Identification of a psychosis risk syndrome to aid reduction of transition to a FEP is an important focus of worldwide research. ARMS for psychosis was defined by Yung and McGorry in 1996. UK EIP services were mandated to identify and ‘treat’ ARMS in the ‘Implementing the Early Intervention in Psychosis Access and Waiting Time Standard: Guidance' 2016. Sussex EIP services developed such an ARMS service with a 1-year pathway of assessment, intervention as indicated, and monitoring from 2017. Sussex serves a population of approximately 1.4 million, including areas with both low and high social deprivation indices. Transition rates from ARMS to FEP in recent studies have suggested widely varying rates of 8–17% of transition in a two-year period, notably less than initially identified by Yung et al. We aimed to establish the rate of transition to FEP within 12 months from identification of ARMS in Sussex EIP services.

A retrospective study was conducted on all patients on the ARMS pathway, across five EIP services in Sussex, between Jan 2017-Oct 2021. The primary outcome measure was operationally defined transition to FEP; secondary outcome measures included clinical features and use of clinical services.

71 cases were identified as meeting ARMS criteria, with mean age 21.4yo; range 14–35, from a total new caseload of 447 over this period.

ARMS subcategories identified 4 state/trait, 55 attenuated psychosis and 12 BLIPS. Comorbidity was more common than not; mood disorders were identified in 17 cases. 23 cases met not in education, employment or training (NEET) criteria.

All cases received full care coordination by lead practitioners. 19 cases were prescribed atypical antipsychotics. 18 cases received formal CBT.

4 of the 71 cases transitioned to FEP within 12 months at mean time 35 weeks; range 28–45 weeks. 2 had attenuated symptoms and 2 experienced BLIPS. 3 were initially NEET.

We report a very low transition rate to FEP of 6% in this service, consistent with other such UK services. Whilst the ARMS sample is low in number, a clear impact on EIP service case management is identified. Risk saturation is arguably required to justify continuing this ARMS pathway, achievable by primary focus on the BLIPS subgroup. Wider review of UK ARMS services is required to reduce dilution of EIP service models and reduction of their well evidenced effectiveness.

Anhedonia – a diminished interest or pleasure in activities – is a core self-reported symptom of depression which is poorly understood and often resistant to conventional antidepressants. This symptom may occur due to dysfunction in one or more sub-components of reward processing: motivation, consummatory experience and/or learning. However, the precise impairments remain elusive. Dissociating these components (ideally, using cross-species measures) and relating them to the subjective experience of anhedonia is critical as it may benefit fundamental biology research and novel drug development.

Using a battery of behavioural tasks based on rodent assays, we examined reward motivation (Joystick-Operated Runway Task, JORT; and Effort-Expenditure for Rewards Task, EEfRT) and reward sensitivity (Sweet Taste Test) in a non-clinical population who scored high (N = 32) or low (N = 34) on an anhedonia questionnaire (Snaith–Hamilton Pleasure Scale).

Compared to the low anhedonia group, the high anhedonia group displayed marginal impairments in effort-based decision-making (EEfRT) and reduced reward sensitivity (Sweet Taste Test). However, we found no evidence of a difference between groups in physical effort exerted for reward (JORT). Interestingly, whilst the EEfRT and Sweet Taste Test correlated with anhedonia measures, they did not correlate with each other. This poses the question of whether there are subgroups within anhedonia; however, further work is required to directly test this hypothesis.

Our findings suggest that anhedonia is a heterogeneous symptom associated with impairments in reward sensitivity and effort-based decision-making.

To study the quality of handover, between nursing staff and doctors, on an inpatient psychiatric unit.

Effective handover between professionals is vital to ensure the accurate transfer of useful information to enable quality care and patient safety.

Implementation of a handover tool has been shown to improve patient safety, especially when used to structure communication over the phone.

Feedback at trainee doctor forums highlighted insufficient handover from nursing staff whilst on-call, a problem which prompted further exploration.

Standards were developed for the expected quality of handover, consisting of a set of criteria for the minimum information required to ensure a safe and effective handover, stemming from the SBAR (Situation, Background, Assessment, Recommendation) approach, with adequate identification of patients, clear communication of the current situation and relevant details.

In an inpatient psychiatric setting, telephone calls to the on-call doctor were recorded for a two-week period, documenting whether key information was communicated.

Total number of calls to on-call doctor recorded: 68. The patients name was given in 49% and the ID number in just 10%. Both relevant diagnosis/history and NEWS score was provided in 18%. However, the current issue and recommendation was given in 90% and 95% respectively.

The results thus far demonstrate a lack of structure and often limited information delivered in handover from nursing staff to the on-call doctor. This leads to difficulties in prioritisation, identifying the urgency of the situation and inefficiencies, as time is spent requesting further information which is not readily available.

