Article

A review of research on the structure, process and outcome of liaison mental health services

Department of Mental Health and Learning Disability, City University, Philpot Street, London E1 2EA,UK.
Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing (Impact Factor: 0.98). 04/2003; 10(2):155-65. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2850.2003.00300.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Liaison mental health services (LMHS) developed originally to address the mental health needs of people with physical illnesses in general hospitals and more recently to work also with people with mental health problems presenting at non-mental health services. The purpose of the present paper was to review empirical research on the structure, process and outcome of liaison mental health services using systematic review methods. Following a comprehensive search strategy, the authors reviewed 48 papers published between 1975 and 2001. There is an extensive international literature on LMHS, much of which describes the structure and process of liaison work. Studies evaluating the outcomes of liaison mental health services are fewer, and handicapped by methodological flaws, some of which are serious enough to cast doubts on the reported results. Professionals and clients value LMHS. LMHS based in accident and emergency (A & E) departments appear to ease the burden of general A & E staff, help clients access mental health services and reduce re-admission rates of people with mental health problems. There is little evidence supporting one model of configuring LMHS over another.

1 Follower
 · 
85 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Psychologists need a thorough understanding of comorbidity involving physical health, substance use, and other mental health problems for clinical research, practice, and training. Comorbidity affects case management from treatment entry through follow-up, touching the work of psychologists in all related settings and at varying levels of training. Conceptualizations of comorbidity, however, are heterogeneous and may vary by training and employment experiences and settings. As such, there is a need to examine the concept of comorbidity more methodically. This article argues that current knowledge and developing language challenges a one-size-fits-all approach to comorbidity. The article outlines and discusses relevant considerations for research, treatment, and training regarding comorbidity.
    Clinical Psychology Science and Practice 02/2007; 14(1):6 - 19. DOI:10.1111/j.1468-2850.2007.00057.x · 2.92 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective. To determine (1) the uniformity of disposition decisions made by clinicians working in Australian emergency departments (EDs) using vignettes describing patients presenting with deliberate self-harm or suicide risk; (2) factors associated with these decisions; (3) factors associated with confidence in these decisions. Methodology. We validated and distributed by email an online survey tool to Australian emergency clinicians via their colleges. Participants were presented with five vignettes and asked to rate the level of risk and protective factors for suicide, the patient's disposition (admit/discharge/review), factors influencing this decision, their confidence in the decision, and factors that would have improved their confidence. Results. Percentages of participants choosing the modal disposition decision for each scenario ranged from 58.6% (136/232) to 92.4% (220/238), demonstrating uniformity in clinicians' disposition decisions. Predictors of disposition were consistently level of risk factors perceived and, infrequently, clinician factors including age and years experience. Confidence in disposition decisions was high across scenarios. Clinicians reported patient, clinician, contextual and decision support factors relevant to an Australian emergency context affected their disposition decisions and confidence in decisions. Conclusion. Emergency clinicians are uniform and confident in their disposition decisions for patient vignettes where there is risk of suicide or self harm.
    04/2014; 2014:943574. DOI:10.1155/2014/943574
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This paper summarises a literature review focusing on the literature directly pertaining to the acute care of older people with dementia in general hospitals from 2007 onwards. Following thematic analysis, one overarching theme emerged: the consequences of being in hospital with seven related subthemes. Significantly, this review highlights that overall there remains mostly negative consequences and outcomes for people with dementia when they go into general hospitals. Although not admitted to hospital directly due to dementia, there are usually negative effects on the dementia condition from hospitalisation. The review suggests this is primarily because there is a tension between prioritisation of acute care for existing co-morbidities and person-centred dementia care. This is complicated by insufficient understanding of what constitutes person-centred care in an acute care context and a lack of the requisite knowledge and skills set in health care practitioners. The review also reveals a worrying lack of evidence for the effectiveness of mental health liaison posts and dementia care specialist posts in nursing. Finally, although specialist posts such as liaison and clinical nurse specialists and specialist units/shared care wards can enhance quality of care and reduce adverse consequences of hospitalisation (they do not significantly) impact on reducing length of stay or the cost of care.
    Dementia 01/2014; DOI:10.1177/1471301213520172