Understanding experiences of and preferences for service user and carer involvement in physical health care discussions within mental health care planning
© The Author(s). 2017
Received: 23 September 2016
Accepted: 27 March 2017
Published: 13 April 2017
People with severe mental illness suffer more physical comorbidity than the general population, which can require a tailored approach to physical health care discussions within mental health care planning. Although evidence pertaining to service user and carer involvement in mental health care planning is accumulating, current understanding of how physical health is prioritised within this framework is limited. Understanding stakeholder experiences of physical health discussions within mental health care planning, and the key domains that underpin this phenomena is essential to improve quality of care. Our study aimed to explore service user, carer and professional experiences of and preferences for service user and carer involvement in physical health discussions within mental health care planning, and develop a conceptual framework of effective user-led involvement in this aspect of service provision.
Six focus groups and four telephone interviews were carried out with twelve service users, nine carers, three service users with a dual service user and carer role, and ten mental health professionals recruited from one mental health Trust in the United Kingdom. Data was analysed utilising a thematic approach, analysed separately for each stakeholder group, and combined to aid comparisons.
No service users or carers recalled being explicitly involved in physical health discussions within mental health care planning. Six prerequisites for effective service user and carer involvement in physical care planning were identified. Three themes confirmed general mental health care planning requirements: tailoring a collaborative working relationship, maintaining a trusting relationship with a professional, and having access to and being able to edit a living document. Three themes were novel to feeling involved in physical health care planning discussions: valuing physical health equally with mental health; experiencing coordination of care between physical-mental health professionals, and having a physical health discussion that is personalised.
High quality physical health care discussions within the care planning process demands action at multiple levels. A conceptual framework is presented which provides an evidence-based foundation for service level improvement. Further work is necessary to develop a new patient reported outcome measure to enable meaningful quantification of health care quality and patient experience.
KeywordsService user involvement Severe mental illness Carers Physical health Mental health services Care planning Qualitative research Patients’ perspectives Health outcomes
People with severe mental illness suffer higher rates of multiple, often more complex, physical comorbidity and premature death than the general population . As a result, life expectancy for this vulnerable population is reduced by 15–20 years . It is well established that side effects of some antipsychotic medications contribute substantially to this inequality alongside other factors such as, higher rates of smoking, substance abuse, poor nutrition and sedentary lifestyles .
Last year, the independent mental health Taskforce set out a national strategic vision to deliver a Five Year Forward View to improving mental health outcomes across the health and care system in England by 2020/21 . The strategy is the result of engagement with over twenty thousand people with lived experience of mental health conditions, families, carers and professionals, as well as a review of clinical and economic evidence . The Implementation Plan aims to provide improved continuity and coordination of care, and enhanced relational support between health and social care or between primary and secondary care service providers by bringing together physical and mental health care to benefit people with severe mental illness . In response to the Taskforce, promises have been made to deliver more integrated physical and mental health care, to provide NHS care that is cost efficient, of a higher quality, and more personalised to service users of mental health services [5, 6]. Yet, despite efforts to improve mental health care, a number of factors continue to make it difficult to provide an integrated response to service users physical and mental health needs, including a lack of institutional time and space to be able to offer more personalised care; cultural barriers at team levels to enable improved assessment, treatment and communication between professionals within mental health services; and separate systems for physical and mental health care delivery . Mental health professionals’ commonly report having insufficient skills, competencies and resources to perform physical health checks in addition to mental health checks . As a result, many physical health checks, such as vital cholesterol and blood glucose checks to prevent the onset of long-term physical health conditions, are not completed by mental health professionals, with many service users being referred on to physical health specialists in primary care [3, 7].
One approach mandated to enable decisions to become tailored to the individual service user and carer to significantly improve health outcomes is individual care planning [8, 9]. In the UK, the recovery-focused Care Planning Approach (CPA) is mandated nationally to assess service users mental and physical health needs [10–12]. In line with the CPA, service users and carers should have access to a care coordinator, a written care plan and an annual review to check their progress. Service users should work collaboratively with their care planning team to discuss and document their plan of care [9, 13, 14]. Furthermore, service users are expected to take joint responsibility for achieving their goals reflecting the core principles of shared decision-making [9, 14, 15]. Typically, a care plan, or a CPA review letter, should be the outcome of these discussions, and should accurately document the interplay between an individual’s mental and physical health symptoms, all primary and secondary mental health and physical health diagnoses and treatments, to ensure essential and current information necessary for high quality care of a service user of secondary mental health services is recorded and communicated to primary care .
