Abstract
Background Advance Choice Documents (ACDs) have been recommended for use in England and Wales based on evidence from trials that show that they can reduce involuntary hospitalisation, which disproportionately affects Black African and Caribbean people. Our aim was therefore to develop and implement an ACD resource for Black people who have previously been involuntarily hospitalised and the people that support them.
Methods Resource co-production workshops were held to inform the development of the ACD template and two types of training for all stakeholders, comprising a Recovery College course and simulation training. An ACD facilitator developed ACDs with service users and mental health staff over a series of meetings. Interviews with service user and staff participants were conducted after ACD completion and analysed to document their experience of the process and opinions on ACDs. Other implementation strategies were also employed alongside to support and optimise the development of ACDs.
Results Nine ACDs were completed and were largely reported as appropriate, acceptable, and feasible to staff and service users. Both reported it being an empowering process that encouraged hope for better future treatment and therefore better wellbeing. Uncertainty was also expressed about the confidence people had that ACDs would be adhered to/honoured, primarily due to staff workload. The information provision training and the skills training were generally considered to be informative by attendees.
Conclusions The project has developed an ACD development resource that was reported as agreeable to all stakeholders; however, the generalisability of the findings is limited due to the small sample size. The project also highlights the importance of staff and ACD facilitator capacity and good therapeutic relationships in ACD completion. Further research is needed to determine the adjustments needed for large scale use, including for those under age 18 and those under the care of forensic mental health services; and how to include carers/supporters more in the process.
Background
It is consistently found that Black people, defined as people of Black African and Caribbean heritage and people of mixed Black heritage, disproportionally have negative experiences of mental health services in the UK (1–3). This includes more coercive treatment, higher police involvement in detention in psychiatric hospitals under the Mental Health Act (MHA), and more frequent and sustained compulsory detentions (1,4) which all act to reduce autonomy. These disparities also exist alongside poorer mental health outcomes (2,5). Interventions designed to improve the experience of Black people in mental health services have been insufficient (6). However, written statements of treatment preferences created in advance of a mental health crisis or relapse have been associated with reduced compulsory psychiatric admissions (7–9) and reduced periods as an inpatient for Black people in particular (10). These are referred to as Advance Choice Documents (ACDs) in the 2018 Independent Review of the UK Mental Health Act (MHA Review) and depending on the legislative context and authors are variously termed Advance Statements, Psychiatric Advance Directives, Joint Crisis Plans, and Crisis Cards.
ACDs can support the autonomy of service users (11–13) and facilitate mental health care providers being held accountable in delivering preferred care. They can potentially address Black service users’ dissatisfaction with services (14), impaired therapeutic alliance and trust, and reduced help seeking (15,16). ACDs are viewed positively by service users, carers/supporters of people with mental health difficulties, and mental health staff (MHS) (17,18). The UK government accepted the recommendation of the use of ACDs in the MHA Review and the parliamentary scrutiny committee recommended a statutory offer be made to anyone who has previously been detained under the MHA (19). However, in countries where there is legislation supporting the use of ACDs, such as Scotland and the USA, uptake is low (20).
Various reasons have been cited for the lack of development and use of ACDs, at the level of the service user, staff, and service (21). A study of Joint Crisis Plan use identified three barriers: 1) lack of recognition of the benefits of ACDs; 2) not recognising the need for a change in the clinician-service user relationship, including discussing treatment options and supporting patient choice; and 3) difficulties in implementation when working across the healthcare system (18).
To support effective implementation of ACDs at a National Health Service (NHS) mental health service provider and for wider adoption, this implementation research project (the Advance Statements for Black African and Caribbean people project; AdStAC) consisted of three phases: stakeholder workshops (to understand views about ACDs) (22); co-production (deciding what resources were needed to implement ACDs and in what format); and implementation (testing and revising the implementation resource) (23). This paper focuses on the co-production and implementation phases, which had the aims:
Co-produce an implementation resource (guidance and training on ACD implementation, and a modified ACD template)
Test, revise, and re-test the implementation of ACDs using the resource developed
Methods
Design
The resource co-production phase comprised three workshops: ACD template design; Recovery College training on understanding ACDs, and Simulation training on how to create and use ACDs.
The implementation phase comprised Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles (24) to develop ACDs, gain feedback, and modify the processes as necessary.
Ethics
Approval for the study was granted by the Bradford Leeds NHS Health Research Authority Research Ethics Committee (Research Ethics Committee reference number: 22/YH/0012) on 07/02/2022.
