Tag: MENLOC

Accessible summary

In what will, I imagine, be a final post about the MENLOC evidence synthesis here is our accessible summary. This has been produced with a wide readership in mind, and for completeness includes links to the full Health and Social Care Delivery Research monograph reporting the project in full, and to our two derived papers. The first, in Palliative Medicine, reports on our research, policy and guidance synthesis and the second, in BMJ Open, reports on findings from our synthesis of case studies.

For a copy, click below:

MENLOC monograph

With funding from the National Institute for Health Research comes the opportunity (and indeed, the requirement) to produce a detailed monograph reporting on all aspects of the project which has been supported. The Health and Social Care Delivery Research monograph arising from the MENLOC evidence synthesis, about which I have added various posts on this site, has now appeared. As with all NIHR project reports, this is free to download.

Here is the plain English summary:

In this study we brought together evidence from research, policies, guidance and case studies in the area of end-of-life care for people with severe mental illness. End-of-life care refers to the help given to people with life-threatening conditions in their expected last 12 months of life. Severe mental illness refers to a range of issues for which care is usually provided by specialist mental health services.

An advisory group, which included people who had experience of mental health and end-of-life care, helped us throughout our project. We searched research databases, journals and online sources. We assessed research articles for their quality and summarised their content. In one review we combined content from research with content from policy and guidance. In another review we combined the content of the case studies. We wrote synthesis statements summarising the research evidence, and assessed how much confidence decision-makers should have in these statements.

We included 104 documents overall. We synthesised research, policy and guidance under themes reflecting their content: the structure of mental health and end-of-life care services; professional practice; providing and receiving care; and living with severe mental illness. We synthesised case studies under themes relating to delays in diagnosis, making decisions, treatment futility, supporting people and the experience of care.

Our project has implications for care. The evidence suggests that partnerships should be built between mental health and end-of-life care staff, and that people should be supported to die where they choose. Care staff need education, support and supervision. A team approach is needed, including support for advocacy. Physical health care for people with severe mental illness needs to be improved so that life-threatening conditions can be recognised sooner.

Future research should involve people with severe mental illness at the end of life and their carers. Research is also needed to evaluate new ways of providing and organising care.

Second MENLOC paper

Here is our second published paper from the MENLOC project, which has synthesised what is known about end of life care for people with severe mental health problems. This article, led by Michael Coffey, reports on our theming of the evidence derived from previously-published case studies. The paper is in BMJ Open, is open access, and has this as its abstract:

Objectives: People with severe mental illness (SMI) have significant comorbidities and reduced life expectancy. The objective of the review reported in this paper was to synthesise material from case studies relating to the organisation, provision and receipt of care for people with SMI who have an end-of-life (EoL) diagnosis.
Design: Systematic review and thematic synthesis.
Data sources: MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, HMIC, AMED, CINAHL, CENTRAL, ASSIA, DARE and Web of Science from inception to December 2019. Supplementary searching for additional material including grey literature along with 62 organisational websites.
Results: Of the 11 904 citations retrieved, 42 papers reporting 51 case studies were identified and are reported here. Twenty-five of the forty-two case study papers met seven, or more quality criteria, with eight meeting half or less. Attributes of case study subjects included that just over half were men, had a mean age of 55 years, psychotic illnesses dominated and the EoL condition was in most cases a cancer. Analysis generated themes as follows: diagnostic delay and overshadowing, decision capacity and dilemmas, medical futility, individuals and their networks, care provision.
Conclusions: In the absence of high-quality intervention studies, this evidence synthesis indicates that cross-disciplinary care is supported within the context of established therapeutic relationships. Attention to potential delay and diagnostic overshadowing is required in care provision. The values and preferences of individuals with severe mental illness experiencing an end-of-life condition should be recognised.

