medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.06.17.21259101; this version posted June 20, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint
(which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.
It is made available under a CC-BY-ND 4.0 International license .
Staff views on best practice community care for people with complex emotional needs and how it
can be achieved: a qualitative study
Clinician views on best practice community care for people with complex
emotional needs and how it can be achieved: a qualitative study.
Una Foye1, Ruth Stuart1, Kylee Trevillion1, Sian Oram1, Dawn Allen2, Eva Broeckelmann2, Stephen
Jefferies2, Tamar Jeynes2, Mike J Crawford3, Paul Moran4, Shirley McNicholas5, Jo Billings6, Oliver
Dale7, Alan Simpson1, Sonia Johnson 5, 6
NIHR Mental Health Policy Research Unit, Health Service and Population Research Department, Institute of
Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King’s College London, London, United Kingdom
2
NIHR Mental Health Policy Research Unit Complex Emotional Needs Lived Experience Working Group, Health
Service and Population Research Department, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King’s
College London
3
Centre of Psychiatry, Imperial College London
4
Centre for Academic Mental Health, Department of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School,
University of Bristol
5
Camden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
6
NIHR Mental Health Policy Research Unit, Division of Psychiatry, University College London, London, United
Kingdom
7
West London Mental Health Trust, London
1
Authors RS, KT, SO, AS, S. Johnson created the protocol for the study. UF, KT and RS conducted the recruitment
for the study, and KT, RT and UF conducted the interviews and focus groups with assistance from EB, S.
Jefferies and TJ during the focus groups. UF, RS, DA, EB and AS coded data, and JB and S. Johnson contributed
to the thematic analysis. All authors supported drafting and development of the manuscript. All authors
contributed to and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding Author:
Dr Una Foye
Email:
una.foye@kcl.ac.uk
Tel:
0207 848 5079
Address:
NIHR Mental Health Policy Research Unit
Department of Mental Health Nursing Research
Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience
Kings College London
Denmark Hill
London SE5 8AF
Ethics approval and consent to participate: Ethical approval was granted by the Psychiatry, Nursing and
Midwifery Research Ethics Subcommittee of King’s College London (reference HR-18/19-10795) prior to data
collection with a later amendment to move data collection online in response to COVID-19 restrictions and
guidance. All participants provided informed consent prior to enrolment in the study, including consent for
publication of anonymised quotes.
Funding This paper presents independent research commissioned and funded by the National Institute for
Health Research (NIHR) Policy Research Programme, conducted by the NIHR Policy Research Unit (PRU) in
Mental Health. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR, the
Department of Health and Social Care or its arm's length bodies, or other government departments.
Competing interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Data Availability Statement: The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the
corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.
Regular Article Submission
1
NOTE: This preprint reports new research that has not been certified by peer review and should not be used to guide clinical practice.
medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.06.17.21259101; this version posted June 20, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint
(which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.
It is made available under a CC-BY-ND 4.0 International license .
Staff views on best practice community care for people with complex emotional needs and how it
can be achieved: a qualitative study
Word Count:
5,754
Complex Emotional Needs, Clinician, Staff, qualitative, community care
We would like to acknowledge wider Mental Health Policy Research Unit team, Lived
Experience Working Group members, and CEN Steering group who have contributed and supported this work.
Keywords:
Acknowledgements:
Abstract (350 words)
Background
Service provision for people with complex emotional needs (CEN) is recurrently identified as needing
to be transformed: there are serious concerns about quality, accessibility, fragmentation of the
service system and the stigma and therapeutic pessimism service users say they encounter. We use
the term CEN as a working description to refer to the needs experienced by people who may have
been diagnosed with a ‘personality disorder’. Understanding clinician perspectives is vital for service
transformation, as their views and experiences shed light on potential barriers to achieving good
care, and how these might be overcome. In this study, we aimed to explore these views.
Methods
We used a qualitative interview design. A total of fifty participants from a range of professions
across specialist and generic community mental health services across England who provide care to
people with CEN took part in six focus groups and sixteen one-to-one interviews. We analysed the
data using a thematic approach.
Findings
Main themes were: 1) Defining Best Practice, 2) Facilitators of Best Care, 3) Barriers to Best Care, 4)
Systemic Challenges. Across these themes, staff highlighted in particular the need for care that was
person-centred, relational, empathic, and trauma informed. However, major barriers to achieving
this are stigmatising attitudes and behaviour towards people with CEN, especially in generic mental
health services, lack of development of coherent service systems offering clear long-term pathways
and ready access to high quality treatment, and lack of well-developed structures for staff training
and support.
Discussion
Overall, the findings point towards clinician views as generally congruent with those of service users,
reinforcing the need for priorities towards systemwide change to ensure that we can provide the
best practice care for these individuals. Particularly prominent is the need to put in place systemwide training and support for clinicians working with CEN, encompassing generic as well as specialist
services, and to challenge the stigma still experienced throughout the system.
Conclusions
Staff working with this service user group report that delivering best practice care services to be
flexible, integrated, and sustainably funded, and for staff to be supported through ongoing training
and supervision.
2
medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.06.17.21259101; this version posted June 20, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint
(which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.
It is made available under a CC-BY-ND 4.0 International license .
