No CrossRef data available.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 July 2023
To evaluate the transitions of Aneurin Bevan University Health Board (ABUHB) Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service (CAMHS) patients to Adult Mental Health Services (AMHS) during the COVID-19 pandemic, against regional Health Board policy standards.
Following a review of the current ABUHB transitions policy and a focused review of the literature, relevant standards were elicited. Retrospective data of transition cases between April 2020 and March 2021 were collected using a standardised data-capture tool from CAMHS records using the EPEX system; cases were anonymised. A questionnaire was constructed and distributed by email to ABUHB CAMHS clinicians to gain further qualitative data.
A total of 34 patients were identified as CAMHS transition cases. 3 were identified as having a transitions co-ordinator, 6 had no record of AMHS having been informed with only 1 case documenting liaison with AMHS at the 6 month mark. 20 cases showed evidence of good patient support before and after transition, and 25 showed young person involvement in decision making. 28/34 cases showed evidence of good coordination of MDTs (multi-disciplinary teams).
There were 16 responses to the staff survey. 93% of respondents were aware of the transition policy, and 68.8% of clinicians strongly agreed/agreed with “I involve young people in their decision making process”. 25% of respondents strongly disagree/disagree when asked whether they work in collaboration with the AMHS. For “I believe my patients are ready to transition at the age of 18” 37.5% remained neutral.
Several of the standards outlined in the ABUHB transition policy are not being met. These include: naming a transition coordinator, informing AMHS 6 months prior to the patient turning 18, and involving the young person in the decision of transfer of care. COVID-19 has evidently impacted the transition process, but more audits must be conducted in order to compare these data to pre-pandemic times.
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.
eLetters
No eLetters have been published for this article.