Context
The sites of implementation were in four South London local government areas served by an NHS mental health service provider (an NHS Trust) that have, relative to the UK, a high proportion of Black people (range 22.6%-26.8%) (25).
The NHS Trust has a Recovery College, which offers courses and workshops taught by people with lived experience of long-term mental health conditions/difficulties and people with expertise by profession. Recovery Colleges are widespread throughout the UK (88 in 2021; (26) and are open to service users, carers/supporters, and MHS to attend. The Trust also has a mental health simulation training centre that offers courses that can be booked by any NHS Trust.
Participants
The workshops were open to Black people aged 16+ who had previously been detained under the MHA; supporters/carers of a Black service user eligible for the project; MHS who may be involved in supporting the completion of ACDs/refer to ACDs in clinical records/involved in compulsory admission, and General Practitioners who work with people said to have serious mental illness.
The targeted groups for the intervention were Black service users and the people who support and work with them. Inclusion criteria for service users included: currently using the NHS Trust services; aged 16+; previously detained at least once under the MHA; and self-identifying as of Black African and Caribbean heritage, or of mixed Black heritage. For supporters/carers: aged 16+; informal carers/supporters of eligible service users; and likely to be named in the ACD. Eligible staff included those who may be involved in completing or referring to the ACD in clinical records, such as MHS employed by the Trust in acute and community settings, section 12 (MHA) approved doctors, Approved Mental Health Professionals, advocates, and peer workers.
Purposive sampling was used to recruit service users, carers/supporters, and staff for the co-production workshops and the trainings. Recruitment occurred through presentations to clinical teams and third-sector organisations (including community groups, voluntary organisations, and faith and equalities groups). Physical and digital adverts were also distributed to these groups and promoted via social media platforms. For the development of ACDs, the first 15 eligible service users expressing interest were recruited, including via the Trust’s consent for contact register.
Summary of the strategies
A steering committee, a lived experience advisory group, and a staff advisory group provided guidance throughout the project. Co-production workshops based on stakeholder recommendations shaped the implementation resource: an ACD template, training, and a manual and job description for the ACD facilitator (22). Two training courses were developed: a simulation training course and a Recovery College course, both for service users, staff, and carers/supporters. The ACD facilitator, a social worker employed by the NHS Trust, was given the manual and developed the ACDs of participating service users and their care staff whilst undergoing fortnightly supervision. Throughout the ACD development period, monthly staff meetings were held for staff in participating teams to discuss the project and presentations to clinical teams and third-sector organisations were also delivered. Awareness videos about ACDs were also created and distributed. Throughout the project the resource was improved based on data collected through participant interviews and staff meetings. The strategies not detailed in the Methods section can be found in Additional File 1: Additional project strategies.
Co-production workshops
Based on the recommendations from stakeholders, three co-production workshops were conducted with mixed stakeholder groups to develop: an ACD template; the Trust’s Recovery College course to provide information on ACDs; and skills training delivered with the Trust’s Simulation training team on how stakeholders could create and use an ACD. The development of the ACD template involved seeking views on existing documents (Crisis PaCK (27), Crisis Plus (28), Joint Crisis Plan (18), and MAPS (29)). The trainings workshops sought to determine what people thought was needed to make them effective for all stakeholders. The simulation training workshop allowed the Simulation team to create a bespoke course to include service users and carers/supporters, as they had not previously run a course for these stakeholders.
ACD facilitator manual and supervision
A co-Principal Investigator (co-PI) (CH) revised a manual drafted after the CRIMSON trial of Joint Crisis Plans (18) for clinicians taking the role of the independent facilitator leading ACD creation. The facilitator was independent in that they were not a part of a service user’s care team. A facilitator was recruited from within the NHS Trust and attended the simulation training and attended fortnightly supervision via hour long virtual meetings with a project co-PI (CH) who is a psychiatrist.
ACD development
The facilitator used the AdStAC ACD template during meetings to develop ACDs. Service users were invited to bring any informal carers/supporters. Meetings could be conducted via video call, phone call, or in-person. The initial model was a minimum of two meetings, based on previous research (18), the first including the participant’s care-coordinator (a MHS member who co-ordinates a service user’s care across the health and care system) and the second meeting including their treating psychiatrist; both to support the service user and provide their professional insights. Meetings were scheduled by the facilitator and the research assistant.
Training – Recovery College course
The Recovery College course was developed to provide an opportunity for stakeholders to learn about ACDs. Its development was informed by stakeholder workshops co-led by a peer trainer employed by the Recovery College. The final course was produced through collaboration between the peer trainer and the AdStAC team (facilitator, research associate, and research assistant) and delivered by the peer trainer and facilitator with assistance from the research associate and the research assistant. It was a four-day in-person course, running weekly from 10am-3pm. The course included didactic and interactive components with regular space for discussion and individual and group exercises.