Staff views on best practice community care for people with complex emotional needs and how it
can be achieved: a qualitative study
Introduction
Approximately eight percent of the population have needs that meet the diagnostic criteria for
personality disorder [1], a diagnosis that is associated with high rates of co-morbidity [2], premature
mortality [3], high levels of service use [4] and high treatment costs [5]. There are serious concerns
about the quality and accessibility of services [6] and there is limited evidence to inform service
improvement and the implementation of more acceptable, effective and cost-effective models of
care [7, 8]. Despite the high levels of distress and reduced quality of life that many people with
complex emotional needs (CEN) experience, there is insufficient research to understand the best
ways to develop services for people who experience these problems [9]. In considering initiatives to
improve the quality and reach of services, co-production with service users will be essential to
improve the acceptability and accessibility of services. Understanding clinician perspectives is also
vital because they are responsible for delivering care, and therefore their views and experience may
directly assist in identifying potential barriers to achieving good care, and how these might be
overcome [10].
Many service users report negative consequences as a result of being diagnosed with a ‘personality
disorder’, including stigmatisation and exclusion from services [11]. Stigmatising attitudes among
mental health professionals and a lack of therapeutic optimism are viewed by service users as
significant barriers to the delivery of best practice care [9, 12, 13]. With these issues in mind, in this
paper we use the working term CEN to refer to the needs experienced by people who are likely to be
diagnosed with a ‘personality disorder’. We use this term CEN in preference to ‘personality disorder’,
recognising that many view – and experience – the latter as pejorative and stigmatising [13, 14].
Our recent qualitative meta-synthesis also conducted as part of the NIHR Mental Health Policy
Research Unit’s programme to inform NHS policy in this area, summarised literature on clinician
perspectives on good practice in community services for people with CEN [15]. These priorities were
mainly congruent with those found in studies on service user views [11] and the needs of policy
makers [6]. While there was overall agreement regarding what best practice should be, more
research is needed to understand the barriers and facilitators to achieving it [15].
This study seeks to fill this gap by exploring staff views on best practice provision of community
mental health care for people with CEN and identifying the barriers and facilitators to providing such
care. In this study, we focus on the views of staff about the delivery of community mental health
care, including both specialist and generic services. This study is part of a programme of research
delivered by the NIHR Mental Health Policy Research Unit to inform the design, development and
delivery of community mental health services for this population in England [11, 15, 16, 17].
Methodology
Design
Qualitative interview study, using individual and focus group interviews.
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
Participants were eligible to take part in the study if they worked in community and outpatient
settings at specialist NHS services that provide CEN care, generic (i.e. non-specialist) NHS services
that provide generic mental healthcare. Including for people with CEN and those working in social
services and the third sector who may be working with some who do not have or do not want access
to statutory services. As the focus was on community services, we excluded participants working in
forensic, crisis or inpatient settings.
Recruitment and sampling
3
medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.06.17.21259101; this version posted June 20, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint
(which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.
It is made available under a CC-BY-ND 4.0 International license .
Staff views on best practice community care for people with complex emotional needs and how it
can be achieved: a qualitative study
Information about the study was circulated via email and social media (e.g. Twitter) to a range of
networks, including relevant professional organisations and networks, and workshops/conferences.
Interested participants contacted our research team who provided further information about the
study, ascertained whether they met the study inclusion criteria, and organised a date for the
interview or focus group to take place. Purposive sampling was used to ensure representation of a
range of professions and staff who work directly with people with CEN, and of different types of
setting, including specialist CEN services, and relevant generic and voluntary sector services. We
recruited participants from across England to capture a range of service models and settings.
Data collection.
Data were collected between July 2019 and October 2020. We conducted focus groups and one-toone semi-structured interviews according to participant preference. Focus groups and interviews
were conducted in person or via telephone prior to the COVID-19 pandemic and online via Microsoft
TEAMs and Zoom following the introduction of social distancing in March 2020. For remote sessions,
participants read and completed online consent forms in advance of the interview, and the
researcher reconfirmed consent at the start of the session with recorded verbal consent taken from
all participants.
Topic guides were developed with the Lived Experience Advisory Group and service user
representatives. These guides were made up of key questions including a) how services currently
operate; how services can address the nee ds for service users with CEN; b) how services can
support staff to deliver best care; c) what does best practice look like; d) what are the challenges and
facilitators to providing this care; e) what are the important outcomes for services and for service
users; f) what training and support is needed. Interviews were audio-recorded using either an
encrypted digital recorder or the online platform recording option and saved to an encrypted server.
Each session lasted between 45 to 90 minutes. Audio recordings of focus groups and interviews
were transcribed by an external company. A member of the research team checked the transcripts
for accuracy and pseudonymised all participants. All transcripts were allocated a unique ID number
and imported to NVivo ProV12 [18] for analysis.
Analysis
Thematic analysis was undertaken following the phases outlined by Braun and Clarke [19].
Preliminary coding was conducted by UF with members of the wider research team (EB, DA, AS, RS)
double coding a selection of interview transcripts. Following initial coding, all themes were reviewed
and discussed by the lead author with the wider research team members, who comprised a range of
experts by experience and experts by profession. Anonymised data extracts illustrate each theme
and key analytic points.
Ethics
Ethical approval was granted by the Psychiatry, Nursing and Midwifery Research Ethics
Subcommittee of King’s College London (reference HR-18/19-10795) prior to data collection with a
later amendment to move data collection online in response to COVID-19 restrictions and guidance.
