Explore the vast range of titles available.

Since the publication of the first two editions, health and social care organisations have become increasingly risk averse, resources more strained, and moves have been made towards stifling levels of clinical governance. In this edition Joyce Scaife counters the idea of supervision as a constraint and challenges some of the thinking associated with 'evidence-based' practice when this focuses on what can be easily measured rather than what matters.

Evidence-Based Clinical Supervision critiques and summarises the best available psychological evidence relating to clinical supervision, clarifying the key principles, setting out the related practice guidelines and specifying the research and practice implications. A best-practice guide to clinical supervision, an approach used across psychotherapy and health services where professionals meet regularly with each other to discuss casework and training issues Summarises the best available clinical evidence relating to clinical supervision, and relates this information to key principles with a strong applied focus, drawing out practice guidelines and implications Aims to motivate health professionals to practice supervision with greater enthusiasm and proficiency Represents the culmination of two years' intensive research on supervision and twenty years of involvement in supporting and developing supervisors

Despite the importance of supervision to the field of mental health -- it is a building block of learning and a fundamental stepping-stone to unsupervised practice -- most mental health supervisors receive little to no training in how to supervise. Supervision also remains the least developed and researched aspect of clinical training. This relative lack of attention to this crucial element of training is what makes Supervision in Psychiatric Practice such a necessary addition to the psychiatric literature. More than two dozen experts bring their knowledge to bear on establishing a practical framework for supervision grounded in real-world experience. This guide explores techniques such as role-playing, working with process notes, live supervision, and co-therapy in a variety of clinical and nonclinical settings, including: • Inpatient psychiatry• Hospital-based consultation-liaison and emergency department psychiatry• Couples and family therapy• Administrative training• Leadership development• Quality improvement initiatives Key points provide a context for each chapter and allow readers to easily reference the book's major takeaways. All chapters address specific challenges and strategies related to the topic and include questions for supervisees and supervisors to facilitate discussion. Also included is a listing of additional resources that can serve as a springboard to further discovery and learning. Special attention is given to unique issues in supervision, including selecting a psychotherapy supervisor, supervising adverse outcomes, supervising auxiliary health care providers, and terminating a supervisory relationship. A discussion of the legal issues in supervision and building a supervisor training program round out the most comprehensive, up-to-date manual of its kind.

In low-income countries, care for people with mental, neurological, and substance use (MNS) disorders is largely absent, especially in rural settings. To increase treatment coverage, integration of mental health services into community and primary healthcare settings is recommended. While this strategy is being rolled out globally, rigorous evaluation of outcomes at each stage of the service delivery pathway from detection to treatment initiation to individual outcomes of care has been missing. A combination of methods were employed to evaluate the impact of a district mental healthcare plan for depression, psychosis, alcohol use disorder (AUD), and epilepsy as part of the Programme for Improving Mental Health Care (PRIME) in Chitwan District, Nepal. We evaluated 4 components of the service delivery pathway: (1) contact coverage of primary care mental health services, evaluated through a community study (N = 3,482 combined for all waves of community surveys) and through service utilisation data (N = 727); (2) detection of mental illness among participants presenting in primary care facilities, evaluated through a facility study (N = 3,627 combined for all waves of facility surveys); (3) initiation of minimally adequate treatment after diagnosis, evaluated through the same facility study; and (4) treatment outcomes of patients receiving primary-care-based mental health services, evaluated through cohort studies (total N = 449 depression, N = 137; AUD, N = 175; psychosis, N = 95; epilepsy, N = 42). The lack of structured diagnostic assessments (instead of screening tools), the relatively small sample size for some study components, and the uncontrolled nature of the study are among the limitations to be noted. All data collection took place between 15 January 2013 and 15 February 2017. Contact coverage increased 7.5% for AUD (from 0% at baseline), 12.2% for depression (from 0%), 11.7% for epilepsy (from 1.3%), and 50.2% for psychosis (from 3.2%) when using service utilisation data over 12 months; community survey results did not reveal significant changes over time. Health worker detection of depression increased by 15.7% (from 8.9% to 24.6%) 6 months after training, and 10.3% (from 8.9% to 19.2%) 24 months after training; for AUD the increase was 58.9% (from 1.1% to 60.0%) and 11.0% (from 1.1% to 12.1%) for 6 months and 24 months, respectively. Provision of minimally adequate treatment subsequent to diagnosis for depression was 93.9% at 6 months and 66.7% at 24 months; for AUD these values were 95.1% and 75.0%, respectively. Changes in treatment outcomes demonstrated small to moderate effect sizes (9.7-point reduction [d = 0.34] in AUD symptoms, 6.4-point reduction [d = 0.43] in psychosis symptoms, 7.2-point reduction [d = 0.58] in depression symptoms) at 12 months post-treatment. These combined results make a promising case for the feasibility and impact of community- and primary-care-based services delivered through an integrated district mental healthcare plan in reducing the treatment gap and increasing effective coverage for MNS disorders. While the integrated mental healthcare approach does lead to apparent benefits in most of the outcome metrics, there are still significant areas that require further attention (e.g., no change in community-level contact coverage, attrition in AUD detection rates over time, and relatively low detection rates for depression).