Qualitative research has highlighted how service user and carer led involvement in mental health care planning persists as an under-performing area. Concepts of user involvement have been shown to be operationalised differently by service users and mental health professionals . In practice, poor information exchange between mental health care professionals, insufficient resources to empower service users and carers, and conflicts between mental health care professionals, frequently lead to decisions being taken without service users and carers involvement .
Whilst there is some empirical evidence that coordination of care and maintaining a relationship is considered to be central to user-led involvement in mental health care planning , it remains unclear how physical health is prioritised and operationalised within this process. This knowledge gap is exacerbated by the lack of clarity over where the responsibility for providing physical health care to service users lies. Debate continues as to whether this rests principally with mental health professionals working within mental health services, primary care, or both [2, 5, 20–22]. Both service users and mental health professionals have reported difficulties with accessing appropriate physical health services, with the shared concern that physical and mental health needs are still being addressed by mental health services in a disconnected way .
Parity of esteem is a health policy concept that advocates equal value for mental and physical health services. This includes the priority and attention given to both in research and practice. The aim of this paper is to explore stakeholders’ experiences and preferences of service user and carer led involvement in physical health care discussions within mental health care planning. Recent studies in generic mental health care planning have revealed how the conceptual framework underpinning user-involved care planning in mental health services may differ from the patient centred care framework adopted in physical health services . This work emphasises the need to recognise the cultural and contemporary contexts in which service users engage in care planning within secondary mental health services. These contexts have traditionally led to more paternalistic approaches to care planning, which are a real barrier to adopting and practicing service user led involvement [18, 23].
Understanding how service users and carers feel involved in planning their physical health care remains a key step towards improving levels of preference-guided involvement in mental health care planning . The current study addresses the aforementioned gap, through understanding the experiences and preferences of service users, carers and professionals, in relation to their preferred levels of involvement in physical health care discussions within mental health care planning.
The study used an explorative approach to inform the development of a conceptual framework of service user and carer involvement in physical health discussions within care planning. This framework offers a useful foundation to begin to understand how user-led involvement in physical health care discussions is achieved in practice from multiple stakeholder perspectives , with a view to expediting a move towards parity of esteem between mental and physical health services, and improving the physical health of people with serious mental illness.
The study utilised a qualitative approach, incorporating focus groups and semi-structured interviews, to explore how the concept of user involvement in physical health discussions within mental health care planning is experienced from the service user, carer and mental health professional perspective, to develop a conceptual framework of effective user-led involvement. This approach was taken because we still have a limited understanding of how this concept is understood in this area of service provision.
From herein, our study methods are reported in line with the consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ) guidelines .
Service user, carer and mental health professional participants were recruited from Manchester Mental Health and Social Care Trust (MMHSCT) in the North West of England, UK. At the time of our study, the MMHSCT was the main provider of specialist mental health care, social care, and health and wellbeing services to the residents of Manchester, supporting over 14,000 service users per annum, with a workforce of over 1500 and an annual income of over £104 m .
Stakeholders’ were recruited from MMHSCT to compare experiences of service user and carer led involvement in order to highlight any differences in perspectives and to inform the conceptual understanding of effective service user and carer led involvement. Thus, mental health professionals were recruited, as well as service users and carers, to discover how they experienced service user and carer led involvement in routine practice, and to establish preferences of service user and led involvement from all stakeholders involved in the process of physical health care discussions within mental health care planning.
Participant recruitment and data collection occurred between June and September 2015. Participants were recruited using a range of established recruitment methods [26, 27], to attract service users, carers and mental health professionals to take part in the study, via: the Trust intranet and communications, posters displayed on Trust and University premises and service user and carer forums.
Inclusion criteria comprised service users who were aged eighteen or over with current or recent involvement with community mental health services. Carers were eligible for inclusion if they were caring or supporting a person with a serious mental illness who had experience of secondary mental health services. Mental health professionals had to be working in community mental health services within the specified Trust.
Data collection took place either on the University of Manchester or Trust premises. Focus groups were used to encourage open-ended group interaction and user-led dialogue to elicit experiences and preferences of involvement in physical health care discussions within mental health care planning.
Potential participants contacted the study coordinator (NS) to discuss study eligibility, and interview availability. Following this, participants were invited to attend a focus group, or to take part in a telephone interview at a convenient date. This choice was mostly determined by participant preference. Participants took part in either a focus group or an interview, not both. Eligible participants were sent (via email, or post) a study information sheet. Before the start of each focus group or telephone interview, participants were asked if they had any further questions prior to giving written consent. Participants who chose to be interviewed on the telephone were subsequently sent a study written consent form and a self-addressed envelope. Interviews and focus groups were arranged on receipt of written consent. All interviews and focus groups were digitally recorded with written consent.