Findings
Participant characteristics
A total of 50 participants took part in six focus groups and 16 one-to-one interviews. The sample
included 27 women and 23 men. Forty-two participants identified as White, four as Asian, two as
Black Caribbean, and two as having other or mixed ethnic background. Participants were recruited
from across England, including the Midlands (n=19), North West (n=10), North East (n=6), South
West (n=6), London (n=5), and South East (n=4).
4
medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.06.17.21259101; this version posted June 20, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint
(which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.
It is made available under a CC-BY-ND 4.0 International license .
Staff views on best practice community care for people with complex emotional needs and how it
can be achieved: a qualitative study
Twenty-one participants reported working in specialist ‘personality disorder’ or CEN services, with
29 working in generic community mental health services where individuals with CEN were frequently
supported. Most participants were working in NHS services (n=32), with the remaining working in
local authority social care settings (n=5) or voluntary/third sector services (n=13).
Participants came from a range of professional backgrounds: psychologists (n=9) and
assistant/trainee psychologists (n=5), support workers (n=6), social workers (n=6), peer workers and
experts by experience (n=5), psychotherapists and counsellors (5), nurses (n=4), occupational
therapists (n=3), psychiatrists (n=3), and commissioner and/ or managers (n=2).
Themes
Four overarching themes were developed, each with explanatory subthemes outlined in table 1.
Insert Table 1. Themes and Subthemes
Theme
Subthemes
1. Defining Best
Practice
a.. Best Practice Principles
b. Staff Skills and
Characteristics
b.1. Personal Characteristics
b.2. Training, support and
Supervision
2. Facilitators of
Best Practice
3. Barriers to the
Provision of Best
Practice
4. Systemic
Challenges
a.. Positive Relationships
b.. Trauma-Informed Care
a.. Accessibility and
Availability of Services
a.1. Limited and Exclusionary
Services
a.2. Limited Access to Specialist
Training
b. Fear of the Risks Associated with Complex Emotional Needs
c. Hopelessness
a.. Resources and Funding
b.. Stigma and Labelling
1. Defining best practice
There was substantial consensus amongst participants about what constituted best practice for
individuals with CEN, with two distinct subthemes: firstly, the principles of best practice care, and
secondly, the skills needed to provide best practice care.
1.1. Best practice principles
Participants described several elements of best practice community care for people with CEN (Table
2). Underpinning these principles was the importance of person-centred, individualised care:
“It’s about the ethos of person-centred care… People just need compassion. They need to be
loved. As a nurse, that’s what people need to do. That’s what people need to understand, is
that a lot of people, they just need people to listen.” (ID 27, female, Expert by Experience
working in specialist services)
5
medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.06.17.21259101; this version posted June 20, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint
(which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.
It is made available under a CC-BY-ND 4.0 International license .
Staff views on best practice community care for people with complex emotional needs and how it
can be achieved: a qualitative study
Insert table 2: Best practice service elements
Best practice service elements
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Person centred
Consistent
Inclusive
Timely and available long term and in times of
crisis
Flexible to meet service users’ needs
Collaborative across services and sectors
Evidence based
Coproduced with service users
Responding to complexity
Participants also described the importance of responding flexibly to the fluctuating and often
complex and intersectional psychosocial needs of service users.
“Creation of inclusive pathways and overarching views of the person in multiple systems is
needed and needs flexibility to ensure that the pathways bend and flex to the chaos that
someone is experiencing.” (ID04, female, Occupational Therapist working in specialist
services).
Participants described that adapting to the heterogeneous needs and preferences of individual
service users necessitated a move away from ‘one-size-fits-all’ models of service delivery towards
more flexible care pathways. Many participants also described that responding to the range of
service users’ needs (e.g., psychosocial, relational, and medical needs) required collaboration not
only between specialist and generic mental health services but also between mental health services
and primary care, social services and the third sector.
“This just fits with what the Royal College of Psychiatrists is saying: you have a service that
spans multiple services and there is something that keeps particular people in mind so that
they’re not just disposed of by putting them into a different service or disposed of by not
being allowed into one service.” (PT32, male, Occupational Therapist).
Coproduction and the involvement of experts by experience was felt by many staff to be a key
element that could improve services.
“There just needs to be more partnership. It goes back to the fundamental parts of how
services should be designed around relationships. There needs to be a relationship between
services and this cohort of people so that they are influencing policy and services at
commissioner level at the very least. That will ultimately improve people's lives and save
money and make clinicians' lives easier as well. It just makes everyone's life easier, I think.”
(PT17, male, social worker)
1.2. Staff skills and characteristics
1.2.1. Personal characteristics
6
medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.06.17.21259101; this version posted June 20, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint
(which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.
It is made available under a CC-BY-ND 4.0 International license .
Staff views on best practice community care for people with complex emotional needs and how it
can be achieved: a qualitative study
Table 3 shows the personal characteristics identified by staff as important to the provision of
effective care for people with CEN.
