Psychological therapies following an episode of self-harm should happen quickly to ensure patients receive the care they need and to reduce the likelihood of repetition.

We sought to explore patients' subjective experience of accessing psychological therapies following self-harm and their views on improving practice.

Between March and November 2019, we recruited 128 patients and 23 carers aged 18 years or over from 16 English mental health trusts, from community organisations and via social media. Thematic analyses were used to interpret the data.

Participants reported long waiting times, multiple failed promises and rejection when trying to access psychological therapies following self-harm. Poor communication and information provision contributed to uncertainty, worsening mental health and further self-harm. Other barriers included: lack of tailored interventions, stigmatising responses, use of exclusionary thresholds to access services, and punitive approaches to treating these patients. Participant recommendations to improve access to psychological therapies included: (a) the importance of compassionate and informed staff; (b) having timely access to aftercare from well-funded and well-resourced teams; (c) continuity of care, improved communication, and support during waiting times and while navigating the referral process; (d) greater information on the availability and benefits of psychological therapies; and (e) greater choice and flexibility over interventions.

Our findings identify long waiting times and inadequate service provision as barriers to high-quality and safe aftercare for patients who have self-harmed. Consistent with clinical guidelines, all patients should receive prompt aftercare and access to tailored psychological treatments following a self-harm episode.

Individuals with psychosis have poor oral health compared with the general population. The interaction between oral health and psychosis is likely to be complex and have important ramifications for improving dental and mental health outcomes. However, this relationship is poorly understood and rarely studied using qualitative methods.

To explore patient perspectives on the relationship between oral health and psychosis.

The authors recruited 19 people with experiences of psychosis from community mental health teams, early intervention in psychosis services, and rehabilitation units. Participants completed a qualitative interview. Transcripts were analysed with reflexive thematic analysis.

The analysis resulted in three themes: theme 1, psychosis creates barriers to good oral health, including a detachment from reality, the threat of unusual experiences and increased use of substances; theme 2, the effects of poor oral health in psychosis, with ramifications for self-identify and social relationships; and theme 3, systems for psychosis influence oral health, with central roles for formal and informal support networks.

Psychosis was perceived to affect adherence to oral health self-care behaviours and overall oral health. Poor oral health negatively affected self-identity and social relationships. Clinical implications include a systemic approach to provide early intervention and prevention of the sequelae of dental disease, which lead to tooth loss and impaired oral function and aesthetics, which in turn affect mental health. Participants felt that mental health services play an important role in supporting people with oral health.

Family involvement has been identified as a key aspect of clinical practice that may help to prevent suicide.

To investigate how families can be effectively involved in supporting a patient accessing crisis mental health services.

A multi-site ethnographic investigation was undertaken with two crisis resolution home treatment teams in England. Data included 27 observations of clinical practice and interviews with 6 patients, 4 family members, and 13 healthcare professionals. Data were analysed using framework analysis.

Three overarching themes described how families and carers are involved in mental healthcare. Families played a key role in keeping patients safe by reducing access to means of self-harm. They also provided useful contextual information to healthcare professionals delivering the service. However, delivering a home-based service can be challenging in the absence of a supportive family environment or because of practical problems such as the lack of suitable private spaces within the home. At an organisational level, service design and delivery can be adjusted to promote family involvement.

Findings from this study indicate that better communication and dissemination of safety and care plans, shared learning, signposting to carer groups and support for carers may facilitate better family involvement. Organisationally, offering flexible appointment times and alternative spaces for appointments may help improve services for patients.

Timely provision of aftercare following self-harm may reduce risks of repetition and premature death, but existing services are frequently reported as being inadequate.

To explore barriers and facilitators to accessing aftercare and psychological therapies for patients presenting to hospital following self-harm, from the perspective of liaison psychiatry practitioners.

Between March 2019 and December 2020, we interviewed 51 staff members across 32 liaison psychiatry services in England. We used thematic analyses to interpret the interview data.

Barriers to accessing services may heighten risk of further self-harm for patients and burnout for staff. Barriers included: perceived risk, exclusionary thresholds, long waiting times, siloed working and bureaucracy. Strategies to increase access to aftercare included: (a) improving assessments and care plans via input from skilled staff working in multidisciplinary teams (e.g. including social workers and clinical psychologists); (b) supporting staff to focus on assessments as therapeutic intervention; (c) probing boundaries and involving senior staff to negotiate risk and advocate for patients; and (d) building relationships and integration across services.