The research team consisted of health services researchers, a service user researcher, and a clinical member of the Trust concerned. Thus, our team was multidisciplinary with significant, methodological, service user lived experience, clinical, psychometric and academic expertise. We followed a topic guide which provided a flexible and established framework , to understand experiences and preferences of service user and carer preferred levels of involvement in physical health discussions (see Additional file 1). Questions specific to physical health were incorporated in a topic guide; questions specific to service user and carer involvement were informed by a previous generic mental health care planning topic guide which had been ‘user tested’ by a service user and carer advisory group (SUCAG ). We defined ‘physical health’ as an essential part of a service user’s overall health, and included everything from their physical fitness and function, to their overall physical wellbeing. Topics explored covered current perspectives of physical health care discussions, including: a) the importance of physical health in relation to mental health; b) the process; c) the outcome; and, d) perceptions of service user and carer involvement (see Additional file 1 for detail).
The majority of the focus groups and telephone interviews were facilitated by the study co-ordinator (NS); the minority were facilitated by a CLAHRC for Greater Manchester PhD student (IA). All focus groups were co-facilitated by one of two members of the research team (HB, RP). All facilitators and co-facilitators self-identified as experienced health services researchers without professional or personal experience of secondary care mental health services. Each focus group lasted on average 66 min (range: 50–89 min); telephone interviews were shorter averaging at 34 min (range: 29–36 min). Service users and carers were compensated for their time with a payment of a high street gift voucher (£25) and travel expenses were reimbursed. Once each focus group or telephone interview was completed, the topic guide was adapted in line with the data collected and new avenues of interest were explored in the next interview or focus group.
A total of forty seven participants expressed an interest in participating in the study, and thirty four participants consented and took part in either a telephone interview or a focus group. From our three groups of participants, focus groups were undertaken with: twelve service users; nine carers; two service users with a dual service user and carer perspective; and seven mental health professionals working in different roles within mental health services. Of note, two mental health professionals were also service users, but chose to participate in a professional focus group. Telephone interviews were undertaken with three mental health professionals, and one service user and carer (bringing a dual perspective).
Sample characteristics relating to participants
Interview type (Number)
Participant type (Number)
Total number of participants
Focus group (6)
SU (12), SU/C (2), C (9), MHP (5), MHP/SU (2)
SU/C (1), MHP (3)
Interview data was transcribed and anonymised upon receipt. The analysis process was led by the study coordinator (NS); all members of the research team contributed to the analysis by reading a selection of transcripts, coding text segments and offering suggestions to the developing framework. All members of the research team verified the final set of themes.
Data was subjected to a thematic analysis, whereby emerging themes were generated, coded, re-coded and categorised accordingly . As coding progressed, an excel spreadsheet listing the codes, and a document containing codes from each transcript with excerpts of data relevant to each theme, were developed to manage the developing thematic framework. All codes were checked by revisiting the transcripts to ensure that the emerging themes remained grounded in the service user and carer perspective, and audio files were checked to assure the quality of transcription.
Data from the service user and carer perspective were coded separately from the professional data, and subsequently compared to allow for comparison of experiences. During the comparison of data, the framework was reshaped to enable new themes to be introduced. The research team agreed as a whole when data saturation had occurred (that is, the point at which no new themes emerged from the data), and no further data collection was necessary.
The analysis identified key prerequisites of effective service user and carer involvement in physical health discussions within care planning, and a conceptual framework that represented the entire data set was developed. Data are presented to compare and contrast service user, carer, and mental health professional experiences of service user and carer led involvement in physical health discussions within mental health care planning.
Each prerequisite is presented in relation to the current perspectives, processes and outcomes for effective involvement, and the broader healthcare system factors that impact on the implementation of effective user and carer led involvement. Illustrative data are given and identified by a code number rather than a name or pseudonym, which is provided along with contextual information on the interview type and participant group.
Themes confirming general care planning requirements
Tailoring a collaborative working relationship
“I think that one of the best things that users and carers can bring is experts by experience, and they can really help to shape the whole, kind of, how our health and social care system works, to make it more integrated” [5641, telephone, service user and carer].
“It’s a two-way process… it’s something that they’re involved with and taking part in and contributing to, rather than something that’s being done to them… they [professionals] might learn the reasons why people do things in certain ways and be able to manipulate something around that. And having that full picture of that patient” [6225, telephone, mental health professional].
