Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28726599›Full record

Trial reportPsychological medicine2018

Improving patient experiences of mental health inpatient care: a randomised controlled trial.

T Wykes, E Csipke, P Williams, L Koeser, S Nash, D Rose, T Craig, P McCrone

Open access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Psychological medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
7.1field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 55 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

T WykesInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London,London,UK.
E CsipkeDivision of Psychiatry,University College London,London,UK.
P WilliamsInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, Kings College London,London,UK.
L KoeserInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, Kings College London,London,UK.
S NashLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine,Keppel Street,London,UK.
D RoseService User Research Enterprise, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London,London,UK.
T CraigHealth Services and Population Research Department, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London,London,UK.
P McCroneHealth Economics, Health Services and Population Research, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London,London,UK.
King's College London · GBLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBSouth London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity College London · GB

Funding

Department of Health RP-PG-0606-1050Medical Research Council MR/K012126/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPoorer patient views of mental health inpatient treatment predict both further admissions and, for those admitted involuntarily, longer admissions. As advocated in the UK Francis report, we investigated the hypothesis that improving staff training improves patients' views of ward care.

methodCluster randomised trial with stepped wedge design in 16 acute mental health wards randomised (using the ralloc procedure in Stata) by an independent statistician in three waves to staff training. A psychologist trained ward staff on evidence-based group interventions and then supported their introduction to each ward. The main outcome was blind self-report of perceptions of care (VOICE) before or up to 2 years after staff training between November 2008 and January 2013.

resultsIn total, 1108 inpatients took part (616 admitted involuntarily under the English Mental Health Act). On average 51.6 staff training sessions were provided per ward. Involuntary patient's perceptions of, and satisfaction with, mental health wards improved after staff training (N582, standardised effect -0·35, 95% CI -0·57 to -0·12, p = 0·002; interaction p value 0·006) but no benefit to those admitted voluntarily (N469, -0.01, 95% CI -0.23 to 0.22, p = 0.955) and no strong evidence of an overall effect (N1058, standardised effect -0.18 s.d., 95% CI -0.38 to 0.01, p = 0.062). The training costs around £10 per patient per week. Resource allocation changed towards patient perceived meaningful contacts by an average of £12 (95% CI -£76 to £98, p = 0.774).

conclusionStaff training improved the perceptions of the therapeutic environment in those least likely to want an inpatient admission, those formally detained. This change might enhance future engagement with all mental health services and prevent the more costly admissions.

Indexed as

AdultFemaleHumansInpatientsLinear ModelsMaleMental HealthMental Health ServicesMiddle AgedPatient SatisfactionQuality of LifeStaff DevelopmentUnited KingdomInpatient wardsmental healthpatient perceptionsrandomised trial

Identifiers

PMID28726599
PMCPMC5757411
OpenAlexW2736768977

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.