Staff qualities
•
•
•
•
•
Insert Table 3. Staff qualities
required to provide effective care
Empathy and compassion
Authenticity
Flexibility
Supportiveness
Good interpersonal skills
Participants suggested that characteristics such as empathy and compassion enabled staff to see and
relate to service users as individuals rather than simply their diagnosis or behaviours, providing care
tailored to individuals:
“People with characteristics of personality disorder are first and foremost people. So, if you
have got the fundamental skills of working with people, then that- The biggest basis for the
training is the relational skills. A good friendly manner, a real interest in people, curiosity,
thoughtfulness, respect, all that sort of stuff. Honesty, doing what you say to people, which is
treating them with respect. All those things.” (ID09, male, psychotherapist working in a CEN
service)
A capacity for reflection and for authenticity in relationships were also seen as essential to the
provision of best practice care.
“I think just being yourself as well because I think you can't build an authentic relationship if
you are a robot, so maybe I can show a bit more of myself. I think if the problem is building
relationships, you can't build a relationship with someone that's doing completely textbook
and not being human. Just being human in whatever is happening I think is important.”
(ID28, female, trainee clinical psychologist)
1.2.2. Training, support and supervision
Staff skill, which was identified as important to the provision of best practice, could be enhanced
through training and support. Training could also help mitigate the impact of compassion fatigue,
bad experiences, and exposure to poor practice.
Participants placed high value on training that was coproduced and co-delivered with people with
lived experience of complex emotional needs, which, alongside lived experience involvement in
service delivery and design, helped provide an “empathy injection” to an area often at risk of stigma
and preconceptions.
“It’s the collaborative training, that is absolutely crucial for practitioners to hear. Because
people- We have a very narrow view of each other, we have huge judgments. If we don’t
meet people, we know that any kind of attitude change means that you need to understand
from the person’s point of view and put yourself in their shoes.” (ID47, male, Clinical
Psychologist in generic mental health services)
7
medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.06.17.21259101; this version posted June 20, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint
(which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.
It is made available under a CC-BY-ND 4.0 International license .
Staff views on best practice community care for people with complex emotional needs and how it
can be achieved: a qualitative study
Participants also described the need for practitioners in both generic and specialist services to be
provided with supervision as well as reflective practice to manage the challenges and emotional
demands of providing this care.
“That value of supervision and making sure it happens. I could probably go on about that for
a while but I think the basic theme is get people thinking about people in a way that
promotes empathy and give them enough skills to make them feel confident and competent
in working with that client group.” (ID32, male, occupational therapist working in nonspecialist services)
Participants valued the role modelling aspect of supervision and training: the relationships built with
supervisors could reflect their aspirations for their therapeutic relationships, for example in
providing safety, opportunities for reflection, and the sense of being compassionately held:
“I think the training wants to role-model reflection from the trainer, and that they're
emotionally containing of the staff who are coming on the training.” (ID14, female, social
worker in a homeless service)
2. Facilitators of Best Practice
In addition to the skills and characteristics of staff, participants identified two further concepts that
facilitate the successful delivery of best practice care: positive relationships and trauma-informed
care.
2.1. Positive Relationships
Almost all participants described staff-service user relationships as the most important ingredient of
treatment for people with CEN. They explained that many service users had been hurt or rejected by
services and that trust in staff and services needed to be established or re-established. Positive
staff-service user relationships were important in building trust, and also served to model helpful
interpersonal relationships more generally.
“We find that people, perhaps, begin to develop a more trusting relationship with us after a
period of time when some difficult things have happened. There may have been some
incidents, whatever. There may have been some challenges between people in the service
and staff team, whatever it might be. Then, we're six, nine, twelve months down the line, and
there's that sense of trust and actually beginning to open up. We find that's when it really
starts to change because we've got a real relationship now.” (ID10, male, social worker in
support housing service)
Empathy, compassion, and authenticity – characteristics reported to be key to the provision of best
practice – were described as fundamental to the provision of relational care and to the modelling of
supportive but boundaried relationships. Best practice is about holding boundaries and caring
enough to have challenging and difficult times together which is what creates the trust and
therapeutic bond.
“Boundaries are important… it is core to the work that you need to be boundaried as an
individual and as an organisation. They [the service user] will violate them and it is the
consistency and the way you continue to support then but you do need to have some kind of
boundaries and rules but you have to be consistent and explain why so they can learn that
abuse isn’t ok but you will keep with them to change and support them.” (PT13, female,
clinical psychologist)
8
medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.06.17.21259101; this version posted June 20, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint
(which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.
It is made available under a CC-BY-ND 4.0 International license .
Staff views on best practice community care for people with complex emotional needs and how it
can be achieved: a qualitative study
2.2. Addressing Trauma
Participants highlighted the importance of addressing trauma for those with CEN and not focusing
solely on presenting symptoms but also engaging with the wider range of difficulties that service
users experience and their causes. This included considering how adverse experiences have affected
people.
“Essentially, we look at things through a trauma lens; “Actually, something happened in your
life to lead you to be here today, that’s what we need to figure out.” Nobody wakes up and
wants to be in a mental health service for 10 years of their life, nobody does.” (ID42, female,
Clinical psychologist in specialist CYP services for CEN)
Trauma-informed approaches were suggested to provide a way of working with people that was
collaborative and empowering. However, participants also conceded that there was a lack of clarity
or consensus as to what constitutes a ‘trauma-informed approach’.
“I hear a lot of the same things from people across the country. I don’t think it’s an issue in
one area, but it is interesting that you say that everyone says, “Oh, I’m trauma-informed,”
but it’s not necessarily used right.” (ID26, female, Senior Practitioner in a CEN service)
This acknowledges that best practice often meant that staff feel they have to do things that service
users don’t want at times, but it’s about connecting with service users and providing care with
integrity, transparency and compassion.