“I think a lot of patients are quite passive in themselves about some important health priorities, and if they are passive about those and there are some other difficulties such as time constraints, resources in the health and social care system, that passivity combined with lack of resources does conspire to neglect kind of assertive physical health care plans” [6372, telephone, mental health professional].
“…there’s a huge assumption that the cared for will be able to take up that offer of physical health, and I think that’s a huge assumption for that person who’s not well to be able to suddenly skip to the gym or do whatever. And I think without the role of the carer it’s just not going to happen… I’m sure there’s many people out there that might be given social prescribing, and it does nothing for them because they’re not able to actually make that step to actually do it. I’d make sure the cared for actually goes to the gym or whatever, which is actually quite a challenging task in itself sometimes” [5277, FG3, carer].
Maintaining a trusting relationship with the care planning professional
“I think, for a start, it’s the sense of knowing that nothing is physically wrong with me, or when it is, knowing that I’m getting the right treatment or I’m not being misunderstood by a GP or other form of professional, that it’s just the mental health that’s making you think like that” [5641, telephone, service user and carer].
“It’s having somebody visible that can go and access and to take that information on board and having somebody there for when they need that information. But it’s building up that baseline first that people know that there’s people there that they can access. It’s knowing what resources they can tap into” [6225, telephone interview, mental health professional].
“I think trust is a big issue... You know, you get a number of therapists that make people feel like freaks, you know, and there’s not going to be any positive remark... especially if you talk about things like smoking that people enjoy, or anything that’s hard to change, you’re not going to do that with someone you don’t trust” [5276, FG2, service user and carer].
Despite these potential benefits, professionals’ described how time and skill-mix constraints within the mental health workforce were barriers to developing these relationships. There was also an acknowledgment that a trusting relationship would need to be built over time requiring a level of continuity of care that was not possible within current mental health services.
Having access to and being able to contribute to a living document
“I don’t even want to call it physical or mental, I’d rather just call it a wellbeing health plan or a wellbeing plan, because both parties shouldn’t ignore the other part of your life, you know, they are both equally important. If I go to see a physical health practitioner, I would like that physical health practitioner to ask me questions around how am I feeling, what is my mental state like, what impact is this physical health condition having on me? And I would like the same for a nursing staff to do in a mental health setting, to ask me about my physical health. So I think that for me there should be something that people should see you as a whole person” [5641, telephone, service user and carer].
“I don’t have one [care plan]… if one was written it would be written for them [mental health professionals’], by them without anything to do with me. So I mean I wouldn’t see it anyway. So I mean the things I want, or if I had an imaginary care plan, is a discussion about what affects me, you know, like a sort of level of… what’s having the biggest impact on me and maybe where I can get support with these things, that would be the kind of thing I’d want” [5276, FG2, carer].
“I haven’t seen a care plan for eighteen month, maybe two years. It must be approaching two years that my social worker said ‘oh, I’ve done your care plan, will you have a look at it for me’. These things need updating every three to six month at the very least” [5275, FG1, service user and carer].
Novel themes with specific relevance to physical health discussions
Valuing physical health equally with mental health
“So it is important that it is connected, the mind and body, because what you think and that, it affects what you eat and everything. But it’s important to treat them both as equal and the same” [5277, FG3, carer].
“I think fundamentally commissioning is where we’re going wrong with physical health, getting it together with mental health and we look at parity of esteem and I think mental health services are working towards parity of esteem, we are starting to look at physical health as something we do, we’ve got to get it right, it’s really important, it doesn’t work the other way, the acute trust do not, when you’re having your appendix out, consider your schizophrenia or your medicines” [5427, FG5, mental health professional].
“I’ve had a personal experience where you explain a condition to a doctor and he just doesn’t actually realise that what you’re saying is physically happening, he just thinks it’s just part of your mental illness and they kind of fob it off” [5641, telephone, service user and carer].
“I think staff will often say, well, you need to go to the GP. And so a lot of them redirect them to the GP really, if there’s a physical health problem. Because they don’t have the knowledge, primary care’s the best one, the GP has the knowledge” [6390, Telephone, mental health professional].
“I think in relation to having a mental health diagnosis, for me physical needs to be part of the equation, because most people get put on medication where the side effects aren’t explained fully, so you’re experiencing different physical things that you’ve probably never encountered before. So the physical aspect needs to be included to include them side effects” [5275, FG1, service user and carer].
Experiencing coordination of care between physical-mental health professionals
“What I would like more of, is that there’s more coordination in my mum’s care plan around physical practitioners, healthcare practitioners working along with mental health practitioners” [5641, telephone, carer].
