Business as Un-usual: Access to mental health and primary care services for people with severe mental illness during the COVID-19 restrictions

Introduction

In mid-March 2020, soon after the WHO declared the outbreak of COVID-19 to be a pandemic, sweeping changes in the way mental health and primary care services in the UK are provided were introduced. A survey of mental health staff, conducted early in the first wave of the pandemic in the UK (i.e April/May 2020) found that the number of face-to-face meetings was reduced, and phone and video appointments and support were rapidly introduced [1]. This observation was supported by a recent report from the House of Lords Covid-19 Committee [2]. In most areas of the UK the frequency of contacts and the range of both NHS and third sector services available also reduced [3]. Research is beginning to explore the impact of the pandemic and the pandemic restrictions on people with pre-existing mental health conditions. However, there has been little research into the specific experiences of people living with severe mental illness (SMI), and in particular how their access to mental health and primary care services may have changed.

People with SMI are an especially vulnerable group who already experience significant health inequalities. Notably they currently experience a mortality gap of 15-20 years when compared to people without SMI [4, 5, 6]. An important driver for this gap is preventable physical health conditions, linked to behavioural risk factors, such as poor diet and smoking. However, access to and take-up of services is also a factor [7, 8]. There are concerns that the changes in the way services have been delivered during the pandemic may have further increased the barriers to access that people with SMI experience (e.g. access to digital technologies or familiarity/confidence in using them) [9,10]. It is therefore important to: explore how satisfied people with SMI are with the support they received during the pandemic; understand any difficulties they encountered when accessing both mental health and primary care services; consider ways to mitigate these difficulties; and assess the perceived need for future support from mental health services. The aim of this study was to use a large clinical cohort of people with SMI, which was recruited in the years immediately prior to the pandemic restrictions and was re-surveyed a few months after the beginning of the restrictions, to explore these issues.

Materials and Methods

The Closing the Gap (CtG) study is a large (n=9,914) transdiagnostic clinical cohort recruited between April 2016 and March 2020. Participants have documented diagnoses of schizophrenia or delusional/psychotic illness (ICD 10 F20.X & F22.X or DSM equivalent) or bipolar disorder (ICD F31.X or DSM-equivalent). The composition of the CtG cohort has previously been described [11].

We were funded to explore the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in a sub-section of the CtG clinical cohort and we identified participants for Optimising Well-being in Self-Isolation study (OWLS) (https://sites.google.com/york.ac.uk/owls-study/home). To ensure that the OWLS COVID-19 sub-cohort was representative we created a sampling framework based on gender, age, ethnicity and whether they were recruited via primary or secondary care. OWLS participants were recruited from 17 mental health trusts and six primary care Clinical Research Networks (across urban and rural settings in England).

To be eligible to take part in OWLS COVID-19 study, people had to be aged 18 or over, have taken part in the CtG study and have consented to be contacted again about further research. They must also have been originally recruited from a clinical site with capacity to support the OWLS study. This approach enabled us to create longitudinal data linkage and to rapidly identify participants during the COVID-19 pandemic. To increase the chances of participants responding and their contact details remaining current, we invited the participants who had been more recently recruited to the CtG cohort. People who met the eligibility criteria were contacted by telephone or letter and invited to take part in the OWLS COVID-19 study. Those who agreed to take part were offered three options; i) complete the survey over the phone with a researcher, ii) be sent a link to complete the survey online or iii) be sent a hard copy of the questionnaire in the post to complete and return.

In Section 2 of the survey, we explored how participants’ access to mental health and primary care services had changed during the pandemic. For example, we asked participants who were receiving support from mental health services, whether they had experienced one or more specific change (e.g. seeing a different mental health worker to the person they normally saw). If they had, they could indicate how they felt about the change with one of three answers (i.e. I like it better; its ok – not better or worse; or I don’t like it). The full OWLS 1 questionnaire is shown in the supplementary materials (S1). For all services, we were interested to understand how changes in the way services were provided, in particular the shift to phone and online meetings and appointments, might have affected peoples’ experiences. We also wished to explore what factors might have hindered or facilitated good care and support, despite the change in access to services. For mental health services we also asked people about the support they anticipated needing from services in the year ahead, an issue of particular interest to NHS providers.

The study analysis plan was registered on Open Science Framework (available at https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/E3KDM - section 2.1). Descriptive frequency statistics (Ns and percentages) were used to describe key sample characteristics and service use variables. 2×2 cross-tabulations and chi-square tests were used to examine the association between a) unmet need for support and changes in mental or physical health, and b) mode of service delivery and service satisfaction. The latter was examined for each service type separately (GPs, Community mental health, Mental health crisis services) and p values were corrected for multiple testing (p multiplied by four). For brevity, the results for general hospital services are not included in the main text of the paper but are available in the supplementary materials (S2). The statistical significance criterion used for all analyses was p < 0.05. Analyses were undertaken using SPSS v.26.

In the pre-registered analysis plan it was stated that mode of service delivery would be coded at three-levels (in person, over the phone, or online e.g. video call). However, too few participants reported receiving services online (N ranged from 2 to 14, depending on service type) to allow for meaningful comparisons, and so this was merged with receiving services over the phone into a remote delivery category. The plan also stated that association between Community mental health service satisfaction and mode of service delivery would be stratified per primary or secondary care patients. As very few participants currently in primary care reported getting support from Community mental health services (N = 24) to allow for meaningful comparisons, analysis was conducted only in the full sample.