After nursing colleagues were made aware, results from a further two-week period, from 65 total calls, demonstrated some improvement. Patient name given in 51%, ID number in 18%, relevant diagnosis/history in 12%, NEWS score in 17%, current issue in 92% and recommendation in 51%. It is clear that with marginal improvement, there remains a problem which we aim to address by collaborating further with senior nursing leads whilst implementing a succinct handover proforma. It is likely that with COVID-19 as the priority on the agenda this past year, quality improvement projects such as this has not been the main focus. We hope that we will be able to implement these changes in the coming months.

We aimed to determine whether vitamin D is being tested on admission for psychiatric inpatients at a local inpatient hospital, to identify the level of vitamin D for this group and to establish whether vitamin D treatment provided is according to NICE guidance.

Emerging evidence suggests that psychiatric patients are more vulnerable to vitamin D deficiency, due to reduced sun exposure, social isolation, long inpatient stays and poor diet. Low vitamin D levels may also increase susceptibility to SARS CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 severity.

Standards were determined by local policies, RCPsych recommendations and NICE guidance. Data were collected retrospectively from electronic patient records and entered manually to a spreadsheet for analysis.

67% of patients had vitamin D tested on admission to hospital. Of the patients that had their vitamin D level tested, 39% patients had their result recorded. 48% either had a low vitamin D level or required replacement. 6 of 12 patients with a documented low vitamin D level had the correct vitamin D treatment, according to NICE guidance.

Of 46 patient records, nearly half had a documented low vitamin D level or were on treatment. We would therefore suggest that vitamin D testing should form part of the routine admission bloods. It is an important opportunity to detect deficiency or insufficiency for a potentially vulnerable group of patients. Intervention is simple and effective.

Results demonstrated room for improvement for vitamin D testing on admission to hospital, thus improving potential treatment and benefits for individual patients. The importance of recording blood results on to the electronic patient record was also highlighted.

We raised awareness and provided further education to all junior doctors, with creative posters and informative communications. Following the implementation of these changes a re-audit of 40 patients showed 75% had vitamin D tested on admission or during and of these, 58% either had a low vitamin D level or required replacement. 7 of 9 patients with a documented low vitamin D level had the correct vitamin D treatment, according to NICE guidance. Within this closed loop audit, we have reported moderate improvement in the testing of vitamin D for patients on admission to hospital along with a significant improvement in the treatment of vitamin D deficiency, according to NICE guidance.

To describe and compare psychoactive substance misuse help-seeking among transgender (trans) and cisgender (cis) participants from a large multi-national cross-sectional survey.

Trans people experience stressors related to their minority status which have been associated with increased rates of psychoactive substance use and related harm. Despite this, there is a paucity of evidence relating to the treatment needs of trans people who use psychoactive substances, beyond a small body of literature describing a culture of transphobic hostility in general substance misuse services. This paper aims to describe and compare psychoactive substance misuse help-seeking among trans and cis participants from a large multi-national cross-sectional survey.

Over 180,000 participants, recruited from the world's largest annual survey of drug use - the Global Drug Survey (GDS) - during 2018 and 2019, reported use of a range of psychoactive substances in the preceding 12 months. Five gender groups (118,157 cis men, 64,319 cis women, 369 trans men, 353 trans women and 1,857 non-binary people) were compared, using Chi-square and z-tests with Bonferroni correction, on items relating to the desire to use less psychoactive substances and the need to seek help to achieve this. Respondents from GDS 2018 were also assessed for substance dependence. Binary logistic regression was used to compare gender groups on self-reported substance dependence to frame the help-seeking analyses.

Trans respondents (n = 1,710) to GDS 2018 were significantly more likely than cis respondents to report use of illicit substances (OR = 1.66-2.93) and dependence on cannabis (OR = 2.39), alcohol (OR = 3.28) and novel psychoactive substances (OR = 4.60). In the combined GDS 2018 and 2019 dataset, there were no significant differences between trans (n = 2,579) and cis (n = 182,476) participants on the desire to reduce substance use. However, among those who did report wanting to use less, non-binary people and trans women were most likely to want help to achieve this.

Trans respondents reported a greater need for help with reducing substance use than cis respondents. Given the deficit of specialist services for psychoactive substance users who are trans, there is a need for a more thorough understanding of the barriers and facilitators to their engagement in general substance misuse services. In the interim, substance misuse service providers require education about gender minority status to help meet the needs of trans clients.

To study the impact of collaborative working, via consultation liaison, between Mental Health Liaison Practitioners (MHLPs) and Doctors within a secondary care mental health service. We hypothesise that this model of working may avoid unnecessary clinic appointments and waiting times, whilst providing patients with more efficient treatment.

Mental health services are stretched, understaffed and under-resourced. It is estimated that 75% of people with mental health problems in England may not get access to the treatment they need. We therefore need efficient and innovative ways for people who seek help to receive support. Good practice consultation liaison involves face to face contact between clinicians; treatment can be delivered by supporting primary care whilst reducing the burden of secondary care mental health services.

Regular 30-minute sessions within an Assessment and Treatment Service, between MHLPs and Doctors, at both Consultant and Trainee level, were coordinated. Patients assessed by MHLPs were discussed by opening a dialogue whereby further management was discussed across a multi-professional team. A record was created of all patients discussed and the outcome.