“I think we need the resources ourselves really. The Community Mental Health Trust needs to provide that. When people come to an outpatient appointment… the consultant sends a letter to the GP and says, can you do the bloods and the ECG. Now that doesn’t always happen. And we don’t know if it happens, nobody… we just have to ask the patient. So if you had somewhere there like they do at [name]… I know they’ve got a physical health clinic there and people go to an outpatient appointment, maybe they could just pop in and have their bloods done, and they can have an ECG or they can have an appointment to come back and have a physical health check. I think we need something like that” [6390, telephone, mental health professional].
Having a physical health care discussion within care planning that is personalised
“They are discussed. There’s no doubt about that, I wouldn’t say that they don’t get discussed because, you know, part of my care plan when I used to get a lot of services was input around my mental wellbeing. They used to cover, you know, all the physical aspects of it, but it was a tick box exercise. It was very much a tick box exercise: ‘okay, let’s da-da-da-da’, it would only… But, actually, when you have something, no thorough detail no thorough interest is taken by mental health practitioners” [5641, telephone, service user and carer].
“I think the care planning, the patients themselves need to understand why it’s done, it’s not just a tick-box exercise [using the rethink tool], that it has actually got outcomes, and it’s for their health. But it’s them perceiving that… care planning takes a bit longer. When you involve the patients and you take them on board, there are things that will be raised up and how you actually signpost that person to the more appropriate place, will they take up more time in the extra help that they potentially might need to support them through this” [6225, telephone, mental health professional].
People with severe mental illness suffer more complex physical comorbidity than the general population, requiring a more tailored approach to care planning from mental health services. The present qualitative study sought to expand on policy mandates for integrated physical and mental health care in the NHS , by defining best practice for physical health planning for service users across individual, practice and organisational levels. This study is to our knowledge, the first empirical research study to present a conceptual framework of high quality physical health discussions for mental health service users, providing a much-needed platform for service improvement and future research and development activities. Our data suggests that a more tailored approach to physical health care discussions within mental health care planning, which looks at the whole person in context with their unique needs and personal characteristics, is necessary for effective service user and carer led involvement to be achieved in practice.
The novel contribution to our study lies in the development of a unique conceptual framework encompassing the prerequisites necessary to achieve effective service user and carer involvement in physical health care discussions; this work provides a foundation to understand how the concept might be translated into practice. Our evidence-based framework highlights the relationships between the different prerequisites, and how real service user and carer involvement might be achievable through the measurement of those prerequisites (see Fig. 1). We have shown that service user and carer involvement in physical health discussions is influenced by different factors, and is expedited by and judged according to six different domains of activity: valuing parity of esteem; tailoring a collaborative working relationship; maintaining a trusting relationship; experiencing coordination of care between physical and mental health professionals; having a physical health discussion that is personalised; and being able to contribute to the outcome of those physical health discussions in the short and longer term through accessing, and editing a living document that encompasses a current plan of physical and mental health wellbeing. In further work, we are now in a position to operationalise our conceptual framework, by developing a new patient reported outcome measure (commonly known as a PROM) of service user and carer led involvement in physical health care domains of mental health care plans. Psychometric PROMs are reliable and valid measures used in translational research in the NHS to quantify domains of interest, to enable meaningful measurement of health care quality and patient experience outcomes from the service user perspective .
A strength of our approach is that we developed our conceptual framework through consultation with service users and carers to identify their perspectives, and combined this data with insight from the mental health professional perspective with experience of operationalising service user and carer led involvement in physical health care discussions within mental health care planning. Our data reveals a need to improve the relational aspects underpinning physical health care discussions, in order for meaningful service user and carer involvement to occur. Importantly, we have identified a conceptual model of ‘best practice’ care planning that challenges current practice , having found no evidence within our study that service users and carers had been meaningfully involved in physical health care discussions; some participants reported receiving no care plan at all.
We have shown that efforts to improve the physical health care of people with serious mental illness should be developed in consultation with the stakeholders to empower service users, carers and mental health professionals, to help remove barriers to delivering and accessing more integrated care within mental health services. Of note, we found no evidence of examples where stakeholders have had input into the development of integrated care systems. Therefore, our study has highlighted the need to develop more bespoke and meaningful interventions for people with serious mental illness, to be able to treat physical health care with equal importance as mental health care, coordinate care between physical-mental health professionals, and have physical health discussions that are personalised to the user. Further, our three novel themes illustrate how service users require their physical health, mental health and social care to be coordinated around them, and for this to happen, this requires a partnership with service users and carers over the long term, rather than providing unconnected care. Thus, our framework emphasises the importance of providing an integrated approach to the identification, assessment and support of service users physical health needs across health and social care [5, 30].