Training – Simulation training
The simulation training was developed for stakeholders to develop skills in completing and using them in their existing role. It was a full-day of in-person training comprising didactic content delivered by a co-PI (CH) with a barrister (ARK) present to address legal questions; simulated scenarios run by the training staff with a professional actor playing the service user that simulated ACD completion and use in practice; and debriefing sessions facilitated by the training staff. Two independent sessions were planned to allow modifications based on observation and participant feedback.
Recommended strategies
Table 1 shows the AdStAC activities that map onto the strategies to “enhance the adoption, implementation and sustainability of a clinical program or practice’ and their clusters as defined by the Expert Recommendations for Implementation Change (ERIC) study (30). See Additional file 2: Known barriers and recommended strategies for how identified barriers to ACD implementation characterised by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) (31) are addressed by the project strategies.
Measures, data collection, and analysis
Recovery college course
Participants were invited to a group feedback session at the end of the course to share their opinions of the content and the experience. The researchers took notes of their responses.
Simulation learning training
Participants were asked to complete pre-course and post-course questionnaires rating their knowledge, confidence, and understanding of ACDs. Paired samples T-tests were conducted to compare pre- and post-course answers. Thematic analysis was conducted on the open-text survey given, which covered people’s experience, what they learned, and, for staff, perceived influence on their practice.
ACD development
The Acceptability of Intervention Measure (AIM), Intervention Appropriateness Measure (IAM), and the Feasibility of Intervention Measure (FIM) were adapted for use by service users and staff following the authors’ instructions (32).
Service users’ trust in mental health services was assessed using an adapted single item question: ‘Generally you can trust mental health staff and services’, used previously in research with this population (33) with responses on a five-point Likert scale.
Service users completed baseline and post ACD completion questionnaires including the item on trust in services. Post ACD completion interviews of service users and staff covered acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of the ACDs they were involved in developing using AIM, IAM and FIM and open-ended questions about their experience and motivation to complete an ACD. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim for thematic analysis.
The ACD facilitator logged the profession and role of meeting attendees, the number and duration of meetings, and meeting locations. Descriptive statistics were calculated for the lengths of ACD development meetings, their quantity, who attended, and their location. ACD content was coded for refusals and requests.
Results
Co-production workshops
The ACD template workshop led to the addition of a ‘Who I am’ section where people could include content important to their sense of identity that they wanted others to know. It was felt that this type of information could humanise service users and lead to less stigmatisation and more respectful treatment during a relapse or crisis. Later feedback from various sources enabled the template to be modified to include questions around advocacy, rephrasing of its wording to be more sensitive to people’s individual experiences, and flow of its presentation.
The Simulation team determined stakeholders wanted unified learning objectives across roles and then drafted learning objectives. For example, participants expressed the importance of learners understanding the document was patient-led and not like previous documents, like care plans, so one learning objective became “implement a model of decision making that is truly shared between service users, carers and healthcare professionals when making ACDs”. The team also identified beneficial and acceptable content for simulation scenarios. For example, cultural sensitivity and service user individuality were two desired themes, so the ACD creation scenarios included specific religious and dietary requests and the scenario actor was briefed to become less distressed if participants were attentive to related content in the ACD.
The Recovery College course was determined to require four sessions to cover learning objectives important for stakeholders.
Training - Simulation training
Two separate trainings occurred; the second was adapted to allow a later start time to facilitate access by some participants, for example those on sedative medication or those who had care/support commitments. Police input was sought for the development of training, but this was not obtained during the project.
Demographics
Twelve trainees attended, nine recorded as female, three as male, most were over 55 years old (n=5), and the majority identified as of a Black ethnic group (n=9). Backgrounds of trainees included service users; advocates; peer support workers; a clinical team leader; an equality, diversity, and inclusion lead; and a social worker.
Quantitative findings
Paired sample t-tests were conducted on the responses to pre- and post-course questionnaires, see table 2 for results. Higher scores denote increase in people’s rated confidence, understanding, and ability. 6 trainees were excluded for providing incomplete responses.
Qualitative findings
Four themes were identified through thematic analysis, including increased knowledge from facilitators and speakers; helpfulness of the activities; learning the importance of teamwork and collaboration; and desire for further exploration within the course (including medication refusal, simulation exercises, and how ACDs will work in practice).
