Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31345212›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2019

Integrated liaison psychiatry services in England: a qualitative study of the views of liaison practitioners and acute hospital staffs from four distinctly different kinds of liaison service.

Keeble Jasmin, Andrew Walker, Elspeth Guthrie, Peter Trigwell, Alan Quirk, Jenny Hewison, Carolyn Czoski Murray, Allan House

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Multidisciplinary perspectives on quality improvement areas for consultation-liaison psychiatry services in Australian hospitals.Australasian psychiatry : bulletin of Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists · 2026
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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 5 institutions in 1 country.

Keeble JasminDepartment of Digital, Media, Culture and Sport, London, UK.
Andrew WalkerClinical Research Network National Coordinating Centre, National Institute of Health Research Clinical Research Network, Leeds, UK.
Elspeth GuthrieLeeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK. e.a.guthrie@leeds.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5834-6616
Peter TrigwellNational Inpatient Centre for Psychological Medicine, Leeds and York Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Leeds, UK.
Alan QuirkCollege Centre for Quality Improvement, Royal College of Psychiatrists, London, UK.
Jenny HewisonLeeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3026-3250
Carolyn Czoski MurrayLeeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7742-2883
Allan HouseLeeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8721-8026
University of Leeds · GBLeeds and York Partnership NHS Foundation Trust · GBNIHR Research Delivery Network · GBRoyal College of Psychiatrists · GBUnited Kingdom Sport · GB

Funding

Department of Health HS&DR/13/58/08Health Services and Delivery Research Programme 13/58/08
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLiaison psychiatry services provide mental health care for patients in physical healthcare (usually acute hospital) settings including emergency departments. Liaison work involves close collaboration with acute hospital staff so that high quality care can be provided. Services however are patchy, relatively underfunded, heterogeneous and poorly integrated into acute hospital care pathways.

methodsWe carried out in-depth semi-structured interviews with 73 liaison psychiatry and acute hospital staff from 11 different acute hospitals in England. The 11 hospitals were purposively sample to represent hospitals in which four different types of liaison services operated. Staff were identified to ensure diversity according to professional background, sub-specialism within the team, and whether they had a clinical or managerial focus. All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. The data were analysed using a best-fit framework analysis.

resultsSeveral key themes emerged in relation to facilitators and barriers to the effective delivery of integrated services. There were problems with continuity of care across the secondary-primary interface; a lack of mental health resources in primary care to support discharge; a lack of shared information systems; a disproportionate length of time spent recording information as opposed to face to face patient contact; and a lack of a shared vision of care. Relatively few facilitators were identified although interviewees reported a focus on patient care. Similar problems were identified across different liaison service types.

conclusionsThe problems that we have identified need to be addressed by both liaison and acute hospital teams, managers and funders, if high quality integrated physical and mental health care is to be provided in the acute hospital setting.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelCross-Sectional StudiesDelivery of Health Care, IntegratedEnglandHealth Services ResearchHumansMedical Staff, HospitalMental Health ServicesQualitative ResearchQuality of Health CareConsultation-liaisonHealth services researchHospital psychiatryLiaison mental healthLiaison psychiatryQualitative

Identifiers

PMID31345212
PMCPMC6659268
OpenAlexW2964683310

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.