Our data has some conceptual similarities to evidence-based frameworks developed for user-carer led involvement in generic mental health care planning [17, 18, 26, 27]. Within mental health care planning, service users, welcome the partnership element of collaborative working, and valued relational aspects of care planning and request a personalised approach to care [17, 18, 27]. Our data suggests that service user dissatisfaction with physical health planning may be lessened by personalising physical health discussions and resources [26, 27]. Likewise, feelings of isolation and vulnerability would lessen as service users and carers become more involved in the care planning process at a preferred level of involvement [26, 27, 31].
Operationalising such a process within mental health services demands action and cultural change at team and organisational levels. Staff time was a clear barrier that impacted on the quality, depth and meaningfulness of those personalised service user and carer led care planning discussions [17, 27]. Moreover, the potential for service user and carer led involvement was often missed due to other broader factors within the healthcare system, such as; resources, workload constraints, and organisational barriers within the mental health setting [17, 18, 27]. A crucial organisational barrier in our findings was the dilemma and lack of clarity around service responsibility - mental health or physical health services - for provision of physical health care. Interestingly, this reflects previous International qualitative research whereby mental health and primary care health care systems have been found to operate in silo, resulting in no clear preference as to which physical-mental professional should provide the physical care . However, our unique framework with specific relevance to physical-mental health domains may help to resolve this recurring dilemma for mental health professionals through ensuring transparency of service responsibility via coordinating care with physical professionals, and documenting those meaningful physical health care discussions and outcomes on a living care plan that either professionals may consult to clarify provision of physical health care, and to give context on their physical health needs.
We have identified a need for specific workforce physical health training to ensure that physical health care delivery was fully and effectively integrated within mental health services. Professionals in our sample described a lack of confidence and skill in dealing with service users physical health, leading to a need to ‘refer on’ to other more skilled physical health professionals outside of mental health services [3, 7, 18]. As a result, many service users and carers described being ‘fobbed off’ by their mental health professional, or being ‘passed about’ to a physical health specialist without knowledge of their mental health difficulties, or recovery journey, which in turn impacted on service users and carers motivation levels to be involved in any subsequent physical health discussions. The aforementioned barriers to service user and carer led involvement in physical health discussions in mental health care planning resonate with the recent mandate to bring together physical and mental health care as a third dimension to health and social care in the NHS . Initiatives to overcome these barriers and implement integrated physical and mental health care recommend professional bodies to redesign curriculums so that all health professionals have a common foundation in mental health, as well as physical health . This may overcome the dilemma of prioritisation of mental health over physical health which service users/ carers and mental health professionals described, as well as mental health services not taking shared responsibility for physical health concerns. Other initiatives mandated involve providing ongoing training for mental health professionals to closely monitor physical symptoms, as well as training to improve communication to GPs, to ensure integrated models of care are in place to sustain good practice .
Our data substantially strengthens the mental health Taskforce 5 year objective to increase investment in mental health funding, to achieve a system-wide transformation for mental health services to be able to achieve parity of esteem [5, 30]. Ultimately, our data highlights how mental health services still have a long way to go to achieve the cultural change to deliver the prerequisites necessary to bring about true service user and care led involvement in care planning discussions . However, our conceptual framework centred on valuing parity of physical and mental health, coordination, personalising physical health discussions and documents to reflect the service users and carers holistic and individual needs, may assist the delivery and embed service user and carer individual care planning in practice, against achieving the Taskforce 5 year vision of offering more preventive, and holistic mental health care .
Of note, the integration of Greater Manchester West Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust and MMHSCT to form Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust (GMMH) took place two years on following the completion of our study on 1st January 2017, to improve prevention, access, integrated approaches towards physical and mental health and the sustainability of Manchester’s mental health services . This represents the first phase of the wider transformation of mental health services across Greater Manchester, which will see the integration of social care, primary care and mental health provision together at the community level, and mental health services collaborating around specialist provision of care [32, 33]. The new pooling of budgets to enable joint decision making as an integrated whole is thought to allow new models of care to be developed and supported to improve the health and wellbeing of service users and carers . Our platform for best practice for effective service user and carer involvement in physical health care planning complements the new strategic vision of the GMMH Trust for the future delivery of mental health services across Greater Manchester, with particular investment in stakeholder improvement schemes across the Trust, designed to improve physical and mental health service user experience, and integrated health and social care.