Research in embodied artificial intelligence (AI) has increasing clinical relevance for therapeutic applications in mental health services. With innovations ranging from 'virtual psychotherapists' to social robots in dementia care and autism disorder, to robots for sexual disorders, artificially intelligent virtual and robotic agents are increasingly taking on high-level therapeutic interventions that used to be offered exclusively by highly trained, skilled health professionals. In order to enable responsible clinical implementation, ethical and social implications of the increasing use of embodied AI in mental health need to be identified and addressed. This paper assesses the ethical and social implications of translating embodied AI applications into mental health care across the fields of Psychiatry, Psychology and Psychotherapy. Building on this analysis, it develops a set of preliminary recommendations on how to address ethical and social challenges in current and future applications of embodied AI. Based on a thematic literature search and established principles of medical ethics, an analysis of the ethical and social aspects of currently embodied AI applications was conducted across the fields of Psychiatry, Psychology, and Psychotherapy. To enable a comprehensive evaluation, the analysis was structured around the following three steps: assessment of potential benefits; analysis of overarching ethical issues and concerns; discussion of specific ethical and social issues of the interventions. From an ethical perspective, important benefits of embodied AI applications in mental health include new modes of treatment, opportunities to engage hard-to-reach populations, better patient response, and freeing up time for physicians. Overarching ethical issues and concerns include: harm prevention and various questions of data ethics; a lack of guidance on development of AI applications, their clinical integration and training of health professionals; 'gaps' in ethical and regulatory frameworks; the potential for misuse including using the technologies to replace established services, thereby potentially exacerbating existing health inequalities. Specific challenges identified and discussed in the application of embodied AI include: matters of risk-assessment, referrals, and supervision; the need to respect and protect patient autonomy; the role of non-human therapy; transparency in the use of algorithms; and specific concerns regarding long-term effects of these applications on understandings of illness and the human condition. We argue that embodied AI is a promising approach across the field of mental health; however, further research is needed to address the broader ethical and societal concerns of these technologies to negotiate best research and medical practices in innovative mental health care. We conclude by indicating areas of future research and developing recommendations for high-priority areas in need of concrete ethical guidance.

Background The mental health treatment gap—the difference between those with mental health need and those who receive treatment—is high in low- and middle-income countries. Task-shifting has been used to address the shortage of mental health professionals, with a growing body of research demonstrating the effectiveness of mental health interventions delivered through task-shifting. However, very little research has focused on how to embed, support, and sustain task-shifting in government-funded systems with potential for scale up. The goal of the Building and Sustaining Interventions for Children (BASIC) study is to examine implementation policies and practices that predict adoption, fidelity, and sustainment of a mental health intervention in the education sector via teacher delivery and the health sector via community health volunteer delivery. Methods BASIC is a Hybrid Type II Implementation-Effectiveness trial. The study design is a stepped wedge, cluster randomized trial involving 7 sequences of 40 schools and 40 communities surrounding the schools. Enrollment consists of 120 teachers, 120 community health volunteers, up to 80 site leaders, and up to 1280 youth and one of their primary guardians. The evidence-based mental health intervention is a locally adapted version of Trauma-focused Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, called Pamoja Tunaweza. Lay counselors are trained and supervised in Pamoja Tunaweza by local trainers who are experienced in delivering the intervention and who participated in a Train-the-Trainer model of skills transfer. After the first sequence completes implementation, in-depth interviews are conducted with initial implementing sites’ counselors and leaders. Findings are used to inform delivery of implementation facilitation for subsequent sequences’ sites. We use a mixed methods approach including qualitative comparative analysis to identify necessary and sufficient implementation policies and practices that predict 3 implementation outcomes of interest: adoption, fidelity, and sustainment. We also examine child mental health outcomes and cost of the intervention in both the education and health sectors. Discussion The BASIC study will provide knowledge about how implementation of task-shifted mental health care can be supported in government systems that already serve children and adolescents. Knowledge about implementation policies and practices from BASIC can advance the science of implementation in low-resource contexts. Trial registration Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03243396. Registered 9th August 2017, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03243396

