Remote care for mental health: qualitative study with service users, carers and staff during the COVID-19 pandemic
Objectives To explore the experiences of service users, carers and staff seeking or providing secondary mental health services during the COVID-19 pandemic.Design Qualitative interview study, codesigned with mental health service users and carers.Methods We conducted semistructured, telephone or online interviews with a purposively constructed sample; a lived experience researcher conducted and analysed interviews with service users. Analysis was based on the constant comparison method.Setting National Health Service (NHS) secondary mental health services in England between June and August 2020.Participants Of 65 participants, 20 had either accessed or needed to access English secondary mental healthcare during the pandemic; 10 were carers of people with mental health difficulties; 35 were members of staff working in NHS secondary mental health services during the pandemic.Results Experiences of remote care were mixed. Some service users valued the convenience of remote methods in the context of maintaining contact with familiar clinicians. Most participants commented that a lack of non-verbal cues and the loss of a therapeutic ‘safe space’ challenged therapeutic relationship building, assessments and identification of deteriorating mental well-being. Some carers felt excluded from remote meetings and concerned that assessments were incomplete without their input. Like service users, remote methods posed challenges for clinicians who reported uncertainty about technical options and a lack of training. All groups expressed concern about intersectionality exacerbating inequalities and the exclusion of some service user groups if alternatives to remote care are lost.Conclusions Though remote mental healthcare is likely to become increasingly widespread in secondary mental health services, our findings highlight the continued importance of a tailored, personal approach to decision making in this area. Further research should focus on which types of consultations best suit face-to-face interaction, and for whom and why, and which can be provided remotely and by which medium.
Mary Dixon-Woods, Peter Jones, Elisa Liberati, Graham Martin, Janet Willars, Nicola Boydell, Natalie Richards, Jennie Parker