Acceptability of psychosis screening and factors affecting its implementation: interviews with community health care providers

Mark Savill, Haley V. Skymba, John D Ragland, Tara A Niendam, Rachel L. Loewy, Tyler A. Lesh, Cameron S Carter, Howard H. Goldman

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

  • 1 Citations

Abstract

Objective: Although screening for psychosis may reduce the duration of untreated psychosis, the barriers and facilitators associated with implementing such a procedure in various care settings have not been explored. Methods: Investigators conducted in-depth, semistructured interviews with 17 members of school counseling services or community mental health staff at sites that administer a psychosis screening tool. Using an inductive approach to thematic analysis, they evaluated the acceptability of psychosis screening and barriers to and facilitators of implementation. Results: Participants reported few barriers to implementation. However, several service-, client-, and program-level factors were considered to significantly affect the implementation of screening. Most participants found that using the screening tool did not significantly affect their overall workload. Facilitators included leadership support, the novelty of using a technology-based screener, regular staff training, and the importance of establishing an effective link between community services and specialty care, with these factors important at different stages of the process. Screening for psychosis was associated with significant advantages over referrals based on clinical judgment alone, including increased speed and accuracy of identification, increased confidence in diagnosis, and the provision of a clear pathway to specialty treatment. Conclusions: The experiences of school counseling and community mental health teams suggest that incorporating a technology-based screening procedure for early psychosis is feasible. Identifying barriers and facilitators at various stages of the screening procedure may reduce the dropout of clients potentially eligible for early psychosis care.

LanguageEnglish (US)
Pages689-695
Number of pages7
JournalPsychiatric Services
Volume69
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 1 2018

Fingerprint

Community Health Services
Health Personnel
Psychotic Disorders
Interviews
Counseling
Community Mental Health Services
Technology
Social Welfare
Workload
Mental Health
Referral and Consultation
Research Personnel

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Psychiatry and Mental health

Cite this

Acceptability of psychosis screening and factors affecting its implementation : interviews with community health care providers. / Savill, Mark; Skymba, Haley V.; Ragland, John D; Niendam, Tara A; Loewy, Rachel L.; Lesh, Tyler A.; Carter, Cameron S; Goldman, Howard H.

In: Psychiatric Services, Vol. 69, No. 6, 01.06.2018, p. 689-695.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{a1ae677694a44f93bfb9028af9f48cd9,
title = "Acceptability of psychosis screening and factors affecting its implementation: interviews with community health care providers",
abstract = "Objective: Although screening for psychosis may reduce the duration of untreated psychosis, the barriers and facilitators associated with implementing such a procedure in various care settings have not been explored. Methods: Investigators conducted in-depth, semistructured interviews with 17 members of school counseling services or community mental health staff at sites that administer a psychosis screening tool. Using an inductive approach to thematic analysis, they evaluated the acceptability of psychosis screening and barriers to and facilitators of implementation. Results: Participants reported few barriers to implementation. However, several service-, client-, and program-level factors were considered to significantly affect the implementation of screening. Most participants found that using the screening tool did not significantly affect their overall workload. Facilitators included leadership support, the novelty of using a technology-based screener, regular staff training, and the importance of establishing an effective link between community services and specialty care, with these factors important at different stages of the process. Screening for psychosis was associated with significant advantages over referrals based on clinical judgment alone, including increased speed and accuracy of identification, increased confidence in diagnosis, and the provision of a clear pathway to specialty treatment. Conclusions: The experiences of school counseling and community mental health teams suggest that incorporating a technology-based screening procedure for early psychosis is feasible. Identifying barriers and facilitators at various stages of the screening procedure may reduce the dropout of clients potentially eligible for early psychosis care.",
author = "Mark Savill and Skymba, {Haley V.} and Ragland, {John D} and Niendam, {Tara A} and Loewy, {Rachel L.} and Lesh, {Tyler A.} and Carter, {Cameron S} and Goldman, {Howard H.}",
year = "2018",
month = "6",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1176/appi.ps.201700392",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "69",
pages = "689--695",
journal = "Psychiatric Services",
issn = "1075-2730",
publisher = "American Psychiatric Association",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Acceptability of psychosis screening and factors affecting its implementation

T2 - Psychiatric Services

AU - Savill, Mark

AU - Skymba, Haley V.

AU - Ragland, John D

AU - Niendam, Tara A

AU - Loewy, Rachel L.

AU - Lesh, Tyler A.

AU - Carter, Cameron S

AU - Goldman, Howard H.

PY - 2018/6/1

Y1 - 2018/6/1

N2 - Objective: Although screening for psychosis may reduce the duration of untreated psychosis, the barriers and facilitators associated with implementing such a procedure in various care settings have not been explored. Methods: Investigators conducted in-depth, semistructured interviews with 17 members of school counseling services or community mental health staff at sites that administer a psychosis screening tool. Using an inductive approach to thematic analysis, they evaluated the acceptability of psychosis screening and barriers to and facilitators of implementation. Results: Participants reported few barriers to implementation. However, several service-, client-, and program-level factors were considered to significantly affect the implementation of screening. Most participants found that using the screening tool did not significantly affect their overall workload. Facilitators included leadership support, the novelty of using a technology-based screener, regular staff training, and the importance of establishing an effective link between community services and specialty care, with these factors important at different stages of the process. Screening for psychosis was associated with significant advantages over referrals based on clinical judgment alone, including increased speed and accuracy of identification, increased confidence in diagnosis, and the provision of a clear pathway to specialty treatment. Conclusions: The experiences of school counseling and community mental health teams suggest that incorporating a technology-based screening procedure for early psychosis is feasible. Identifying barriers and facilitators at various stages of the screening procedure may reduce the dropout of clients potentially eligible for early psychosis care.

AB - Objective: Although screening for psychosis may reduce the duration of untreated psychosis, the barriers and facilitators associated with implementing such a procedure in various care settings have not been explored. Methods: Investigators conducted in-depth, semistructured interviews with 17 members of school counseling services or community mental health staff at sites that administer a psychosis screening tool. Using an inductive approach to thematic analysis, they evaluated the acceptability of psychosis screening and barriers to and facilitators of implementation. Results: Participants reported few barriers to implementation. However, several service-, client-, and program-level factors were considered to significantly affect the implementation of screening. Most participants found that using the screening tool did not significantly affect their overall workload. Facilitators included leadership support, the novelty of using a technology-based screener, regular staff training, and the importance of establishing an effective link between community services and specialty care, with these factors important at different stages of the process. Screening for psychosis was associated with significant advantages over referrals based on clinical judgment alone, including increased speed and accuracy of identification, increased confidence in diagnosis, and the provision of a clear pathway to specialty treatment. Conclusions: The experiences of school counseling and community mental health teams suggest that incorporating a technology-based screening procedure for early psychosis is feasible. Identifying barriers and facilitators at various stages of the screening procedure may reduce the dropout of clients potentially eligible for early psychosis care.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85048067273&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85048067273&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1176/appi.ps.201700392

DO - 10.1176/appi.ps.201700392

M3 - Article

VL - 69

SP - 689

EP - 695

JO - Psychiatric Services

JF - Psychiatric Services

SN - 1075-2730

IS - 6

ER -