Background Despite many important developments in the global mental health arena in the past decade, many people with mental health problems still do not have access to good quality mental health care. The aim of this study was to evaluate the perceived impact of a mental health care package (MHCP) in integrating chronic care elements in primary health care for people with mental illness. Methods A controlled pre-post study design was used in 20 primary health care facilities in Chitwan, Nepal. We compared 10 health facilities that had implemented a MHCP (intervention group), with 10 health facilities that had not implemented the MHCP (comparative control group) but provided regular physical health services. We administered the Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (ACIC) tool on a group basis within all 20 health facilities among 37 health workers. Data was collected at three time points; at baseline, midline (at 13 months from baseline) and end line (at 25 months from baseline). Results From baseline to end line, we see a notable shift in the level of support reported by the intervention health facilities compared to those in the comparative control group. While at baseline 10% of the intervention health facilities had basic support for the implementation of chronic illness care, at the end line, 90% of the intervention group reported having reasonable support with the remaining 10% of the intervention facilities reporting that they had full support. In contrast, 20% of the health facilities in the comparative control group at end line still reported having limited support for the implementation of chronic illness care, with the remaining 80% only managing to shift to the next level which is basic support. Conclusions These findings suggest that training and supervision of primary health care workers in the implementation of MHCP interventions can lead to strengthening of the system to better address the needs of patients with chronic mental health problems. However, substantial financial and coordination inputs are needed to implement the MHCP. The comparative control group also demonstrated improvements, possibly due to the administration of the ACIC tool and components of counselling services for family planning and HIV/AIDS services.

Healthcare professionals (HCPs) on the front lines against COVID-19 may face increased workload and stress. Understanding HCPs' risk for burnout is critical to supporting HCPs and maintaining the quality of healthcare during the pandemic. To assess exposure, perceptions, workload, and possible burnout of HCPs during the COVID-19 pandemic we conducted a cross-sectional survey. The main outcomes and measures were HCPs' self-assessment of burnout, indicated by a single item measure of emotional exhaustion, and other experiences and attitudes associated with working during the COVID-19 pandemic. A total of 2,707 HCPs from 60 countries participated in this study. Fifty-one percent of HCPs reported burnout. Burnout was associated with work impacting household activities (RR = 1·57, 95% CI = 1·39-1·78, P<0·001), feeling pushed beyond training (RR = 1·32, 95% CI = 1·20-1·47, P<0·001), exposure to COVID-19 patients (RR = 1·18, 95% CI = 1·05-1·32, P = 0·005), and making life prioritizing decisions (RR = 1·16, 95% CI = 1·02-1·31, P = 0·03). Adequate personal protective equipment (PPE) was protective against burnout (RR = 0·88, 95% CI = 0·79-0·97, P = 0·01). Burnout was higher in high-income countries (HICs) compared to low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) (RR = 1·18; 95% CI = 1·02-1·36, P = 0·018). Burnout is present at higher than previously reported rates among HCPs working during the COVID-19 pandemic and is related to high workload, job stress, and time pressure, and limited organizational support. Current and future burnout among HCPs could be mitigated by actions from healthcare institutions and other governmental and non-governmental stakeholders aimed at potentially modifiable factors, including providing additional training, organizational support, and support for family, PPE, and mental health resources.

Background To ensure quality of care delivery clinical supervision has been implemented in health services. While clinical supervision of health professionals has been shown to improve patient safety, its effect on other dimensions of quality of care is unknown. The purpose of this systematic review is to determine whether clinical supervision of health professionals improves effectiveness of care and patient experience. Methods Databases MEDLINE, PsychINFO, CINAHL, EMBASE and AMED were searched from earliest date available. Additional studies were identified by searching of reference lists and citation tracking. Two reviewers independently applied inclusion and exclusion criteria. The quality of each study was rated using the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument. Data were extracted on effectiveness of care (process of care and patient health outcomes) and patient experience. Results Seventeen studies across multiple health professions (medical ( n  = 4), nursing ( n  = 7), allied health ( n  = 2) and combination of nursing, medical and/or allied health ( n  = 4)) met the inclusion criteria. The clinical heterogeneity of the included studies precluded meta-analysis. Twelve of 14 studies investigating 38,483 episodes of care found that clinical supervision improved the process of care. This effect was most predominant in cardiopulmonary resuscitation and African health settings. Three of six studies investigating 1756 patients found that clinical supervision improved patient health outcomes, namely neurological recovery post cardiopulmonary resuscitation ( n  = 1) and psychological symptom severity ( n  = 2). None of three studies investigating 1856 patients found that clinical supervision had an effect on patient experience. Conclusions Clinical supervision of health professionals is associated with effectiveness of care. The review found significant improvement in the process of care that may improve compliance with processes that are associated with enhanced patient health outcomes. While few studies found a direct effect on patient health outcomes, when provided to mental health professionals clinical supervision may be associated with a reduction in psychological symptoms of patients diagnosed with a mental illness. There was no association found between clinical supervision and the patient experience. Review Registration CRD42015029643 .