Limitations of the current study
There are limitations to the findings that we have presented. Given the nature of our approach to recruitment, a few of the participants had participated in a previous user involvement focus group as part of the wider involvement in care planning programme; thus, previous experience may have influenced accounts given . The range of characteristics of participants in the study was limited by the opt-in methods; we sampled more female participants, and more service users than carers. We collected limited demographic characteristics (gender, participant type and role), but we intend to collect further demographic data from a larger sample of service users and carers when we develop and preliminary test our new PROM in future work. The potential for purposive sampling in responses to developing themes was minimal given the nature of the opt-in method to recruitment. The ethical requirement to obtain written consent from all participants impacted on the number of mental health professionals recruited to be interviewed over the telephone; many participants failed to return written postal consent. The diagnosis of serious mental illness was not verified by a mental health service provider that they were using, or the GP, and represent people’s perceptions. It is possible that these sampling issues may have led to a restriction in the range of interpretation of findings if certain types of participants do not respond. For instance, those patients who may not have a good relationship with their care planning team may have decided to not take part. The findings may not be generalizable to all types of serious mental illness and physical health conditions; and type of condition is a variable to explore in our further research. We did not collect baseline data on professional role. Professionals were self-identified as being involved in physical health discussions with mental health service users and carers. However, professional participants were primarily recruited to explore how involvement was operationalised in practice, to complement and contrast, service user and carer experiences of involvement.
We identified six prerequisites for effective user-led involvement in physical health care discussions within mental health care planning and organised them into a conceptual framework of confirmatory and novel themes. Our data revealed that user-led involvement in physical health care discussions is an interpersonal process that if facilitated correctly, should empower service users and professionals to work together effectively. Improvements in physical health discussions within the care planning process, and the delivery of integrated care, demand action at individual, team and organisational levels. A conceptual framework is presented which provides an evidence-based foundation for service level improvement. In our future work, service user and carer centred items will be developed for a new PROM to quantify and move towards implementing service user and carer led involvement in practice.
Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care for Greater Manchester
Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research guidelines
Care Planning Approach
Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust
Manchester Mental Health and Social Care Trust
Patient reported outcome measure
Service user and carer advisory group
The authors of this manuscript would like to thank the service users, carers and mental health professionals who willingly gave their time to participate in the study. We would like to acknowledge the support provided by Manchester Mental Health and Social Care Trust. We also acknowledge the support given by Isabel Adeyemi, a PhD student on the CLAHRC Greater Manchester, to the acquisition and analysis of data for this study.
Dr. Penny Bee is supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care for Greater Manchester. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health.
Availability of data and materials
The data generated during or analysed during the current study are not publicly available due to ethical restrictions. Any enquiries regarding the study can be directed to Dr. Nicola Small, as corresponding author, and Dr. Penny Bee, as principal investigator on the study.
NS was the study coordinator. She led on the recruitment, data collection and data analysis. NS led on the drafting of the conceptual framework and the manuscript critically for intellectual content for publication. HB was involved in the conception and design of the study. She also assisted the study co-ordinator with the recruitment, data collection and analysis. HB co-facilitated revising the conceptual framework and manuscript critically for intellectual content for publication. AG was involved in the conception and design of the study, as well as the recruitment of participants and analysis of data. RP was involved in the conception and design of the study. She assisted the study co-ordinator with the recruitment, data collection and analysis. CG was involved in the recruitment of participants and provided guidance to NS on the research process and the intellectual interpretation of the conceptual framework. KL had substantial input into the design and conception of the study, assisted with recruitment and commented on the final manuscript for publication. PB had substantial input into the design and conception of the study, as well as data collection and analysis. She was involved in revising the conceptual framework and manuscript critically for intellectual content for publication. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Consent for publication
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Ethical approval was granted for the study by the next available committee to review our application, South Central – Oxford B NHS Research Committee (REC Ref: /SC/0149). All participants provided written consent.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
- Rodgers M, Dalton J, Harden M, Street A, Parker G, Eastwood A. Integrated care to address the physical health needs of people with severe mental illness: a rapid review. Health Serv Deliv Res. 2016;4
- The King’s Fund. The King's Fund - Ideas that change health care: 10 priorities for integrating physical and mental health. 2016.Google Scholar
- van Hasselt FK, Oud MJT, Loonen AJM. Improvement of care for the physical health of patients with severe mental illness: a qualitative study assessing the view of patients and famillies. BMC HSR. 2013;13:1–7.Google Scholar
- Mental Health Taskforce. The Five Year Forward View for Mental Health. England: NHS; 2016.Google Scholar
- The King’s Fund. Bringing together physical and mental health: A new frontier for integrated care. Cavendish Square: The King’s Fund; 2016.