End of life care for people with severe mental illness

Here is a first publication from the MENLOC study, reporting on a synthesis of research, policy and guidance in the area of end of life care for people with severe mental illness. This is in the journal Palliative Medicine, and the abstract is here:

Background: Parity of esteem means that end-of-life care for people with severe mental illness should be of equal quality to that experienced by all.
Aim: To synthesise international, English language, research and UK policy and guidance relating to the organisation, provision, and receipt of end-of-life care for people with severe mental illness.
Design: A mixed methods systematic review was conducted following the Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Coordinating Centre approach and informed by a stakeholder group. We employed thematic synthesis to bring together data from both qualitative and quantitative studies, and from non-research material. We assessed the strength of synthesised findings using the Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research (CERQual) and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approaches.
Data sources: Ten electronic databases were searched from inception to December 2019, along with 62 organisational websites. Quality appraisal was conducted using Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklists or other study design-specific alternatives as necessary.
Results: Of the 11,904 citations retrieved, 34 research publications were included plus 28 non-research items. The majority of research was of high or acceptable quality. An overarching synthesis including 52 summary statements, with assessments of confidence in the underpinning evidence, was produced using four themes: Structure of the system; Professional issues; Contexts of care; and Living with severe mental illness.
Conclusions: Implications for services and practice reflect evidence in which there is a high degree of confidence. Partnership should be developed across the mental health and end-of-life systems, and ways found to support people to die where they choose. Staff caring for people with severe mental illness at the end-of-life need education, support and supervision. End-of-life care for people with severe mental illness requires a team approach, including advocacy. Proactive physical health care for people with severe mental illness is needed to tackle problems of delayed diagnosis.

We have a second paper from this study currently under review in another journal, and the complete, unabridged, report is soon to be appearing in the NIHR’s Health Services and Delivry Research journal.

#MHNR2021 and summer MHNAUK meeting

June 2021 brought both the International Mental Health Nursing Research Conference and the summer 2021 meeting of Mental Health Nurse Academics UK (MHNAUK). Unsurprisingly given the ongoing pandemic, both happened online, with #MHNR2021 again run as a collaboration between MHNAUK and the Royal College of Nursing.

In the event I was able to make less of the conference than I had intended, but I did have the opportunity to co-present a paper with Michael Coffey titled Involving stakeholders and widening the net: reflections on going beyond database searching arising from an evidence synthesis in the area of end of life care for people with severe mental illness. Our presentation arose from the MENLOC study, and specifically addressed the incorporation of non-research materials in evidence syntheses and the value of directly working with people with experience of the field. Here’s a link to the recording we made, on behalf of the whole project team:

At June’s MHNAUK meeting the group heard from Dr Crystal Oldman, of the Queen’s Nursing Institute, who spoke about specialist practice qualifications. Updates from colleagues across the four countries of the UK were followed by meetings of each of MHNAUK’s standing groups, where in the Research group we talked (amongst other things) about the importance of growing capacity in mental health nursing research. Elsewhere in the whole-group meeting we heard of plans to seek charitible status for MHNAUK: an exciting move, in my view.

International Mental Health Nursing Research Conference 2020

This year’s International Mental Health Nursing Research Conference (#MHNR2020) happened over two weeks in September, as planned through #mhTV and with a whole lot of help from Dave Munday, Nicky Lambert and Vanessa Gilmartin. Along with everyone else who values this annual event I’m indebted to all three for the work they’ve put in over the months to make #mhTV happen, and to do so as an entirely free offering open to anyone with use of an internet connection.

I enjoyed my chance to join Mick McKeown as a co-host of #MHNR2020’s evening panel discussions, and the format of inviting guests to pre-record and upload their presentations ahead of bringing them together in themed groups worked well. Every pre-recorded presentation and panel conflab can be viewed on the conference webpage, and will remain there as a resource for the future. As it happens, I pitched up as a panel member on the evening of September 25th, speaking about findings from the MENLOC evidence synthesis in the area of end of life care for people severe mental illness.  As a shortcut, here’s a link to my pre-recorded presentation summarising our main findings:

The MENLOC study (again)

In July 2020, with colleagues I received peer review feedback on our draft MENLOC study final report, about which I’ve written before.

Final reports from studies funded by the National Institute for Health Research are sizeable affairs, typically running to 40,000 words or so and detailing the minutiae of what’s been done, and what’s been found. Once peer and editorial review has been satisfied draft reports progress to pre-publication, involving the careful copyediting of the text. Finally, once everything is typeset each report appears in a single issue of the open access journal bearing the name of the funding programme through which the research award was originally made. The screenshot I’ve included in this post is from the NIHR’s comprehensive information for authors, which takes grantholders through the process.