Training - Recovery College course
Demographics
Twelve trainees attended, ten recorded as female, two recorded as male, with a mean age of 52 (range: 41-62yrs). Trainees included were people of lived experience, carers/supporters, third-sector organisation workers, and lived experience advisors & experts. No mental healthcare professionals attended. Six people attended all sessions, four people attended three sessions, one attended two sessions, and one attended one session.
Feedback
Trainees described the course as informative and appreciated it being co-facilitated by a peer trainer who detailed their own views and experiences, as it made them relatable and created a safe space where trainees felt free to express themselves. Another favoured element was how interactive the sessions were. However, trainees stated the ACD and what it relates to makes it a ‘heavy’ document, which made the course feel somewhat challenging and that there was a need for a more digestible approach.
Generally, trainees felt more knowledgeable about how to approach making their own ACD with the appropriate people, such as MHS. Additionally, they felt they could support someone else with the making of their ACD. Trainees also felt the course would benefit friends and family of service users; peer support workers; voluntary organisation staff; carers; and mental and general health staff.
Trainees remarked that four days of training was a big commitment, as was the session length (10am-3pm). Views were mixed concerning clinical staff attendance: some thought there should be the option of a group including staff, due to the importance of having stakeholders learn from one another, while others did not want this as they did not feel that as supportive and safe a space would be possible with staff present.
ACD Development meetings
See Table 3 for demographics of service user participants. Nine ACDs were made through an average of two meetings, lasting for an average of 62 minutes. Of the 20 meetings held, 11 were attended by care-coordinators, four by consultants, four by psychologists, one by a case management officer, and one by a team leader. Six meetings took place in-person, and 12 by video call. Six ACDs were not completed due to lack of responsiveness from clinical team to setting up meetings or providing input to ACDs through offered alternate methods; clinical team members not attending agreed meetings; numerous clinical team changes, facilitator responsiveness, and service user disengagement. Typically, it was simpler to arrange meetings with psychologists, followed by care-coordinators, then consultant psychiatrists, with the latter being more likely to attend once given the option of attending for 15 minutes instead of the full hour. Approaches to scheduling were adjusted with the aim of reducing delay before meetings were held and the ACD template adjusted to maximise information gathering.
The most frequent request made in ACDs were Support (e.g., support groups, cultural support); whom to notify as contact persons; strategies for de-escalation and reduction of coercive measures; additional information and well-being factors (e.g., being outdoors, creative activities, support to take medication); request for other treatment (e.g., psychotherapy); request for medication form; refusal of specific medication; request for hospital alternative (e.g., home treatment, outpatient treatment) (Table 4).
ACD development interviews
Demographics
Seven service users and five staff took part in the post ACD completion interviews.
Trust, acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility
At baseline, service users responded most frequently with ‘Agree’ when asked whether they can trust services. At post-completion ‘Agree’ and ‘Neither agree nor disagree’ were the most frequent responses, with one respondent changing from ‘disagree’ to ‘Neither agree nor disagree (see table 5). For service users, ‘Agree’ was the most common response across acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility for their ACDs. ‘Completely agree’ was the second most frequent for acceptability and feasibility had the greatest number of ‘Neither agree nor disagree’ answers (see Additional file 3: Service user ratings of ACDs). For staff, across appropriateness and acceptability ‘Completely agree’ was the most common response. ‘Agree’ was most frequent for feasibility, which elicited the only neither ‘Neither agree nor disagree’ response (see Additional file 4: Staff ratings of ACDs).
Service user interviews
See Table 6 for service user interview excerpts, and Additional file 6: Service user interview excerpts for those not listed here.
Process
Facilitator involvement
Generally, service users appreciated the presence of the facilitator. They cited their prompts as helpful, although service user SU6 stated that being reminded more explicitly that the ACD was a living document more often would be good. The presence and guidance of the facilitator was also seen as supportive and caring. The ease of someone else recording and summarising was also highlighted as a positive.
Staff involvement
Opinions on involvement of a service user’s care team varied. Some saw it as helpful as they were able to provide important insight, and some cited their familiar presence as helping them participate in the development meetings. Others had a neutral opinion, or noted that attending staff had no input in the meetings, without expressing any opinion on this. The brevity of staff attendance and their absence in some cases were mentioned but no explicit evaluation of this was given.
Demands
Some interviewees described the meetings as emotionally demanding and the cause of unease; SU3 stated it can be a daunting task. No participants reported feeling pressured in meetings when asked; however, SU7 didn’t feel able to challenge the facilitator’s summary when asked to review an initial draft of their ACD. The length of meetings was seen as appropriate for the content of the meetings and not demanding, but the time between meetings and between the last meeting and receiving ACDs to review was described as long.