Our findings highlight practitioners’ views on barriers to accessing aftercare and strategies to circumvent some of these impediments. Provision of aftercare and psychological therapies as part of the liaison psychiatry service were deemed as an essential mechanism for optimising patient safety and experience and staff well-being. To close treatment gaps and reduce inequalities, it is important to work closely with staff and patients, learn from experiences of good practice and implement change more widely across services.

The volitional help sheet for self-harm equips people with the means of responding automatically to triggers for self-harm with coping strategies. Improving acceptability may be crucial to increasing effectiveness and reach. The Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA) was developed to guide the assessment of intervention acceptability, but to date, no studies have applied the TFA to understand acceptability of interventions for self-harm.

To apply the TFA to (a) explore people's experiences of a brief intervention to reduce repeat self-harm; and (b) understand the most prominent aspects of intervention acceptability, to make recommendations for intervention refinements and successful implementation.

Sixteen semi-structured interviews were conducted with people who had previously self-harmed. The TFA informed a framework analysis in which findings were mapped onto the TFA.

Four TFA domains were identified that were associated with acceptability of the volitional help sheet for self-harm: affective attitude, burden, intervention coherence and perceived effectiveness. People were generally positive about using the volitional help sheet (affective attitude), understood the volitional help sheet and how it worked (intervention coherence), highlighted engagement as a motivating factor in using the volitional help sheet (perceived burden) and described how the volitional help sheet could be implemented by healthcare professionals (perceived effectiveness).

Further modifications could still be made, but it is hoped that this intervention provides a useful tool for individuals to construct their own personalised implementation intentions, and as part of longer-term support for preventing self-harm as delivered by healthcare professionals.

The COVID-19 pandemic forced the rapid implementation of changes to practice in mental health services, in particular transitions of care. Care transitions pose a particular threat to patient safety.

This study aimed to understand the perspectives of different stakeholders about the impact of temporary changes in practice and policy of mental health transitions as a result of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on perceived healthcare quality and safety.

Thirty-four participants were interviewed about quality and safety in mental health transitions during May and June 2020 (the end of the first UK national lockdown). Semi-structured remote interviews were conducted to generate in-depth information pertaining to various stakeholders (patients, carers, healthcare professionals and key informants). Results were analysed thematically.

The qualitative data highlighted six overarching themes in relation to practice changes: (a) technology-enabled communication; (b) discharge planning and readiness; (c) community support and follow-up; (d) admissions; (e) adapting to new policy and guidelines; (f) health worker safety and well-being. The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated some quality and safety concerns such as tensions between teams, reduced support in the community and increased threshold for admissions. Also, several improvement interventions previously recommended in the literature, were implemented locally.

The practice of mental health transitions has transformed during the COVID-19 pandemic, affecting quality and safety. National policies concerning mental health transitions should concentrate on converting the mostly local and temporary positive changes into sustainable service quality improvements and applying systematic corrective policies to prevent exacerbations of previous quality and safety concerns.

Individuals attending emergency departments following self-harm have increased risks of future self-harm. Despite the common use of risk scales in self-harm assessment, there is growing evidence that combinations of risk factors do not accurately identify those at greatest risk of further self-harm and suicide.

To evaluate and compare predictive accuracy in prediction of repeat self-harm from clinician and patient ratings of risk, individual risk-scale items and a scale constructed with top-performing items.

We conducted secondary analysis of data from a five-hospital multicentre prospective cohort study of participants referred to psychiatric liaison services following self-harm. We tested predictive utility of items from five risk scales: Manchester Self-Harm Rule, ReACT Self-Harm Rule, SAD PERSONS, Modified SAD PERSONS, Barratt Impulsiveness Scale and clinician and patient risk estimates. Area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, predictive values and likelihood ratios were used to evaluate predictive accuracy, with sensitivity analyses using classification-tree regression.

A total of 483 self-harm episodes were included, and 145 (30%) were followed by a repeat presentation within 6 months. AUC of individual items ranged from 0.43–0.65. Combining best performing items resulted in an AUC of 0.56. Some individual items outperformed the scale they originated from; no items were superior to clinician or patient risk estimations.

