TY - JOUR T1 - Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on remote mental healthcare and prescribing in psychiatry JF - medRxiv DO - 10.1101/2020.10.26.20219576 SP - 2020.10.26.20219576 AU - Rashmi Patel AU - Jessica Irving AU - Aimee Brinn AU - Matthew Broadbent AU - Hitesh Shetty AU - Megan Pritchard AU - Johnny Downs AU - Robert Stewart AU - Robert Harland AU - Philip McGuire Y1 - 2020/01/01 UR - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/10/27/2020.10.26.20219576.abstract N2 - Objectives The recent COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted mental healthcare delivery, with many services shifting from in- person to remote patient contact. We investigated the impact of the pandemic on the use of remote consultation and on the prescribing of psychiatric medications.Design and setting The Clinical Record Interactive Search tool (CRIS) was used to examine de-identified electronic health records (EHRs) of people receiving mental healthcare from the South London and Maudsley (SLaM) NHS Foundation Trust. Data from the period before and after the onset of the pandemic were analysed using linear regression, and visualised using locally estimated scatterplot smoothing (LOESS).Participants All patients receiving care from SLaM between 7th January 2019 and 20th September 2020 (around 37,500 patients per week).Outcome measuresThe number of clinical contacts (in-person, remote or non-attended) with mental healthcare professionals per weekPrescribing of antipsychotic and mood stabiliser medications per weekResults Following the onset of the pandemic, the frequency of in-person contacts was significantly reduced compared to that in the previous year (β coefficient: −5829.6 contacts, 95% CI −6919.5 to −4739.6, p<0.001), while the frequency of remote contacts significantly increased (β coefficient: 3338.5 contacts, 95% CI 3074.4 to 3602.7, p<0.001). Rates of remote consultation were lower in older adults than in working age adults, children and adolescents. Despite this change in the type of patient contact, antipsychotic and mood stabiliser prescribing remained at similar levels.Conclusions The COVID-19 pandemic has been associated with a marked increase in remote consultation, particularly among younger patients. However, there was no evidence that this has led to changes in psychiatric prescribing. Nevertheless, further work is needed to ensure that older patients are able to access mental healthcare remotely.Competing Interest StatementAll authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf and declare: RS has received funding from Janssen, GSK and Takeda outside the submitted work. RP has received funding from Janssen, Induction Healthcare and Holmusk outside the submitted work. The other authors declare no competing interests.Funding StatementSource of funding: MB, HS, MP, RS and PM have received funding from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and King's College London, which also supports the development and maintenance of the BRC Case Register. RP has received funding from a Medical Research Council (MRC) Health Data Research UK Fellowship (MR/S003118/1) and a Starter Grant for Clinical Lecturers (SGL015/1020) supported by the Academy of Medical Sciences, The Wellcome Trust, MRC, British Heart Foundation, Arthritis Research UK, the Royal College of Physicians and Diabetes UK. RS has received funding from a Medical Research Council (MRC) Mental Health Data Pathfinder Award to King's College London, an NIHR Senior Investigator Award and the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Applied Research Collaboration South London (NIHR ARC South London) at King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust. Role of funder: The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the funders. The funders had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The CRIS data resource received ethical approval as a de-identified dataset for secondary mental health research analyses from Oxfordshire REC C (Ref: 18/SC/0372).All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesThe data accessed by CRIS remain within an NHS firewall and governance is provided by a patient-led oversight committee. Access to data is restricted to honorary or substantive employees of the South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and governed by a local oversight committee who review and approve applications to extract and analyse data for research. Subject to these conditions, data access is encouraged and those interested should contact RS (robert.stewart{at}kcl.ac.uk), CRIS academic lead. ER -