Quality of ACD
Service users described their ACD as well made, comprehensive, and a good summary of who they were as a person and their experience. However, SU2 stressed that the ACD was only an indicator of who they were. Most asked for corrections to be made but most did not express an issue with what had to be adjusted. However, SU7 expressed that they felt their racialised experience of services, an experience important to them, was left out. After edits to their ACD were made in response to this, SU7 felt satisfied with the final ACD.
Benefits
Drive to complete
Participants cited multiple reasons for choosing to make an ACD, including being heard and increasing their autonomy. A desire to increase understanding was also mentioned multiple times, primarily in staff, but also family. Related to this, some people also wanted to avoid the repetition of coercive treatment and negative experiences with mental health services.
On taking part
Service users reported positive feelings for themselves and towards services. For services, participants detailed having a confidence in them, feeling listened to and respected, and being appreciative of having the opportunity to express themselves. SU3 however had an unchanged opinion of services, as they reported previously having confidence in them. Participants expressed finding the experience empowering and having a greater sense of control and feeling more involved in their care. Some found the experience itself enjoyable, for SU1 this was because they were being heard. Others were pleased with themselves for taking part and shared that it was a way to appreciate themselves due to the reflection involved, and others felt they had increased in self-confidence. The ACD development process was also appreciated for its personalised approach, which was described as humanising by some. SU7 also mentioned how the ACD provided reassurance for carers/supporters, which was of value to them.
Hope
Participants shared that they were hopeful creating the ACD would bring about better treatment for themselves when in contact with mental health services and be a part of a more holistic approach to their care. SU7 also described the potential of ACDs to reduce police aggression and violence against people from minoritised groups.
When asked what they would say to someone considering ACDs, participants cited the support or facilitation of support for their mental health needs as a reason to complete it. Additional reasons were its ability to increase understanding of who they are as an individual and to have their care personalised. Related to this, participants also mentioned having more say in their care and empowering themselves. The ACD was also spoken of in terms of safety and it being a safety net, with SU7 describing it as a practical solution to racial inequalities.
Honouring
Uncertainty
Uncertainty was widely expressed about whether ACDs would be used. Service users stated either they could not know until it was in practice or that they weren’t familiar enough with ACDs to say. Some said their satisfaction with developing an ACD was dependent upon how it would be adhered to/honoured. Others were sceptical about whether it would be used, with some citing having low confidence in services or police using it, due to previous experiences. Participants also expressed uncertainty when asked what they would say to people considering ACDs, because they themselves were sceptical or inexperienced with ACDs. However, SU4 and SU1 had a general confidence it would be used.
Influencing factors
Participants felt the honouring of their ACDs depended upon staff training and awareness of ACDs. Furthermore, participants felt how staff and police regarded ACDs would have an impact on whether they were utilised. SU7 felt that for ACDs to be honoured an advocate would need to be involved. SU1 believed their own behaviour would have an influence on whether people would adhere to their ACD. Participants also generally felt that staff capacity and services in general being overwhelmed presented a risk of their ACD not being honoured.
Staff interviews
See Table 7 for staff interview excerpts, and Additional file 7: Service user interview excerpts for those not listed here.
Process
Approach
Staff remarked how the process of creating the ACD felt collaborative in a way that felt personalised to the service user. Staff also approved of the ease of the process and the flexibility in respect to scheduling and meeting location. Whilst participants said no improvements were needed, it was mentioned how the delay in meetings and getting completed ACDs back was an issue that could impact on service user motivation.
Care team involvement
Some participants highlighted the need for a member of the care team to be present in meetings as their insight can be uniquely useful; particularly if a service user is being reserved, or alternatively an independent facilitator would need to be vigilant about this. Additionally, staff noted that a service user’s wellness was a factor that needed to be monitored and that their care team was well suited to advise on this. Some staff shared that they did not feel an independent facilitator was essential for the ACD to be developed; MHS6 felt it was unlikely they’ll be available when ACDs are upscaled, so the process needs to be adjusted for care teams to facilitate ACD development.
Independent facilitator impact
Staff shared how the presence of the facilitator as an independent party allowed for a safe space to be created, which was supportive for both staff and service users. In this space it was said that there was an increased sense of openness that led to conversations that were not had in regular interactions. The involvement of a neutral party was also seen as beneficial in reducing the impact of staff conflict of interest, who may have their own priorities regarding a service user’s care that differ to the service users. Staff frequently commented on the positive input of the facilitator and their sensitivity in dealing with challenging topics and their making the process a personalised experience.