No individual or combination of items outperformed patients’ or clinicians’ ratings. This suggests there are limitations to combining risk factors to predict risk of self-harm repetition. Risk scales should have little role in the management of people who have self-harmed.

Complex challenges may arise when patients present to emergency services with an advance decision to refuse life-saving treatment following suicidal behaviour.

To investigate the use of advance decisions to refuse treatment in the context of suicidal behaviour from the perspective of clinicians and people with lived experience of self-harm and/or psychiatric services.

Forty-one participants aged 18 or over from hospital services (emergency departments, liaison psychiatry and ambulance services) and groups of individuals with experience of psychiatric services and/or self-harm were recruited to six focus groups in a multisite study in England. Data were collected in 2016 using a structured topic guide and included a fictional vignette. They were analysed using thematic framework analysis.

Advance decisions to refuse treatment for suicidal behaviour were contentious across groups. Three main themes emerged from the data: (a) they may enhance patient autonomy and aid clarity in acute emergencies, but also create legal and ethical uncertainty over treatment following self-harm; (b) they are anxiety provoking for clinicians; and (c) in practice, there are challenges in validation (for example, validating the patient’s mental capacity at the time of writing), time constraints and significant legal/ethical complexities.

The potential for patients to refuse life-saving treatment following suicidal behaviour in a legal document was challenging and anxiety provoking for participants. Clinicians should act with caution given the potential for recovery and fluctuations in suicidal ideation. Currently, advance decisions to refuse treatment have questionable use in the context of suicidal behaviour given the challenges in validation. Discussion and further patient research are needed in this area.

D.G., K.H. and N.K. are members of the Department of Health's (England) National Suicide Prevention Advisory Group. N.K. chaired the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guideline development group for the longer-term management of self-harm and the NICE Topic Expert Group (which developed the quality standards for self-harm services). He is currently chair of the updated NICE guideline for Depression. K.H. and D.G. are NIHR Senior Investigators. K.H. is also supported by the Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust and N.K. by the Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust.

Scales are widely used in psychiatric assessments following self-harm. Robust evidence for their diagnostic use is lacking.

To evaluate the performance of risk scales (Manchester Self-Harm Rule, ReACT Self-Harm Rule, SAD PERSONS scale, Modified SAD PERSONS scale, Barratt Impulsiveness Scale); and patient and clinician estimates of risk in identifying patients who repeat self-harm within 6 months.

A multisite prospective cohort study was conducted of adults aged 18 years and over referred to liaison psychiatry services following self-harm. Scale a priori cut-offs were evaluated using diagnostic accuracy statistics. The area under the curve (AUC) was used to determine optimal cut-offs and compare global accuracy.

In total, 483 episodes of self-harm were included in the study. The episode-based 6-month repetition rate was 30% (n = 145). Sensitivity ranged from 1% (95% CI 0–5) for the SAD PERSONS scale, to 97% (95% CI 93–99) for the Manchester Self-Harm Rule. Positive predictive values ranged from 13% (95% CI 2–47) for the Modified SAD PERSONS Scale to 47% (95% CI 41–53) for the clinician assessment of risk. The AUC ranged from 0.55 (95% CI 0.50–0.61) for the SAD PERSONS scale to 0.74 (95% CI 0.69–0.79) for the clinician global scale. The remaining scales performed significantly worse than clinician and patient estimates of risk (P < 0.001).

Risk scales following self-harm have limited clinical utility and may waste valuable resources. Most scales performed no better than clinician or patient ratings of risk. Some performed considerably worse. Positive predictive values were modest. In line with national guidelines, risk scales should not be used to determine patient management or predict self-harm.

Accumulating evidence suggest that psychiatrists may be at greater risk of being stalked compared with the general population. We used a self-administered questionnaire to survey psychiatrists in Ireland about their experiences, practices and attitudes regarding work-related stalking.

We found that 25.1% of psychiatrists in Ireland had been the subject of stalking behaviour at some point in their career. At the time of the survey, 5.5% of respondents were actively being stalked. The majority of the stalking occurred in the workplace and most of the perpetrators were patients. Most of the victims were unaware of guidelines or other supportive mechanisms in their workplace. Of those who reported their experiences to authorities, almost half were not satisfied with the support they received.

Stalking of psychiatrists is not uncommon. Employers should put in place supportive structures backed up by education and training to reduce the incidence, associated morbidity and other wider consequences of stalking.