Abstract
Objective:
Coronavirus disease 2019 and the consequent public health and social distancing measures significantly impacted on service continuity for mental health patients. This article reports on contingency planning initiative in the Australian public sector.
Methods:
Ninety-word care synopses were developed for each patient. These formed the basis for guided conversations between case managers and consultant psychiatrists to ensure safe service provision and retain a person-centred focus amidst the threat of major staffing shortfalls.
Results:
This process identified vulnerable patient groups with specific communication needs and those most at risk through service contraction. The challenges and opportunities for promoting safety and self-management through proactive telehealth came up repeatedly. The guided conversations also raised awareness of the shared experience between patients and professionals of coronavirus disease 2019.
Conclusion:
There is a parallel pandemic of anxiety which creates a unique opportunity to connect at a human level.
In Australia, the first Australian case of novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) occurred on the 25th of January 2020. The World Health Organisation declared a pandemic on the 11th of March 2020. In response, governments globally initiated stringent public health measures (including social distancing) to protect lives. Compared globally, case numbers in Australia are extremely small but the public health response has been similar. Mental health services needed to adapt and adopt new practices compliant with social distancing, becoming less reliant on in-person appointments. Service continuity was key to this planning process. When staff are infected or exposed to potentially infected persons, there are mandatory self-isolation requirements, and a single team member contracting COVID-19 could force an entire team into self-isolation. Services planned for a worst case 40%–50% staff reduction, as teams could be taken offline overnight due to exposure.
Methods
Process of developing contingency plans
As part of contingency planning, in a large Australian public-funded mental healthcare service, brief synopses on each current patient were written. These were informed by scripted telehealth welfare checks and guided conversations with patients. The focus of these synopses was to establish what was needed for patients to stay safe during the restrictions. These care synopses were completed with 1300 patients during the fortnight from the week starting the 16th of March 2020.
Sample of a synopsis (artificially created for explanatory purposes)
Note. ICU = intensive care unit, NGO = non-government organisation, DBT = dialectical behaviour therapist, CIMHA = consumer integrated mental health application (Electronic Patient Records used for Mental Health in Public Services across Queensland, Australia).
Synopsis of current care needs, immediate treatment interventions and responsible person/service (word limit 90 words):
21-year-old female; childhood sexual abuse history; living with supportive husband; arts degree part-time by distance; nil children. Nil family in Brisbane. Caring; loves her dog. Alcohol dependence in remission (support from drug/alcohol services). In DBT Skills Program with Mood team (completed 6 months). Self-harm decreasing. Husband requires ongoing psychoeducation to increase support capacity. Main risks (self-harm/suicide) increase with alcohol intoxication. Not requiring psychotropic medication. Engaging with her sexual assault counsellor and GP. Increasing financial stressors with COVID-19 (decreased hours). Increase contact if relapses with alcohol use or self-harm.
Welfare contact for patients and next of kin
Note: NOK = next of kin.
Data analysis
Feedback from guided conversations was thematically organised into three main areas of concerns. Daily meeting minutes, issues log, Gantt charts, redeployment plans, multi-site team operational plans and the monthly governance action log helped to identify and collate these. The findings were presented to the teams through a governance meeting on the 2nd of April 2020. Opportunities for person-centred responses were identified in teams. Progress was tracked through daily planning meetings.
Results
Challenges, opportunities and solutions
The guided conversations highlighted three areas of concern: 1) specific patient needs; 2) delivering proactive care; and 3) supporting patients to self-manage.
Clients who have had an adversarial relationship with services which may, knowingly or unknowingly, conceal signs of deterioration were of particular concern as telehealth could be inadequate to identify changes in mental state. For this group, when possible, family and/or friends were contacted and provided with support and information to identify early warning signs. When patients did not have a support network available, they continued to be seen face to face.
Communication issues via telehealth for those with limited English or sensory deficits such as deafness were resolved using three-way telehealth sessions, involving foreign language interpreters or sign language interpreters for those with deafness. For this to occur, patients needed to have access to smartphones with data and video capability.
Some case managers were concerned about patients who, as part of their treatment, had weekly face-to-face formal therapy. Case managers were encouraged to explain to patients why their therapy was interrupted and how service continuity would be maintained through the crisis. It was also reinforced that it was important to keep patients up to date as to when formal therapy would be reinitiated. Through team discussion, patients for whom these sessions needed to continue were identified.
Discussion
The guided conversations provided the opportunity to think outside the confines of conventional care and to refocus the care towards the assets and strengths of the patient. The approach also allowed case managers to prepare patients for staffing shortfalls by encouraging them to draw on their support network and engage in meaningful activities which they could continue during lock down. Keeping with recovery philosophy, the focus of self-management was on maintaining a meaningful life and not just mitigation of risk. This dual focus was central to staying safe and keeping well.
Limitations of the synopsis
The purpose of the synopsis was to support triage and prioritisation of patients’ needs, in the eventuality of extensive workforce reduction. There were, however, inconsistencies around the information provided. Most case managers were concerned that the short format would result in key information being missed. The conversational crosscheck with the consultants picked up critical risk- or safety-related information that was absent or was not synthesised into what it meant in terms of mode and frequency of contact. Forward planning, as to what would make the situation unsafe, was also absent in many and needed inclusion.
Conclusion
Mental health services aspire to deliver person-centred care. However, during COVID-19, the focus had to shift from the person to the community. Keeping the community safe through staying at home, reducing travel and decreasing face-to-face contact could have come at the price of the person being unsupported and becoming unwell or unsafe. The contingency planning attempted to address these concerns through thoughtful consideration of the strengths and needs of each individual patient. The staffing implications of the pandemic forced professionals to consider recovery-oriented practice of supported self-management. For this, staff had to move from ‘top to tap,’ 1 a shift in thinking from a deficit-oriented directive approach of ‘what’s the matter with you’ that I will fix to an assets-based approach of ‘what matters to you’ that I can support in partnership with you. 2 The act of summarising a life into 90 words and consequent discussions highlighted that what matters to people living with mental health challenges is no different to those without. We all want a safe and meaningful life, productive livelihood, supportive relationships and contributions to society. Albeit born from a crisis, the contingency planning for COVID-19 highlighted the role of self-management and the need to focus on assets rather than deficits. There was also the shared experience of threat to life and livelihood, and neither the patient nor staff was immune to the parallel pandemic of psychological distress. Perhaps, COVID-19 will dent the power differential between professionals and patients, allowing us to connect at a human level and continue to remind us in healthcare that ‘what matters to you matters to me too’.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the contribution of staff members at Princess Alexandra Hospital, Metro South Addiction and Mental Health Services (MSAMHS), Metro South Hospital and Health Service, Brisbane, Australia.
The authors also acknowledge the diligent work of the staff members at MSAMHS Emergency Operations Centre (EOC) who have supported the development of processes in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
In accordance with the submission guidelines of the journal, all authors acknowledge that the following applies:
• made a substantial contribution to the concept or design of the work; or acquisition, analysis or interpretation of data;
• drafted the article or revised it critically for important intellectual content;
• approved the version to be published and
• each author should have participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for appropriate portions of the content.
Author contribution
All authors listed meet the authorship criteria according to the latest guidelines of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. TT and AJ carried out the guided conversations; MKR and KK provided overall leadership to the project; AS, SL and FD provided support to the teams to bring about the changes and TT, MKR, MW and CL created the manuscript in its current form. All other authors critically revised the manuscript and provided expert opinions. All authors are in agreement with the manuscript.
Disclosure
The author(s) report no conflict of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the paper.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
