Matrix Working group meeting group
27th April 2012
Polmont, SPS College
Notes and Actions from Meeting
Present:
Emma Drysdale (GGC)
Morag Slesser (Chair)
Claire Maclean (State Hospital)
Heather Laithwaite (GGC)
Patricia Cawthorne (Forensic Network)
Ruth Stock (GGC)
Karen McKeowan (GGC)
Elaine Whitefield (Tayside)
Apologies: Amanda McKenzie (Grampian), Elizabeth Flynn (Forth Valley), Claire Hamill (Fife),
Natasha Purcell (TSH), Anne Carpenter (GGC)
Circulation: Vivienne Gration ( Forensic Network), Forensic Matrix Steering Group, Bruce Kidd(D+G),
Mike Doyle(Fife), Cindy Shields(AA), Karen Allan (Grampian), Mike Doyle(Fife), Alison Robertson
(Fife)
NOTES OF THE LAST MEETING
1. Notes of last meeting were approved with the exception of 10 which should have read “a need
to develop a programme to upskill staff to deliver groups” This was about generic CBT
competences to deliver psychological programmes.
MATTERS ARISING
2. BK has not given feedback about HOLDS.
ACTION : MS to contact BK to remind him and ask him to come to next meeting.
3. New to Forensic for psychological therapies – 30th March day. Only 1/18 attendees were
psychologists. The content of the new to forensic programme for psychological therapies was
discussed. PC reports that there are enough people to work on the chapters and will follow up
individuals. The publishing deadline is December so good drafts needed by the end of the
summer.
ACTION: PC will circulate the proposed chapters. PC to coordinate others.
4. High secure conference. Planned for the 10/11th September
ACTION: MS to pass details to others.
5. Updated work plans required for the steering group.
ACTION: Leads of groups: MS/RS/HL/ED
6. Evaluation:
This work depends on the other workstreams. Need to identify what outcomes measures are in
current use. Core in Glasgow and TSH. BEST in Tayside. Network research group are also looking
at this. ED is the psychologist on this group. Looking for a general outcome measure that is
multidisciplinary. Ie the HONOS secure. We need to consider whether we will use this for the
assessment process.
Evaluation for each intervention will be considered separately.
Tom White, Chair of Network Research group has written to MS and asked her to present on ways
the research group could support the psychological therapies research agenda. As ED and MR both
members of the group and ED leading on evaluation, agreed that ED would present.
ACTION:
MS to write to Tom White.
ED to present at Research group and report back to Working group.
7. Training programme for delivering new modules. Discussed ideas about training modules.
Meeting arranged with Kate Davidson to see what already exists and what we would need to
adapt and design from scratch. Need to consider: Basic psychological knowledge, basic CBT
skills, formulation, problems that forensic patients present with, fundamental group work skills.
Also need to consider forensic needs (ie management of PD).
Each protocol will have an additional “bolt on” to enable staff to deliver to a specific protocol.
ACTION:
HL and PC to meet with Kate Davidson for advice
ACTION FOR NEXT MEETING: to scope out the magnitude of task and what help we will need.
8. Assessment and patient pathway. Feedback from EW. Consider the CANFOR for assessing
psychological needs. Forth Valley and D and G both use this. BEST also in use. Suggest we
develop a signposting system where following ratings on each tool, guidance would be given on
which psychological interventions might be suitable. The option for more specific psychological
assessment could also be signposted with more complex cases.
Ongoing assessment and risk assessment needs to be part of patient pathway.
ACTION FOR FUTURE MEETINGS:
Aim to provide guidance for the group re patient pathway
and what interventions might meet which identified needs. Consult with users of each tool for
advice once modules are developed.
9. Guidance for writing protocols for controlling the intensity. This didn’t go out as planned.
ACTION: RS to circulate guidance about standard for writing each module.
10. Membership - Need to ensure LD service feel represented. Make sure there is representation
from the different health boards. Plan to invite KA who has just taken up post in Grampian. MS
received request from Elaine Hunter AHP lead to join the group. MS to discuss with her whether
what her interests are and whether or not she might be better joining the Steering group?
ACTION:
MS to speak with Elaine Hunter.
MS to ensure KA invited to next meeting.
MS to speak to Alison Robertson (NHS Fife) regarding LD representation.
11. Copy right issues for use of psychometrics as well as ownership of the work done when
employed by a Board. What do we do about things that are jointly developed?
Need a copyright statement on all protocols developed.
ACTION:
MS / RS to bring to the attention of the steering group.
SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION/ ACTION POINTS FOR EACH INTERVENTION
12.
Road to Recovery / Recovery 1 (CM/HL leads)
Two programmes running in TSH / GGC with similar models/principles aimed at patients at the
beginning of their recovery journey or who have not previously been engaged in any kind of
psychological group work interventions.
Module 1: Psychoeducation
Module 2: Symptom management
Module3: Recovery planning
Outcomes of discussion: HL/CM recommend move to two modules.
Modules:
Mental health awareness
Looking after yourself
ACTION:
HL/CM TO CIRCULATE FINAL VERSION TO ALL MEMBERS OF THE GROUP FOR
COMMENT.
ALL FEEDBACK TO HL/CM BY END OF MAY
ACTION FOR NEXT MEETING: CONSIDER FINISHED PROGRAMME AT JUNE MEETING.
13.
Information programme- (Lead KM)
Focus on a facilitated work book for each patient to work through with their key worker.
Plan to test out with patients at Rowanbank.
ACTION:
KM TO SEND COMPLETED VERSION TO EW/KA/NP/PC FOR SPECIFIC COMMENTS.
ALL TO FEEDBACK TO KM BY THE END OF MAY.
ACTION:
KM TO SEND OUT QUESTIONS FOR READERS OF THE INFORMATION PROGRAMME
TO ATTEND TO.
ACTION:
14.
COMPLETED VERSION TO BE AVAILABLE FOR JUNE MEETING
Emotion management/coping skills (LEAD RS)
Plan is for coping skills to include problem solving and thinking skill as well as managing stress and
emotions.
Draft available but not completed.
ACTION:
RS to pull together – to look like the end product and circulate to MR (Orchard),
Martin O’Hanlon, Alana McCorkell and Josie Clarke (TSH) for their views by end of May.
ACTION FOR NEXT MEETING:
15.
COMPLETED VERSION TO BE AVAILABLE FOR NEXT MEETING
Knowing me (Lead AC)
AC not at meeting but group discussed the need to develop an intervention that can be delivered at
low intensity level. Agreed intervention needs to be very simple to deliver.
ACTION:
16.
o
o
o
o
o
o
RS TO FEEDBACK TO AC ABOUT HOW INTERVENTION MIGHT BE ADAPTED FOR LOW
INTENSITY WOKERS TO DELIVER.
Intensity of programmes/future programme work
Knowing me: low intensity
Road to Recovery: low
Problems solving and Coping skills: high
Information – basic – below “low”
Relationships and social skills, social problem solving – (high) to be agreed. (Deficits relating to
intimate and non-intimate relationships, sexual attitudes to be included – possibly in separate
module)
Relapse prevention / recovery 2- (high) to be agreed
to be sent to CM/HL
ACTION:
RS to check out the original remit to the Relationships and social skills programme.
To discuss with Alana McCorkell and Martin O’Hanlon from TSH. LD staff to comment on the
Sexual attitude aspect and consider what material already available that could be used.
ACTION:
RS to discuss brief Alana McCorkell (TSH), Natasha Purcell (TSH) and Tricia Mooney
(GGC), Amanda McKenzie (Grampian)
17.
Competences
-
Minimum set of those to deliver psychological therapies at low and high intensity. Some work done
on this already at TSH.
ACTION:
PC AND BRUCE KIDD TO MEET TO PROGRESS . DRAFT TO BE AVAILABLE FOR JUNE
MEETING.
18.
Supervision
Agreed different needs for this depending on delivery intensity and content of programme.
Also considered need for a checklist for the adherence to each intervention. Some prior work
available on this. What will supervisor competences be?
ACTION:
19.
MS/PC TO TAKE FORWARD WITH OUTLINE FOR JUNE MEETING
LOOK AT GENERIC SUPERVSION COURSE AT NES AND WHETHER THIS WILL SUFFICE
Evaluation
Feedback from each ED and NP for generic evaluation (as above)
How will we know what has worked? What psychometrics would we use? Small no of meaningful
measures.
What do we show from individuals progress?
Generic measures should show improvement – change in BEST / risk assessments/ CORE
ACTION:
RS to send out headings /structure for presentation of programmes including
introductory information and session plan structure, evaluation and supervision guidance,
recognising that some of this will be generic and some specific to the intervention.
DATE AND TIME OF NEXT MEETING: 15TH JUNE 2012 AT SPS COLLEGE.
AGENDA FOR NEXT MEETING
Sign off: Knowing me, coping skills, education and Recovery 1
Discuss: competences and supervision
Discuss: Evaluation