panel methods are a useful means of developing quality measures where evidence is sparse and/or opinions are diverse. However, little is known about the dynamics of consensus techniques and the factors that influence the judgements and ratings of panels and individual panellists. Objectives: (1) To describe differences in panel ratings on the quality of primary mental health care services by patient, carer, professional and managerial panels within a Delphi procedure; and (2) to explore why different panels and panellists rate quality indicators of primary mental health care differently. Design: Two round postal Delphi technique and exploratory semi-structured interviews. Participants: 115 panellists across 11 panels. Eleven panellists were subsequently interviewed. Results: 87 of 334 indicators (26%) were rated face valid by all 11 panels. There was little disagreement within panel ratings but significant differences between panels. The GP panel rated the least number of indicators valid (n = 138, 41%) and carers the most (n = 304, 91%). The way in which panellists interpreted and conceptualised the indicators and their definition of quality of mental health care affected the way in which participants made their ratings. Conclusions: Stakeholders in primary mental health care have diverse views of quality of care and these differences translate into how they rate quality indicators. Exploratory interviews suggest that ratings are influenced by past experience, expectations, definitions of quality of care, and perceived power relationships between stakeholders.

Background Family carers are central in supporting patients nearing the end of life, but this often has an impact on their own mental health. Understanding what factors may affect carers’ mental health is important in developing strategies to maintain mental health, through identifying carers at risk who may need added monitoring and support or developing interventions to change modifiable factors. Reviews of the qualitative, observational and intervention literature were conducted to address this. Aims (1) to review trials of carer interventions to improve our understanding of factors related to carer mental health identified in earlier qualitative and observational reviews; (2) to synthesise the evidence from our qualitative, observational and intervention reviews on factors related to carers’ mental health during end-of-life caregiving. Method We carried out searches of MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PsycINFO® (American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, USA), Social Sciences Citation Index, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) from 1 January 2009 to 24 November 2019. We included studies into adult informal/family carers for adult patients at the end of life cared for at home that considered any factor related to carer mental health (anxiety, depression, distress, quality of life) pre bereavement. The quality appraisal used Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklists and the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. The qualitative review analysis developed themes that then provided a framework for the quantitative review analyses. Findings from all three reviews were mapped onto a single framework, informed by a carer Review Advisory Panel. Results A total of 31 qualitative, 60 observational, 12 intervention and 3 mixed-methods studies were identified. Factors associated with carer mental health were as follows: (1) patient condition, particularly psychological symptoms and quality of life; (2) impact of caring responsibilities, particularly life changes, workload and carer burden; (3) relationships, particularly with the patient; (4) finances, whether sufficient or not; (5) internal processes, particularly self-efficacy; (6) support, particularly adequacy and quality of support; (7) contextual factors, particularly age and gender. The three types of literature were reflected in most themes and yielded similar or complementary results, adding validity to findings. Only observational studies investigated contextual factors. Intervention studies focused on modifiable factors, but added little evidence on the causal direction between factors and mental health owing to design and analysis limitations. Relationships and finance received little attention overall. There was limited research into ethnicity, race or culture. Quantitative research missed some factors highlighted by carers in qualitative studies (e.g. quality aspects of formal support), and focused more on ‘self-management’ within internal processes (emphasised less by carers). Limitations Findings are from Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) country English-language publications on adult carers and patients in the home setting and limited to these contexts. Literature heterogeneity (study focus, objectives, methods, variables, measures) hindered meta-synthesis. Conclusions Future work requires broad stakeholder engagement to address the diverse range of factors associated with carers’ mental health. Project findings will be disseminated accordingly. Future research needs more (1) work on defining and measuring concepts; (2) longitudinal design, repeated measurement and path analysis, to move beyond evidence of association towards an understanding of causal relationships; (3) focus on factors that matter to carers rather than what is easily measured or manipulated; and (4) investigation of relationships, finance, ethnicity, race and culture. Study registration This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019130279. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme and will be published in Health and Social Care Delivery Research. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.