“For trauma-informed, we would want our managers to have the same, to be able to provide
the supervision around what’s needed. We’d need ongoing training because we’ve got new
staff coming and going all the time.” (PT18, male, counsellor in general mental health
services)
3. Barriers to the provision of best practice
While there is a substantial consensus on what best practice looks like, significant barriers were
identified to achieving it. These included the accessibility and availability of services, training and
support.
3.1. Accessibility and availability of services
Participants described the limited availability of services for people with CEN and the exclusionary
nature of services for those with a ‘personality disorder’ label.
3.1.1. Limited and exclusionary services
In many areas, a combination of restrictive eligibility criteria and long waiting lists made it hard to
access appropriate specialist services. Access to generic mental health services was also reported as
challenging for those with CEN, with services reportedly excluding service users because of their
‘personality disorder’ diagnosis or restricting care for this reason.
“I think services still are set up to exclude people with emotional difficulties… I think any type
of ‘personality disorder’ diagnosis or trait is still a diagnosis of exclusion from most places
and most services. It firmly does place people in that, kind of, they’re choosing to behave this
way and it’s not. It’s not that.” (ID19, female, social worker).
9
medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.06.17.21259101; this version posted June 20, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint
(which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.
It is made available under a CC-BY-ND 4.0 International license .
Staff views on best practice community care for people with complex emotional needs and how it
can be achieved: a qualitative study
“It seemed to me that you had to be three quarters on your way to recovery before you could
even be accepted by a personality disorder service in the NHS. They were quite rigid. ... They
are also rather risk averse.” (ID09, male, psychotherapist working in a CEN service)
Exclusions from generic services, e.g., short-term talking therapies such as CBT, was often attributed
to service users being “deemed to be too risky”. In contrast, in the face of high thresholds and
limited services outside generic mental health pathways, participants noted that it often seems as
though risk has escalated and the only way into services is via a crisis pathway.
“I suppose the other thing is the difficulty of accessing secondary care now... I had an
emergency myself a while back, a crisis, [it was] two weeks before I could see the
psychiatrist. That was the urgent care. That was the, “This is a lady who's right on the edge.”
That is not good service. That is not a good way to treat somebody.” (ID22, female, peer
worker in a CEN service)
Such high thresholds for care were reported to result in an escalation of distress and behavioural
disturbance, which services still might not respond to. Seemingly ‘extreme’ behaviours reinforced
stigmatising attitudes and a tendency for staff to label service users with CEN as ‘attention-seekers’
or ‘manipulative’.
“[some staff say] "Oh, well, they are just attention-seeking", or, "They have got to take
responsibility", all this kind of stuff… It just sets them up for failure.” (ID08, male, Mental
health nurse and psychotherapist in a non-specialist service)
3.1.2. Limited access to specialist training
Participants reported a lack of specialist training in supporting people with CEN, which they
described as a barrier to the provision of quality care by generic mental health services and the third
sector.
“There is a paucity of training but also a paucity of where they are available. There are quite
a lot of courses but if you are in one world and not the other you might not get that
information.” (ID24, female, third sector support worker)
A lack of information about what courses were available, or a lack of support from managers to
attend training, exacerbated this problem.
The importance of supervision and reflective practice has been discussed above. Where this was not
embedded staff reported feeling less able to engage in the care of people with CEN and to manage
risks. Having specialists within teams was also identified as an important way to support staff to
provide the best practice care, by providing role modelling opportunities for staff. Without training,
supervision and role-modelling, stigmatising attitudes and perceptions were felt to be sustained or
born-out of staff burnout and lack of knowledge.
“I’ve worked in mental health for the past 20 years. I probably spent the first ten years of my
career with very negative views about personality disorder. I think, in retrospect, that’s
because nobody ever taught me anything about it, and the only thing that I ever did learn
was from people who had also never had any training. So, you know, very, kind of, jaded,
burnt-out staff who were very negative.” (ID04, female, Occupational Therapist working in
specialist services).
10
medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.06.17.21259101; this version posted June 20, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint
(which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.
It is made available under a CC-BY-ND 4.0 International license .
Staff views on best practice community care for people with complex emotional needs and how it
can be achieved: a qualitative study
3.2. Fear of the risks associated with complex emotional needs.
Participants described that some staff in generic mental health services were fearful about working
with people with CEN because of the severe distress, crisis, recurrent self-harm, and suicidal ideation
or intent frequently experienced by this group. Managing such crises and high levels of risk were
reported by many staff members as leaving them distressed and feeling an intense sense of
powerlessness which was felt to link to therapeutic nihilism, stigma and exclusion.
“[Staffs] level of fear gets so high that they think, “I don’t have the resources to do this. They
need to be somewhere else.” [this leads to a] buck-passing phenomenon and it’s like when
people go from one service to another to another to another.” (ID32, male, occupational
therapist)
Participants suggested that such avoidant and risk-averse behaviours were exacerbated by staff
feeling overworked and by a lack of resources and demands to hit targets rather than provide the
most effective care for the individual.