Benefits
For staff
Generally, participants saw the ACD as informative and a useful tool, with MHS3 saying that it could provide targets where it was not previously known what works for service users or there was a lack of understanding about an aspect of their life. MHS4 also shared how the project being focused on Black people and then developing the ACD with that in mind made them think about how someone’s colour or culture could impact their experience of mental health services, in a way they hadn’t considered before in their work. The process itself was also said to be rewarding for staff, with MHS1 finding it enjoyable.
For service users
Staff saw the ACDs as an opportunity for service users to: be heard and have more input in their care; to prepare for their future care; preserve their rights during their contact with services; and to be given a sense of safety that they will be looked after in their preferred way. ACDs were seen as part of a holistic approach to care through more personalised action, and MHS3 noted they saw ACDs as a continuation of community care. Staff mentioned the importance of ACDs being completed by Black service users due to social inequities and hoped that having ACDs would provide them the confidence to access services when needed. MHS5 raised that due to the sensitive work involved in developing an ACD and the hope that it can offer, not honouring an ACD would have a significantly negative impact on service users.
Application
Barriers
Staff reported they would reserve stating how confident they were in ACDs until they were used in practice. They mentioned that whether ACDs would be honoured would be dependent on both requests and context, for example, which team was involved and in which clinical setting. Communication on wards was particularly highlighted as a barrier, as was collaboration between teams. MHS3 cited the latter as requiring proactiveness with ACDs. Staff thought that it would be easier to communicate the need to check an ACD with community mental health teams than with ward teams, and MHS5 felt confident the community teams would access it. Staff were unsure how police would interact with ACDs, due to not having much contact with them, but mentioned how police are busy and react to things quickly and that this would likely affect whether they would check whether someone has an ACD or adhere to it. MHS4 felt that if a service user had recurrent contact with police, they may be prompted to access their ACD.
Enablers
Staff awareness of a service user having an ACD or knowing what they were and how to use them was seen as key to them being honoured. ACD champions were one solution suggested to ensure clinical teams were made aware and accessed them. Participants also expressed concerns about how easily they could be accessed. They wondered what their visibility would be like on the used electronic clinical records system and highlighted the importance of them not being lost in patient notes. Staff also stressed the importance of the ACD being connected with legislation as an important part in garnering interest and faith in ACDs for service users. Generally, a wider rollout was sought to realise the potential benefits of ACDs. ACD completion when service users were well was underlined as crucial for achieving the benefits of ACDs for service users.
Discussion
The project set out to develop an implementation resource to get ACDs to work for Black people and those that support them. An ACD template, two sets of training, and a facilitation process were developed and used in the creation of ACDs, and the development of awareness and skills associated with ACDs and their use. In addition to gaining insights into the meaning of ACDs for service users and staff, the project identified key issues for the upscaling and routine use of ACDs.
Training of staff may not be achievable through the developed courses. The Recovery College course, which was developed into a four-day course, had no clinical staff attendance, likely due to the time commitment required and lack of an official requirement to attend. This absence does not fulfil the joint-learning requested by stakeholders in workshops; however, the attendees largely accepted the lack of staff attending and some preferred this. Simulation training trainees generally reported finding the training useful for practical application in various stages of creating and using ACDs. A noteworthy finding was that they felt less confident to complete ACDs than before they started. This could be due to them believing they knew what ACDs were beforehand and then finding that they were different to what they expected, and perhaps more complex. The reach of this training’s observed value may be limited as simulation training needs to be delivered in small groups.
The completion of the ACD development meetings requires a degree of swiftness from staff which can be hard to achieve. Service users expressed how demanding the process could be; and staff believed it was important to time the meetings for when service users were well and to complete ACDs promptly to avoid demotivation. However, staff cited high workload and higher priorities as reasons for not attending or rearranging meetings, which increased time spent arranging meetings.
As there were substantial delays in setting up first or second meetings, due to lack of staff availability or response, some meetings went ahead without staff present. It was found that the presence of a care-coordinator was not always necessary for productive meetings; however, one instance showed that having someone who knew the service user at the first meeting was crucial in establishing the context of discussions. Additionally, although staff presence was sometimes not considered vital by service users, some noted that it was reassuring.
Staff generally approved of the process of creating ACDs and described the creation and use of ACDs as well aligned to community care practice. This contrasts previous findings of resistance to the role of the facilitator, doubts about ability to follow preferences, and beliefs that the process duplicates existing practice (21). However, it does support findings that some MHS believe having an independent facilitator can lead to the successful completion of ACDs, particularly due to their impartiality and having time to complete the document (34). Although some staff felt that a service user’s care team could facilitate ACD creation, this was partly due to scepticism regarding the use of facilitators being scaled-up rather than resistance to their role.