In the case of MENLOC the journal in which our final report will be published is Health Services and Delivery Research, and we’re expecting publication to be sometime in the spring of 2021. In the meantime, this current version of our plain English summary captures what we’ve done and what we’ve found:


We brought together evidence from research, policies, guidance and case studies in the area of end of life care for people with severe mental illness. End of life care refers to the help given to people with life-threatening conditions in their expected last 12 months. Severe mental illness refers to a range of issues for which care is usually provided by specialist mental health services.

An advisory group, including people with experience of mental health and end of life care, helped us throughout our project. We searched research databases, journals and online sources. We assessed research articles for their quality, and summarised their content. In one review we combined content from research with content from policy and guidance. In another review we combined the content of the case studies. We wrote synthesis statements summarising the research evidence, and assessed how confident decision-makers should be in these.

We included 104 documents overall. We synthesised research, policy and guidance under themes reflecting their content: the structure of mental health and end of life care services; professional practice; providing and receiving care; and living with severe mental illness. We synthesised case studies under themes relating to: delays in diagnosis; making decisions; treatment futility; supporting people; and the experience of care.

Our project has implications for care. Partnerships should be built between mental health and end of life care staff, and people should be supported to die where they choose. Care staff need education, support and supervision. A team approach is needed, including support for advocacy. Physical health care for people with severe mental illness needs improving so that life-threatening conditions can be recognised sooner.

Future research should involve people with severe mental illness at the end of life and their carers. Research is also needed evaluating new ways of providing and organising care.


MENLOC is funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme (project number 17/100/15).

The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care


In addition to responding to these detailed reviewers’ and editors’ comments, as our MENLOC report continues on its way we’ll also be preparing papers for publication, and thinking about next steps in this programme of research. We’ve discovered that very little is known about how best to provide care at the end of life to people with severe mental health problems, making this a wide-open area for researchers and people concerned with service improvements.

Catch-up post 1: End of life care for people with severe mental illness

menloc logo 5In the first of a short series of catch-up blogposts on this site, this non-pandemic related one refers back to February 2020 and the submission of the draft final report for the MENLOC study.

MENLOC has been an evidence synthesis into end of life care for people with severe mental illness,  funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research Programme. I’ve introduced the project on this site before, and the bulk of our work is now done. At some future point we’ll receive peer review comments back on the (very large) document we’ve submitted, and once our responses have been written, returned and accepted the report will progress towards publication in the National Institute for Health Research Journals Library. Next up will be shorter publications in journals, about which I can post more as we progress.

Summer research summary

Si3mdrnce returning from a week of walking August has included making final preparations for #MHNR2019, which is looking very exciting. Elsewhere, a big part of my work this month has been writing an analysis of qualitative interview data generated as part of a phase 2 trial of 3MDR for military veterans with treatment-resistant post-traumatic stress disorder. 3MDR, or Modular motion-assisted memory desensitisation and reconsolidation, is a novel psychological intervention involving walking on a treadmill towards personally selected images of trauma whilst in the company of a skilled therapist. The study is led by Jon Bisson, and here are Neil Kitchiner and John Skipper talking about what it involves:

Working on a trial has been an interesting, and new, experience for me, and I’ve been learning lots. My qualitative write-up is destined for inclusion in a final report for the trial’s funding body, Forces in Mind Trust, but during this work as a team we’ve also been planning papers for publication.

menloc logo 5MENLOC, our ongoing evidence synthesis into end of life care for people with severe mental illnesses (about which I have written on this blog before), is in full swing. We’ve reached the stage where we’re writing up syntheses of the research papers and other outputs we’ve included, organised via a series of themes. More on this to follow in due course.

Finally, it’s been good to work in support of colleagues who have led new papers for publications. Here’s Jane Davies‘ latest paper on the experiences of partners of young people living with cancer, and a paper led by Ray Samuriwo on wound care and mental health.