“When you’ve got a caseload of 50, you’d only need to have 5 people with emotional
difficulties on your caseload and your focus is then drawn to them because of the way that
they present at services. It would then have a knock-on effect on the outcomes for the other
people that were on that person’s caseload, you know, and you’ve got a manager saying,
“Well, they’ve done a 12 week DBT programme. Discharge them off now.” Well, that’s not
going to work for this person, but you’re stuck by the constraints of the service that you work
for and their delivery targets, their KPIs.” (ID19, female, Social Worker working in generic
services).
3.2. Hopelessness
Several participants working in generic services and in the third sector described finding it
challenging to work with service users with CEN, because they felt they could not provide effective
help. As a result, some of these staff felt that their role was not about therapeutic support and more
about striving to keep people alive.
“You make a connection with somebody, you come to care for them. You don’t want them to
die.” (ID18, male, counsellor in general mental health services)
The lack of therapeutic optimism described by some staff was compounded by the lack of resources
and services described above. Three participants noted that they had left roles in statutory services
as a direct result of these issues.
4.
Systemic challenges
4.1. Resources and funding
The under-resourcing of services was reported to directly influence the quality of care for people
with CEN, contributing to long waiting lists, delayed discharge, and staff burnout. The importance of
sustained investment and funding was repeatedly discussed by participants.
“We need money to fund services; without it we have lots of waitlists so there is no seamless
care and it makes issues then for other services.” (ID12, female, social worker working with
CEN women in homelessness services)
At the core of discussions about resourcing were that best practice care was relational and took time
to do well.
11
medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.06.17.21259101; this version posted June 20, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint
(which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.
It is made available under a CC-BY-ND 4.0 International license .
Staff views on best practice community care for people with complex emotional needs and how it
can be achieved: a qualitative study
Some staff suggested that the under-resourcing of services for people with CEN reflected a lack of
esteem for this group of service users compared to service users with other mental health problems
or with physical health problems.
“I also think that there’s a lot of stigma about this client group and that, when you are
thinking about what your priorities for spending money on are, it’s generally the people who
are less popular that get [less] money.” (ID32, male, occupational therapist)
Some participants argued for the commissioning of integrated specialist CEN and generic mental
health services.
“I left just disheartened at the fact that actually we're still working tiered services… we need
to skill up a whole workforce and really get away from these tiered pyramid models because
it's everybody's business.” (ID04, female, Occupational Therapist working in specialist
services).
Participants also highlighted a need for early intervention services and pathways that allowed
service users to progress smoothly through care and to utilise the services that suited their needs.
Important to both joined-up, effective working and to adequate resourcing was having buy-in and
commitment from service commissioners and managers. Participants noted that all services are
stretched and under-resourced and this has created not only an overworked workforce but also
competition across services.
“It's very much to do with culture, and commissioning regimes, and budgets, because that's
the other thing: every budget is so fragmented. So, services are just concerned about their
budget and not the overall well-being of that person. How much comes out their budget?
“That's not under my budget. That's under your budget.” There are all these kinds of
structural things that kick in, unfortunately.” (ID18, male, counsellor in general mental health
services)
Several participants reflected that in some cases, services are losing sight of service users’ needs
because of budget and resource pressures.
4.2. Stigma and labelling
Most participants highlighted the stigmatisation of individuals with CEN as a systemic problem
within healthcare services, with service users excluded from or receiving poorer care from services
as a result of their diagnosis. This was particularly felt to be an issue in generic mental health
services in which some staff reported having changed the way they employed diagnostic
terminology to help service users avoid such exclusionary outcomes.
“Every time I assessed someone; I always say ‘Diagnostic uncertainty’ because that meant
you were allowed to give them a service. So, you gave them a service, but you didn’t give
them a label, then they could come and get a couple of years of help.” (ID16, male, third
sector service lead)
Most participants reported having witnessed stigmatisation and its consequences. Stigmatising
attitudes were described as engrained in the culture of many services and attributed to a lack of
12
medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.06.17.21259101; this version posted June 20, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint
(which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.
It is made available under a CC-BY-ND 4.0 International license .
Staff views on best practice community care for people with complex emotional needs and how it
can be achieved: a qualitative study
knowledge about and misunderstanding of CEN as well as negative experiences with service users
with ‘personality disorder’ diagnoses.
“I think a lot of people just think it is too difficult. It is not as easy to treat as psychosis,
depression, all these comparatively easy-to-define presentations. Just I think that they find it
easier when it fits into their training and mindset and belief structure. So, coming up against
that because it is the dominant- I suppose it is the dominant world view in a lot of services.”
(ID17, male, social worker)
However, many participants also suggested that stigmatising and negative attitudes reflected an
attempt by staff to avoid the emotional impact of their work, serving as an unhealthy coping
mechanism where support, supervision and training was lacking.
“They often are seeing people in crisis, having self-harmed, on in-patient wards... I think if I
was a nurse, I probably would also say things that aren't very nice if I didn't have the
containment.” (ID28, male, service lead).
Regardless of cause, stigmatisation was understood by participants to be a major system-wide
barrier to the provision of best practice care for people with CEN.
Discussion
Analysis of interviews with 50 mental health and social care professionals recruited from across
England identified best practice principles for providing community care to people with CEN as well
as the barriers and facilitators to their implementation. Staff highlighted in particular the need for
care that was person-centred, relational and empathic. Importantly, many staff felt that the current
provision of care should be informed by an understanding that someone’s current presentation
might be shaped by previous experiences of neglect and abuse, often from the very individuals who
had been entrusted to care for them earlier in life. However, the ongoing stigmatisation of people
with CEN and the lack of staff training and support created barriers to best practice care.