Though service users generally reported positive views about the meetings, the act of creating an ACD, and their ACD, echoing previous research findings (18,27,35), people from historically marginalised groups and those who have individual negative experiences with services may still find it difficult to speak freely when invited to by MHS. Discussion of racialised experience is not routine, as exemplified by the staff member who required prompting to consider how a service user’s lived reality as a Black person may influence their experience of mental health care, and the service user who had an additional meeting to discuss following encouragement from the researcher (AJS). This project may have partly facilitated this, through the project title and its self-identified race/ethnicity-based eligibility criterion, but project observations suggests that more explicit encouragement is needed. This may cause discomfort in meetings already found to be challenging by service users; we therefore suggest that this encouragement is made in initial offers to make an ACD, so that service users can consider discussing these experiences beforehand, and that staff and facilitator training covers the need to discuss these experiences as part of ACD creation.
The content of service user ACDs varied from including personally known people in their mental health care, reducing staff coercion and how to do this, the way they received their medication, what medication they did not want, specific requests for psychotherapy or art therapy, letting MHS know what additional things help them, such as particular creative activities or being outside, and requests for treatment at home when possible. Such requests if honoured have the potential to lead to the strengthening of therapeutic relationships, fewer hospital admissions, and an increased sense of safety and being supported in a personal manner. It is noteworthy that there were no refusals of all coercive measures, but none consented to or ranked any particular measures. Also, a minority mentioned the police in their ACD, despite either having past interactions with police or recognising the possibility of their involvement in the future.
Both service users and staff reserved judgement on the likelihood of ACD content being honoured, with staff describing awareness, content and service context as influencing this. Staff capacity was also cited as an issue in ACDs being honoured, due to staff overwhelm and the NHS being under pressure overall. Advocates and staff ACD champions were suggested to help with staff accessing and honouring ACDs in busy environments such as wards. Champions on wards are generally accepted as playing a significant role in implementation (36,37) and culturally appropriate advocates have been said to be useful in having service users’ needs met and rights adhered to (38). These points highlight how ultimately for ACDs to work for Black service users, in addition to specific strategies, a culture prioritising the service user’s voice is essential. This further highlights the need for ACDs to have legislative backing and having considered reasoning for not honouring them. Scepticism also existed around whether police would read or honour ACDs irrespective of training, due to them not seeing it as priority.
Strengths and limitations
Carrying out this study within one service provider allowed the creation of a resource that is feasible for use in its context and was largely acceptable to participating service users and staff. The focus on Black service users also enabled the development of a resource that aims to improve mental health equity, a resource well suited for further improvements and adaptions with this aim in mind. The project therefore established a useful foundation to apply and evaluate this resource on a larger scale. The small sample size however limits the findings’ generalisability, and the lack of staff attendance at the trainings limits what can be said about the usefulness for the everyday practice of staff and whether this varies between staff types. No forensic service users or staff were included in the study despite attempts to and given the disproportionate number of Black people in such services, the resource needs to be piloted and amended as needed for use within these services. Although carers/supporters were involved in the co-production phase and attended both sets of training, none were included in ACD development meetings. Further study is needed to find out why and how better to include them. The confidence in the findings from the AIM, IAM, and FIM implementation outcome measures is also limited, due to the repetitive nature of the questions. Importantly, the time frame of this project did not allow follow up to ascertain rates of access to and honouring of ACDs, nor to develop and test a process for their review.
Implications
Adaptations are likely to be needed to optimise implementability in other services and in other populations. In addition to the need to adapt and pilot ACDs in forensic services, this will also be needed for child and adolescent mental health services and those for older adults.
Further implementation studies will need to consider both additional strategies and research questions. Besides training that can easily be accessed by staff, other strategies are likely to be needed to increase the agility of community staff to respond to requests for ACDs. The digitisation of ACDs is likely to aid efficiencies in ACD creation and development, quality, safety monitoring, and routine clinical notes retrieval, and so should also be considered an important part of ACD implementation. Strategies are also needed to enable discussions about care influenced by other characteristics such as gender identity, sexuality, religion, etc. One possibility is that the role of the independent facilitator be expanded to promote this change in culture. Likewise, strategies will be needed to encourage relevant professionals to follow the content. While we did not encounter the same attitudinal barriers that have affected previous research, we cannot assume they are now non-existent. Furthermore, it still needs to be determined whether trial findings regarding the use of the MHA and therapeutic alliance can be replicated through routine use, even with implementation resources and strategies in place, for example due to trial samples not being representative of wider populations. This includes the question of whether ACDs can improve mental health equity. These questions need to be approached with observational and quasi experimental study designs. Finally, there is no evidence about predictors of whether ACD content is accessed and followed, including characteristics of services, mental health staff, service users, or ACD content. This question requires large sample sizes, follow up lengths sufficient for periods when ACDs should be accessed, and informatics work. Future work by our group will address these questions to fully realise the potential of ACDs in addressing inequity in mental health care and enhancing the impact of mental health services more widely.