Number of MHLP/Doctor sessions: 10 across a six-month period.

Number of patients discussed: 17.

Medication advice provided for 16 patients. One patient required a referral for a clinic appointment.

For several patients, integrated working procured alternative care pathways and resources to be considered, to incorporate into individual treatment plans.

Regular consultation liaison with MHLPs and Doctors is a model of working across the interface between primary care and specialist mental health services. It may provide patients with more efficient care, whilst avoiding unnecessary waiting times for clinic appointments. The consultation liaison working supported the development of an educative relationship between clinicians, with interprofessional learning. This is an example of an integrated and collaborative care model, whereby multi-professional working can provide efficient and effective treatment, whilst the support for the patient can remain in the primary care setting.

To establish whether physical health monitoring for CYP on ADHD medication is according to NICE guidance (2018).

To determine the impact of COVID-19 pandemic restrictions on physical health monitoring for CYP on ADHD medication.

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a common neurodevelopmental disorder, characterised by a persistent pattern of inattention and/or hyperactivity-impulsivity, directly impacting on academic, occupational, or social functioning. It affects between 1-5% of children and young people (CYP) most often presenting in early-mid childhood.

Pharmacological treatment can be considered in CYP if certain criteria are met, where licensed medications include methylphenidate, dexamfetamine, lisdexamfetamine, atomoxetine and guanfacine. Stimulant and non-stimulant medications require frequent physical health monitoring due to their side effects including an increase in blood pressure and/or heart rate, loss of appetite, growth restriction and tics.

Standards and criteria were derived from the NICE guidance (2018), whilst local trust policies were reviewed, demonstrating discrepancies. Standards were expected to be met for 100% of patients.

Electronic patient records were reviewed retrospectively from a representative cohort of CYP reviewed by clinicians in a community CAMHS service during March-November 2020. Data were entered manually into a spreadsheet for evaluation.

A total of 27 CYP records were reviewed, average age 13yo, on a range of stimulant/non-stimulant preparations.

5 (19%) had height checked every 6 months, with 4 delayed to 7-8 months.

For those >10yo, only 5 (19%) had weight checked every 6 months.

Only 2 (7%) had their height and weight plotted on a growth chart and reviewed by the healthcare professional responsible for treatment.

Just 4 (15%) had heart rate and blood pressure recorded before and after each dose change, whilst similarly only 4 (not the same) had these parameters recorded every 6 months.

17 patients were reviewed by telephone/video call, where 5 patients provided physical health parameters (measured at home).

Across all parameters, standards are not being met for the required physical health monitoring for CYP on ADHD medication.

The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly changed the working conditions for community teams, impacting face to face reviews, creating challenges for physical health monitoring.

Our ongoing implementations for change include the use of a proforma for physical health measurements, improving psychoeducation for families, exploring potential barriers with senior colleagues and collaborating with pharmacy colleagues to update local guidelines in accordance with the latest NICE recommendations. We aim to re-audit in June 2021.

Suicidal behaviour is common in acute psychiatric wards resulting in distress, and burden for patients, carers and society. Although psychological therapies for suicidal behaviour are effective in out-patient settings, there is little research on their effectiveness for in-patients who are suicidal.

Our primary objective was to determine whether cognitive–behavioural suicide prevention therapy (CBSP) was feasible and acceptable, compared with treatment as usual (TAU) for in-patients who are suicidal. Secondary aims were to assess the impact of CBSP on suicidal thinking, behaviours, functioning, quality of life, service use, cost-effectiveness and psychological factors associated with suicide.

A single-blind pilot randomised controlled trial comparing TAU to TAU plus CBSP in in-patients in acute psychiatric wards who are suicidal (the Inpatient Suicide Intervention and Therapy Evaluation (INSITE) trial, trial registration: ISRCTN17890126). The intervention consisted of TAU plus up to 20 CBSP sessions, over 6 months continuing in the community following discharge. Participants were assessed at baseline and at 6 weeks and 6 months post-baseline.

A total of 51 individuals were randomised (27 to TAU, 24 to TAU plus CBSP) of whom 37 were followed up at 6 months (19 in TAU, 18 in TAU plus CBSP). Engagement, attendance, safety and user feedback indicated that the addition of CBSP to TAU for in-patients who are acutely suicidal was feasible and acceptable while on in-patient wards and following discharge. Economic analysis suggests the intervention could be cost-effective.

Psychological therapy can be delivered safely to patients who are suicidal although modifications are required for this setting. Findings indicate a larger, definitive trial should be conducted.

The trial was hosted by Greater Manchester Mental health NHS Trust (formerly, Manchester Mental Health and Social Care NHS Trust). The authors are affiliated to the University of Manchester, Greater Manchester Mental Health Foundation Trust, Lancashire Care NHS Foundation trust and the Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre. Y.A. is a trustee for a North-West England branch of the charity Mind.