Previous research has emphasised the need for services to focus on the long-term needs of people
with CEN, the importance of high quality and consistent therapeutic relationships and of a balanced
approach to safety issues, and the need for staff support and joint working across services [15].
Findings from this study add to these recommendations, highlighting in particular the need for
services for people with CEN to be more flexible, more integrated, and better resourced.
Most staff considered a “one-size-fits-all” approach inadequate for people with CEN, given the range
and fluctuating nature of these needs. However, a lack of flexibility within services and siloed
working across services often meant that many needs remained unmet. Addressing the needs of
these individuals is likely to require better integration of services and greater flexibility of pathways
across both specialist and generic mental health services. This aligns with The Community Mental
Health Framework for Adults and Older Adults [20], a mental health policy aimed at greater
integration of primary and secondary care and of the voluntary sector in England, and at the
development of accessible, straightforward and seamless mental health services. The focus in
research on CEN has been almost entirely on testing of specialist psychotherapies, so that very little
evidence is available on how to design services and systems of care that deliver high quality and
holistic care to meet the long-term needs of people with CEN. Similarly, there is a lack of evidence on
whether and how trauma-informed approaches – the use of which was recommended by many
participants in this study – contribute to improved outcomes for service users and how they can be
best implemented [21].
13
medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.06.17.21259101; this version posted June 20, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint
(which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.
It is made available under a CC-BY-ND 4.0 International license .
Staff views on best practice community care for people with complex emotional needs and how it
can be achieved: a qualitative study
Although some training programmes have been shown to improve attitudes towards people with a
‘personality disorder’, training alone is unlikely to address what participants described as the
systemic stigmatisation of people with CEN [12]. We urgently need evidence about the individual
and organisational level factors that contribute to the development and embedding of stigma,
including the potential role of fear, risk, and emotional burnout. Also needed are behavioural change
perspectives on how to reduce stigma and increase and hopeful and positive attitudes to
“personality disorders” as conditions for which there is ample evidence that many people respond to
appropriate treatment. While there are barriers and challenging to providing care for those with CEN
or a ‘personality disorder diagnosis’, staff need to have understanding that this is a malleable
condition that with a lot of improvements see in people who are offered and engage with treatment
[22]. It is important for staff to see these outcomes to tackle the hopeless that participants reported
within this study.
There is substantial evidence that in England at least, people with CEN continue to experience
considerable inequity within services [23]. This study further supports our understanding of this
inequality facing individuals with CEN, with staff noting the impact of under-resourcing of services
on accessibility of best practice care, as well as the pressures facing staff where training, support and
supervision are not resourced for to ensure staff can deliver effective care. This requires service
development to not only take into account the needs of service users, but also those of staff, in
order to tackle the barriers facing effective care and to integrate elements of best practice such as
supervision and reflective practice across services and professional approaches. The findings in this
paper also add to our knowledge of what best practice should look like and the often-undervalued
elements, such as therapeutic relationships, that are not seen as ‘evidence-based models of care’
but that are imperative to facilitate effective person-centred care.
Strengths and limitations
Participants were drawn from across England and from a range of settings and occupations. Topic
guides were developed in collaboration with experts by profession and by experience, and these
experts also contributed to the analysis and interpretation of data. Some limitations should be
noted. Participants were self-selected, and the sample was likely to have included those with an
interest and investment in this research, to the detriment of hearing more from staff who work with
such service users but were not interested or motivated to take part in a study on this topic. Staff
who were less invested in this topic may have different views on, for example, barriers to best
practice care, training needs, and the reasons underpinning the stigmatisation of people with CEN.
Conclusion
Eighteen years on from the publication of “Personality Disorder: No Longer a Diagnosis of Exclusion”
[24], a report which called for the transformation of services for people with a “personality disorder”
diagnosis in the NHS many people with CEN continue to be underserved, with barriers to best
practice care at the staff, service, and system level. Staff working with this service user group report
that delivering best practice care – described as relational, person-centred, and trauma-informed –
requires services to be flexible, integrated, and sustainably funded, and for staff across both
specialist and generic services to be supported through ongoing training and supervision.
References
[1] Winsper C, Bilgin A, Thompson A, Marwaha S, Chanen AM, Singh SP, et al. The prevalence of
personality disorders in the community: a global systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J
Psychiatry. 2020 Feb;216(2):69–78.
[2] Shah R, Zanarini MC. Comorbidity of Borderline Personality Disorder. Psychiatric Clinics of
North America. 2018 Dec;41(4):583–93.
14
medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.06.17.21259101; this version posted June 20, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint
(which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.
It is made available under a CC-BY-ND 4.0 International license .
Staff views on best practice community care for people with complex emotional needs and how it
can be achieved: a qualitative study
[3] Fok ML-Y, Stewart R, Hayes RD, Moran P. Predictors of Natural and Unnatural Mortality
among Patients with Personality Disorder: Evidence from a Large UK Case Register. PLOS ONE.
2014 Jul 7;9(7):e100979.
[4] Meuldijk D, McCarthy A, Bourke ME, Grenyer BFS. The value of psychological treatment for
borderline personality disorder: Systematic review and cost offset analysis of economic
evaluations. Schmahl C, editor. PLoS ONE. 2017 Mar 1;12(3):e0171592.
