Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-22dnz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T00:38:21.444Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Evaluation of a mental health first aid workshop for healthcare professionals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 June 2021

Sara Abou Sherif*
Affiliation:
Hammersmith & Fulham Liaison Psychiatry, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College NHS Healthcare Trust, London UK
Sachin Patel
Affiliation:
Hammersmith & Fulham Liaison Psychiatry, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College NHS Healthcare Trust, London UK
*
*Corresponding author.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Aims

Annually, 1 in 4 people in the UK will experience a mental health problem. Alongside the approach of increasing awareness of the issue amongst the general population, there is a drive to deliver training and education on the recognition and management of mental health crises. Limited resources exist to aid healthcare professionals in delivering mental health first aid (MHFA), with the vast majority focussing on lengthy training courses. Small group problem-based learning (PBL) is utilised widely in medical education and this modality offers advantages in deliverability, audience participation and experiential learning. Our aim was to deliver and explore the effectiveness of a PBL MHFA workshop to various healthcare professionals.

Method

As part of an Emergency Medicine Mental Health Education day, we delivered four 30-minute PBL MHFA workshops. These involved an introduction to MHFA, followed by an interactive discussion of 4 mental health simulated cases, whereby participants anonymously answered a range of questions using the web-based platform Mentimeter. We devised a simple MHFA A,B,C,D,E acronym to bring structure to problem solving. Pre- and post-workshop questionnaires were used to assess outcomes using Likert scales to measure various aspects of MHFA (1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree). Statistical significance was calculated using T-Test with P < 0.05 defining statistical significance.

Result

A total of 28 professionals attended the workshops, 20 (72%) completed both the pre and post workshop questionnaire. 19 (76%) were nurses (5 Registered Mental Health Nurses and 14 Registered General Nurses), 3 (12%) were doctors, 2 (8%) were HCA's and 1 was a policeman. 15 (75%) of the participants reported historically having had the need to deliver MHFA but only 3 (15%) had previously received training. After the workshop, participants reported significantly increased understanding [3.0 to 4.3 (p < 0.05)] and confidence in delivering MHFA [3.05 to 4.30 (p < 0.05)]. There was significantly improved confidence in assessing risk [3.03 to 4.05], calling for appropriate help [3.45 to 4.35] and de-escalation techniques [3.05 to 4.15].

Conclusion

To our knowledge this is the first mini PBL-based MHFA workshop. We have demonstrated that the PBL workshop setup is an effective means to deliver training on MHFA. We recognise the importance of MHFA training reaching a larger audience and its potential value if incorporated into national healthcare training programmes and made available to the general public.

Type
Rapid-Fire Poster Presentations
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Royal College of Psychiatrists

Footnotes

The submitted Abstracts from Posters presented at the RCPsych International Congress 2021, 21–24 June are published as a special supplement to BJPsych Open.

Peer review process

Abstracts were reviewed by the RCPsych Academic Faculty rather than by the standard BJPsych Open peer review process and should not be quoted as peer-reviewed by BJPsych Open in any subsequent publication.

Disclaimer

The abstracts have been published using author-supplied copy, with only minor editing made to correct spelling, style and format where appropriate. No responsibility is assumed for any claims, instruction or methods contained in the abstracts and it is recommended that these be verified independently.

Selected from the top scoring abstracts from all categories. Arranged by presenting author surname.

Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.