- England NHS. Improving the physical health of people with serious mental illness: a practical toolkit. England: NHS; 2016.Google Scholar
- Eldridge D, Dawber N, Gray R. A well-being support program for patients with severe mental illness: a service evaluation. BMC Psychiatry. 2011;11:1–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Doyle C, Lennox L, Bell D. A systematic review of evidence on the links between patient experience and clinical safety and effectiveness. BMJ Open. 2013;3
- Care Quality Commission. Survey of mental health inpatient services. London: National Centre for Social Research; 2009.
- Department of Health. The NHS Plan: a plan for investment, a plan for reform. London: The Stationery Office; 2000.
- Royal College of Physicians. Advance care planning (National Guidelines, Number 12): Concise guidance to good practice. London: Royal College of Physicians; 2009.
- Healthcare Commission. Community mental health service users’ survey. London: Healthcare Commission; 2008.
- Dean J, Wakefield R. Collaborative Care Planning “Nothing about me without me”. In: Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust: Understanding mnetal health, understanding people; 2011.Google Scholar
- Department of Health. Caring for people: the Care Programme Approach for people with a mental illness referred to the specialist psychiatric services. London: Department of Health; 1990.Google Scholar
- Hounsell J, Owens C: User researchers in control. Mental Health Today 2005.Google Scholar
- NHS England. National CQUIN Templates. 2016.Google Scholar
- Bee P, Price O, Baker J, Lovell K. Systematic synthesis of barriers and facilitators to service user-led care planning. Br J Psychiatry. 2015;207:104–14.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Bee P, Brooks H, Fraser C, Lovell K. Professional perspectives on service user and carer involvement in mental health care planning: a qualitative study. Int J Nurs Stud. 2015;52:1–12.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Simpson A, Hannigan B, Coffey M, Barlow S, Cohen R, Jones A, et al. Recovery-focused care planning and coordination in England and Wales: a cross-national mixed methods comparative case study. BMC Psychiatry. 2016;16
- Behan C, Doyle R, Masterson S, Shiers D, Clarke M. A double-edged sword: review of the interplay bewteen phyical health and mental health. Ir J Med Sci. 2015;184:107–12.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Boyce T, Peckham S, Hann A, Trenholm S. A pro-active approach. Health Promotion and Ill-health prevention. In: The King’s Fund. Ideas that change health care: an inquiry into the Quality of General Practice in England; 2010.Google Scholar
- The King’s Fund. Briefing: Mental health under pressure. Cavendish Square: The King’s Fund; 2015.
- Bee P, Gibbons CJ, Callaghan P, Fraser C, Lovell K. Evaluating and quantifying user and carer involvement in mental health care planning (EQUIP): co-development of a new patient-reported outcome measure. PLoS One. 2016;11:1–14.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualiative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19:349–57.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Manchester Mental Health and Social Care Trust. Manchester Mental Health and Social Care Trust: Annual Business Plan. Manchester City Council; 2015.
- Cree L, Brooks H, Berzins K, Fraser C, Lovell K, Bee P. Carers’ experiences of involvement in care planning: a qualitative exploration of the faciliatators and barriers to engagment. BMC Psychiatry. 2015;15:1–11.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Grundy AC, Bee P, Meade O, Calaghan P, Beatty S, Olleveant N, et al. Bringing meaning to user involvement in mental health care planning: a qualitative exploration of service user perspectives. J Psychiatric Ment Health Nurs. 2015;201:1–9.
- Lofland J, Lofland LH. Analysing social settings: a guide to qualiative observation and analysis. Third ed. Belmont: Wadsworth; 1995.Google Scholar
- Rethink Mental Illness. Health professionals - CQUIN tools for Mental Health Professionals. 2014.Google Scholar
- England NHS. Implementing the Five Year Forward View for Mental Health. 2016.Google Scholar
- Smith S, Yeomans D, Bushe C, Eriksson C, Harrison T, Holmes T, et al. A well-being programme in severe mental illness. Reducing risk for physical ill health: A post programme service evaluation at 2 years. Eur Psychiatry. 2007;22:413–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Greater Manchester Combined Authority. Greater Manchester Health and Social Care Partnership Strategic Partnership Board. 2016.Google Scholar
- Greater Manchester Health and Social Care Devolution. Greater Manchester Mental Health and Wellbeing Strategy. 1–34. 23–2-2016.