[5] Brettschneider C, Riedel-Heller S, König H-H. A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations
of Treatments for Borderline Personality Disorder. Yukich J, editor. PLoS ONE. 2014 Sep
29;9(9):e107748.
[6] Dale O, Sethi F, Stanton C, Evans S, Barnicot K, Sedgwick R, et al. Personality disorder
services in England: findings from a national survey. BJPsych Bulletin. 2017 Oct;41(5):247–53.
[7] Soeteman DI, Hakkaart-van Roijen L, Verheul R, Busschbach JJV. The Economic Burden of
Personality Disorders in Mental Health Care. J Clin Psychiatry. 2008 Feb 15;69(2):259–65.
[8] van Asselt ADI, Dirksen CD, Arntz A, Severens JL. The cost of borderline personality disorder:
societal cost of illness in BPD-patients. Eur psychiatr. 2007 Sep;22(6):354–61.
[9] Evans S, Sethi F, Dale O, Stanton C, Sedgwick R, Doran M, et al. Personality disorder service
provision: a review of the recent literature. Mental Health Review Journal. 2017 Jan 1;22(2):65–
82.
[10] Day NJS, Hunt A, Cortis-Jones L, Grenyer BFS. Clinician attitudes towards borderline
personality disorder: A 15-year comparison. Personality and Mental Health. 2018;12(4):309–20.
[11] Sheridan Rains L, Echave A, Rees J, Scott HR, Lever-Taylor B, Broeckelmann E, et al. Service
user experiences of community services for Complex Emotional Needs: A qualitative thematic
synthesis. medRxiv. 2020 Nov 3;2020.10.30.20222729.
[12] Ring D, Lawn S. Stigma perpetuation at the interface of mental health care: a review to
compare patient and clinician perspectives of stigma and borderline personality disorder.
Journal of Mental Health. 2019 Mar 12;1–21.
[13] Campbell K, Clarke K-A, Massey D, Lakeman R. Borderline Personality Disorder: To diagnose
or not to diagnose? That is the question. International Journal of Mental Health Nursing.
2020;29(5):972–81.
[14] recoveryinthebin A. RITB Position Statement On Borderline Personality Disorder [Internet].
Recovery in the Bin. 2019 [cited 2021 Jun 4]. Available from:
https://recoveryinthebin.org/2019/04/03/ritb-position-statement-on-borderline-personalitydisorder/
[15] Troup J, Taylor BL, Rains LS, Broeckelmann E, Russell J, Jeynes T, et al. Clinician
perspectives on what constitutes good practice in community services for people with Complex
Emotional Needs: A qualitative thematic meta-synthesis. medRxiv. 2020 Dec
16;2020.12.15.20248267.
[16] Botham J, Clark A, Steare T, Stuart R, Oram S, Lloyd-Evans B, et al. Community
interventions for people with complex emotional needs that meet the criteria for ‘personality
15
medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.06.17.21259101; this version posted June 20, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint
(which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.
It is made available under a CC-BY-ND 4.0 International license .
Staff views on best practice community care for people with complex emotional needs and how it
can be achieved: a qualitative study
disorder’ diagnoses: a systematic review of economic evaluations. medRxiv. 2020 Nov
4;2020.11.03.20225078.
[17] Trevillion K. et al. Service user experiences and perspectives of community services for
Complex Emotional Needs: a qualitative study. In preparation.
[18] QSR. NVivo qualitative data analysis software; QSR International Pty Ltd. Version 12, 2018.
[19] Braun V, Clarke V. Special Issue: Coming out in higher education. Lesbian & Gay Psychology
Review.2009. 10;1: 3-69
[20] NHS EnglandR» The community mental health framework for adults and older adults. 2019
[Internet]. [cited 2021 Jun 4]. Available from: https://www.england.nhs.uk/publication/thecommunity-mental-health-framework-for-adults-and-older-adults/
[21] Sweeney A, Taggart D. (Mis)understanding trauma-informed approaches in mental health.
Journal of Mental Health. 2018 Sep 3;27(5):383–7.
[22] Storebø OJ, Stoffers-Winterling JM, Völlm BA, Kongerslev MT, Mattivi JT, Jørgensen MS, et
al. Psychological therapies for people with borderline personality disorder. Cochrane
Developmental, Psychosocial and Learning Problems Group, editor. Cochrane Database of
Systematic Reviews [Internet]. 2020 May 4 [cited 2021 Jun 4]; Available from:
http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/14651858.CD012955.pub2
[23] Anna Freud National Centre for Children and Families, Barnet, Enfield and Haringey NHS
Mental Health Trust, The British Association of Social Workers Centre for Mental Health, Mind,
Royal College of General Practitioners, Royal College of Nursing and The British Psychological
Society. (2017). ‘Shining lights in dark corners of people’s lives’ The Consensus Statement for
People with Complex Mental Health Difficulties who are diagnosed with a Personality Disorde r.
Available at: https://www.mind.org.uk/media-a/4408/consensus-statement-final.pdf [Accessed
on 26/04/21].
[24] Personality disorder: No longer a diagnosis of exclusion [Internet]. National Institute of
Mental Health; 2003. Report No.: Gateway Ref: 1055. Available from:
http://personalitydisorder.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/PD-No-longer-a-diagnosis-ofexclusion.pdf
16