At the end of the survey there was a free text box where respondents could add comments about any aspect of their experiences during the pandemic. 147 (40%) respondents chose to do so. These free text responses we transferred to NVivo and then analysed thematically [12]. The seven sections of the survey provided the initial structure for the analysis. Fifty-two respondents added comments which in some way related to their access to or experience of using of services. Quotations from the free text analysis are used in this paper to illustrate or bring to life the findings from the quantitative data.

The authors assert that all procedures contributing to this work comply with the ethical standards of the relevant national and institutional committees on human experimentation and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2008. All procedures involving human subjects/patients were approved by the North West – Liverpool Central Research Ethics Committee (reference 20/NW/0276). Written or verbal informed consent was obtained from all subjects/patients.

Results

In this section we begin by briefly describing the demographic characteristics of the OWLS participants. We then present our findings in relation to participants experiences of accessing both community mental health services and mental health crisis services, and their perceived need for future support from mental health services. We then go on to describe their experiences of using primary care services.

The first survey for the OWLS COVID-19 study, which was conducted between July to December 2020, recruited 367 people from the CtG Cohort. Table 1 describes the socio-demographic characteristics and diagnosis of OWLS participants. It should be noted that it was an ethical requirement of the CtG study that the participants consent to their diagnosis being provided to the research team and some participants did not consent to this. In the interests of inclusivity and because there may be some differences between those who consented to their diagnosis being provided and those who did not, we did not make it a requirement of OWLS that the participants should consent to their diagnosis being provided. The mean age was 50.5 (range = 20 to 86, SD ± 15.69) with 51.0% male and 77.4% white British.

Mental Health Services

Of the 367 people who completed the survey, 224 (61%) were receiving support from mental health services, with the rest being supported in primary care or self-managing.

Discussion

Most participants reported that they had been able to access support from community mental health services and a relatively high proportion said they were satisfied with the support they received. This contrasts with the findings from a qualitative study by Gillard et al [10] in which participants reported issues around continuity of care, not getting treatment as usual and service changes. However, in our study a minority did report that their mental health had deteriorated but they had either not got the supported they wanted or had not sought help. This is an issue of concern, which alongside our findings on future need for increased support, may have implications in terms of post-pandemic increased demand for mental health services. Furthermore, for some people living with severe mental illness, the fear of becoming unwell and not being able to access support is a source of anxiety. A substantial minority of participants in our study did not feel confident that support would be available should they need – a perception that mental health services may need to explore and address.

The biggest change in the way in which mental health services were provided was the reduction in face-to-face appointments and the increase in remote care. We found that almost half those who had used community mental health service had received support in person, with staff using creative approaches to maintaining face-to-face contact. Many people were being supported on the telephone and a few had online support. Whilst almost a third did not like this change, nearly half found it acceptable or even preferred it. However, the free text comments suggest that acceptability was influenced by several factors. In particular, respondents felt that telephone or video appointments were far easier when: they had an established relationship with their mental health professional; where they had somewhere private to hold a telephone conversation; or they had access to a (private) digital device - findings which echo those of a recent qualitative study by Liberati et al [13]. Furthermore, whilst increased use of remote mental health care might be acceptable for a limited period, during a public health crisis, in the long term it could lead to problems with accessibility, equity of care and service quality [9,10,13]. The limited availability of online support reported by participants in our study, suggests that Greenhalgh et al [14] are correct in suggesting that the evidence relating to video-based remote care needs to be strengthened. Interestingly, whilst people were more likely to be satisfied with the support they received from community mental health service when they had been seen in person, in mental health crisis services the way support was provided appeared less important. We speculate that this could be because phone support is already commonly used in crisis services and/or because remote care facilitated more rapid access to support.

With regard to access to primary care services, the majority of participants had been able to get an appointment and most felt they had received the care and support they needed. However, those who had a face-to-face appointment were more likely to feel satisfied with the support they received. Interestingly, the free text comments revealed a specific issue in relation to obtaining medication, with a number of respondents reporting delays and difficulties with the supply of their usual medication.

Overall then, our study found that the majority of people with SMI were able to access support but those who received remote support were less likely to be satisfied with that support. Furthermore, the context of remote support was important. This suggests that if, as seems likely, service providers continue to employ some element of remote care, service users should have a choice about whether they want remote care and the mode of remote support they receive. More broadly, as services continue to adapt to the prevailing pandemic situation and review future provision, there should be a renewed focus on the implications of intersectionality. Specifically, how the experience of living with severe mental illness, coupled with other vulnerabilities or disadvantages such as disabling physical conditions, low income, and ethnicity can create even greater inequalities in access to services.

The findings from this study suggest that some people with SMI do not feel that they have received enough support during the pandemic, or have been reluctant to seek support, perhaps because of the way services were provided or fear of contracting the virus. As a consequence, when the pandemic restrictions ease there could be an increase in demand from mental health services from existing service users. However, this may be tempered by the fact that many mental health professionals and GPs appear to have prioritised support for people with SMI and found creative ways to maintain some face-to-face contact.

Some of the changes introduced as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic will almost certainly continue to be part of future mental health and primary care service. These changes can bring benefits for service providers and some service users. However, they could also increase the risk of unequal access to support and poorer quality of care. To counter these risks, people with SMI must be consulted about the nature of any long-term changes, and going forward, close attention needs to be paid to services users’ individual circumstance and preferences.

Supporting Information

S1 OWLS 1 Survey

S2 Results for General Hospital Services