Data Availability
ACD resources are available on request from CH at claire.1.henderson{at}kcl.ac.uk Quantitative data are available on reasonable request; however, qualitative data and ACD content are not due to risk of reidentification.
Additional files
File name: Additional file 1
File format: Microsoft Word Document, DOC
Title of data: Additional project strategies
Description: Project strategies not directly a part of the implementation resource described in the paper
File name: Additional file 2
File format: Microsoft Excel Worksheet, XLS
Title of data: Summary of CFIR barrier constructs and the related ERIC and AdStAC strategies
Description: Summaries of the CFIR constructs (barriers) to ACD implementations matched with ERIC strategies to implement ACDs and the AdStAC strategies that correspond
File name: Additional file 3
File format: Microsoft Excel Worksheet, XLS
Title of data: Service user ratings of the acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of their ACD
Description: Service user participant responses to AIM, IAM, and FIM measures after ACD completion
File name: Additional file 4
File format: Microsoft Excel Worksheet, XLS
Title of data: Staff ratings of the acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of ACDs they worked on
Description: Staff participant responses to AIM, IAM, and FIM measures after ACD completion
Declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Approval for the study was granted by the Bradford Leeds NHS Health Research Authority Research Ethics Committee (REC reference number: 22/YH/0012) on 07/02/2022. All study participants provided informed consent before they took part in the study.
Consent for publication
No identifiable information of individuals included in the manuscript.
Availability of data and materials
ACD resources are available on request from CH at claire.1.henderson{at}kcl.ac.uk
Quantitative data are available on reasonable request; however, qualitative data and ACD content are not due to risk of reidentification.
Competing interests
The authors have no competing interest to declare.
Funding
This study is funded by Maudsley Charity. ACD films funded by Health Education England.
Authors’ contributions
Advisory groups – AS chaired the staff advisory group meetings. SG chaired the lived-experience advisory group meetings.
ACD template workshop – AB, CH, and SS facilitated the co-production workshops.
Simulation workshops and training – AB, CH, MF and MS facilitated the co-production workshops. AnB, AKS, CH, MF and MS facilitated the training, with support from AB and AJS. SG analysed data collected from participant surveys.
Recovery college course workshop and training – AB and PE facilitated the co-production workshops. FC, PE, AB, and AJS developed the course. FC and PE led the facilitation of the course, AB and AJS supported. AB and AJS held and recorded the feedback session.
ACD creation – AB, CH, and SS developed and revised the ACD template, AJS also revised. CH developed the facilitator manual and led facilitator supervision. FC facilitated the creation of service user ACDs. AJS collected baseline and follow-up data, transcribed interviews and analysed transcripts. AB checked the created coding framework for reliability. FH led monthly staff meetings, supported by CH and AJS.
Films – SS, SG, and AJS were a part of filmed interviews on ACDs.
Manuscript – AJS led on drafting and editing the manuscript. All other authors reviewed, edited, and approved the final manuscript.
Acknowledgement
Within the NHS Trust - Recovery college; Maudsley Learning Simulation; Patient and Carer Race Equality Framework team; Staff BME forum; Lewisham Crisis Plus team; Simone Myers, Lewisham EDI lead; and Southwark: Trauma Informed Care Implementation Group. Staff and lived experience advisory groups; AdStAC project steering committee; Black Thrive: Culturally Appropriate Advocacy and Peer Support service; and Croydon BME forum.
Abbreviations
- AdStAC
- Advance Statements for Black African and Caribbean people
- ACD
- Advance Choice Document
- AIM
- Acceptability of Intervention Measure (AIM), and the (FIM)
- CFIR
- Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research
- co-PI
- co-principal investigator
- ERIC
- Expert Recommendations for Implementation Change
- FIM
- Feasibility of Intervention Measure
- IAM
- Intervention Appropriateness Measure
- MHA
- Mental health act
- MHA review
- 2018 Independent Review of the UK Mental Health Act
- MHS
- Mental health staff
- NHS
- National Health Service
References
