Telehealth service delivery in an Australian regional mental health service during COVID-19: a mixed methods analysis.

IF 3.1 2区 医学 Q2 PSYCHIATRY International Journal of Mental Health Systems Pub Date : 2022-08-19 DOI:10.1186/s13033-022-00553-8
Mary Lou Chatterton, Elijah Marangu, Elizabeth M Clancy, Matthew Mackay, Eve Gu, Steve Moylan, Amy Langbein, Melissa O'Shea
{"title":"Telehealth service delivery in an Australian regional mental health service during COVID-19: a mixed methods analysis.","authors":"Mary Lou Chatterton,&nbsp;Elijah Marangu,&nbsp;Elizabeth M Clancy,&nbsp;Matthew Mackay,&nbsp;Eve Gu,&nbsp;Steve Moylan,&nbsp;Amy Langbein,&nbsp;Melissa O'Shea","doi":"10.1186/s13033-022-00553-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>COVID-19 required mental health services to quickly switch from face-to-face service delivery to telehealth (telephone and videoconferencing). This evaluation explored implementation of a telehealth mental health response in a regional public mental health provider.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A mixed methods approach, combining service use data, brief satisfaction surveys, and qualitative interviews/focus groups was undertaken. Number and types of contacts from de-identified mental health service data were compared between April-May 2020 and April-May 2019. Mental health consumers and providers completed brief online satisfaction surveys after videoconferencing sessions. Attitudes and perspectives on the implementation of telehealth were further explored by applying a descriptive qualitative framework to the analysis of interview and focus group data supplied by consumers and providers. Template thematic analysis was used to elucidate key themes relating to the barriers and enablers of telehealth uptake and future implementation recommendations.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Total contacts decreased by 13% from 2019 to 2020. Face-to-face contacts decreased from 55% of total in 2019 to 24% in 2020. In 2019, 45% of contacts were by telephone, increasing to 70% in 2020. Only four videoconferencing contacts were made in 2019; increasing to 886 in 2020. Consumer surveys (n = 26) rated videoconferencing as good or excellent for technical quality (92%), overall experience (86%), and satisfaction with personal comfort (82%). Provider surveys (n = 88) rated technical quality as good or excellent (68%) and 86% could achieve assessment/treatment goals with videoconferencing. Provider focus groups/interviews (n = 32) identified that videoconferencing was well-suited to some clinical tasks. Consumers interviewed (n = 6) endorsed the ongoing availability of telehealth within a blended approach to service delivery. Both groups reflected on videoconferencing limitations due to infrastructure (laptops, phones, internet access), cumbersome platform and privacy concerns, with many reverting to telephone use.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>While videoconferencing increased, technical and other issues led to telephone being the preferred contact method. Satisfaction surveys indicated improvement opportunities in videoconferencing. Investment in user-friendly platforms, telehealth infrastructure and organisational guidelines are needed for successful integration of videoconferencing in public mental health systems.</p>","PeriodicalId":47752,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Mental Health Systems","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9388972/pdf/","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Mental Health Systems","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13033-022-00553-8","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Background: COVID-19 required mental health services to quickly switch from face-to-face service delivery to telehealth (telephone and videoconferencing). This evaluation explored implementation of a telehealth mental health response in a regional public mental health provider.

Methods: A mixed methods approach, combining service use data, brief satisfaction surveys, and qualitative interviews/focus groups was undertaken. Number and types of contacts from de-identified mental health service data were compared between April-May 2020 and April-May 2019. Mental health consumers and providers completed brief online satisfaction surveys after videoconferencing sessions. Attitudes and perspectives on the implementation of telehealth were further explored by applying a descriptive qualitative framework to the analysis of interview and focus group data supplied by consumers and providers. Template thematic analysis was used to elucidate key themes relating to the barriers and enablers of telehealth uptake and future implementation recommendations.

Results: Total contacts decreased by 13% from 2019 to 2020. Face-to-face contacts decreased from 55% of total in 2019 to 24% in 2020. In 2019, 45% of contacts were by telephone, increasing to 70% in 2020. Only four videoconferencing contacts were made in 2019; increasing to 886 in 2020. Consumer surveys (n = 26) rated videoconferencing as good or excellent for technical quality (92%), overall experience (86%), and satisfaction with personal comfort (82%). Provider surveys (n = 88) rated technical quality as good or excellent (68%) and 86% could achieve assessment/treatment goals with videoconferencing. Provider focus groups/interviews (n = 32) identified that videoconferencing was well-suited to some clinical tasks. Consumers interviewed (n = 6) endorsed the ongoing availability of telehealth within a blended approach to service delivery. Both groups reflected on videoconferencing limitations due to infrastructure (laptops, phones, internet access), cumbersome platform and privacy concerns, with many reverting to telephone use.

Conclusions: While videoconferencing increased, technical and other issues led to telephone being the preferred contact method. Satisfaction surveys indicated improvement opportunities in videoconferencing. Investment in user-friendly platforms, telehealth infrastructure and organisational guidelines are needed for successful integration of videoconferencing in public mental health systems.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
2019冠状病毒病期间澳大利亚区域精神卫生服务中心的远程医疗服务提供:混合方法分析
背景:COVID-19要求精神卫生服务机构迅速从面对面服务转向远程医疗(电话和视频会议)。本评价探讨了在区域公共精神卫生服务提供者中实施远程保健精神卫生响应的情况。方法:采用混合方法,将服务使用数据、简短满意度调查和定性访谈/焦点小组相结合。比较了2020年4月至5月和2019年4月至5月期间来自去身份化精神卫生服务数据的接触者的数量和类型。心理健康消费者和提供者在视频会议结束后完成了简短的在线满意度调查。通过将描述性定性框架应用于消费者和提供者提供的访谈和焦点小组数据的分析,进一步探讨了对实施远程保健的态度和观点。使用模板专题分析来阐明与远程保健普及的障碍和推动因素有关的关键主题以及今后的实施建议。结果:从2019年到2020年,总接触量下降了13%。面对面接触从2019年的55%下降到2020年的24%。2019年,45%的联系是通过电话进行的,到2020年将增加到70%。2019年仅进行了四次视频会议联系;到2020年将增加到886个。消费者调查(n = 26)认为视频会议在技术质量(92%)、整体体验(86%)和个人舒适度(82%)方面表现良好或优秀。提供商调查(n = 88)将技术质量评为良好或优秀(68%),86%可以通过视频会议实现评估/治疗目标。提供者焦点小组/访谈(n = 32)确定视频会议非常适合某些临床任务。接受访谈的消费者(n = 6)赞同在提供服务的混合方法中持续提供远程保健。这两个群体都反映了视频会议的局限性,因为基础设施(笔记本电脑、电话、互联网接入)、繁琐的平台和隐私问题,许多人回到了电话的使用。结论:随着视频会议的增加,技术和其他问题导致电话成为首选的联系方式。满意度调查显示了视频会议的改进机会。要成功地将视频会议整合到公共精神卫生系统中,需要对用户友好的平台、远程卫生基础设施和组织准则进行投资。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
2.80%
发文量
52
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊最新文献
Impact of informal employment on individuals’ psychological well-being: microevidence from China Co-creating community wellbeing initiatives: what is the evidence and how do they work? Knowledge, attitudes, and practices on child and adolescent mental health among healthcare workers in sub-Saharan Africa: a scoping review. Diagnostic pattern of mental, neurological and substance use disorders at primary health care facilities in Uganda. Prevalence of common mental disorder and its association with perceived stigma and social support among people living with HIV/AIDS in Ethiopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1