Drug and alcohol users have been suggested to face disproportionate exclusion from mental health services, but data on any such exclusion are not readily available. This study examined the clinical records of those excluded from an NHS Talking Therapies service due to drug or alcohol use, focusing on (1) quantitative levels of alcohol consumption, and (2) the rationales documented by clinicians for excluding these individuals. Our results suggest that over half (57%) of those excluded due to alcohol use were consuming below the 15-unit daily threshold recommended for signposting to specialist alcohol assessment. Clinicians cited various rationales for exclusion, including the potential for poor treatment outcomes and health risks associated with concurrent use. Due to being based on a single service, these findings may be limited in their generalisability, but they offer an initial signal that there is potential over-exclusion of some alcohol users from NHS Talking Therapies, and that rationales for exclusion may not consistently align with best practice principles. We discuss implications for NHS Talking Therapies clinicians, and for the development of future clinical guidance.

1. (1) To understand how different levels of drug or alcohol use may affect the outcomes of psychological therapy.

2. (2) To learn why individuals with drug or alcohol use experience exclusion from mental health services.

3. (3) To examine how clinical practice within an NHS Talking Therapies service aligns with best practice principles.

4. (4) To explore skills and clinical principles that can lead to optimal treatment planning for these individuals.

5. (5) To explore how integrated working between NHS Talking Therapies and local drug and alcohol services can enhance service-user experiences.

Effective, evidence-based psychological therapies for prolonged grief reactions exist but are not routinely available in United Kingdom National Health Service (NHS) services. This audit evaluated the feasibility and clinical effectiveness of a high-intensity prolonged grief disorder therapy (PGDT) treatment pathway in an NHS Talking Therapies (NHS-TT) context for clients with a prolonged grief reaction alongside depression, anxiety and/or post-traumatic stress disorder. Seventeen experienced high-intensity therapists were trained to deliver PGDT. Ninety-one clients were treated between April 2022 and April 2024, 80 of whom met criteria and were included in this audit; 83% of clients completed at least four treatment sessions (a liberal estimate of minimum adequate dose), the mean number of sessions attended was 10.29 (SD=5.81) and rates of drop-out were low (16%). Data completeness rates were 100% depression, anxiety and functioning measures and 61% for the grief outcome (Brief Grief Questionnaire; BGQ). There was no evidence of treatment-related harms. There were statistically significant, large pre–post treatment effect size improvements across outcomes from intake to last treatment session (p<.001; Cohen’s d>1.05). According to NHS-TT outcome metrics for combined changes in anxiety and depression, 82% of clients exhibited reliable improvement, 72% showed recovery, and 68% of clients achieved reliable recovery. On the BGQ, rates of reliable improvement were 77% and rates of recovery were 63%. Effects held when focusing on the subgroup with more severe grief symptoms (intake BGQ≥8; n=40). These findings suggest it is feasible and probably effective to implement a PGDT pathway in an NHS-TT context.

1. (1) To become familiar with prolonged grief disorder (PGD) as a diagnostic construct.

2. (2) To gain insight into using prolonged grief disorder therapy (PGDT) to treat PGD.

3. (3) To understand ways to train and supervise National Health Service Talking Therapies (NHS-TT) high-intensity therapists to implement PGDT.

4. (4) To evaluate the potential feasibility and effectiveness of implementing PGDT in an NHS-TT context.

Economic variables such as socioeconomic status and debt are linked with an increased risk of a range of mental health problems and appear to increase the risk of developing of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Previous research has shown that people living in more deprived areas have more severe symptoms of depression and anxiety after treatment in England’s NHS Talking Therapies services. However, no research has examined if there is a relationship between neighbourhood deprivation and outcomes for PTSD specifically. This study was an audit of existing data from a single NHS Talking Therapies service. The postcodes of 138 service users who had received psychological therapy for PTSD were used to link data from the English Indices of Deprivation. This was analysed with the PCL-5 measure of PTSD symptoms pre- and post-treatment. There was no significant association between neighbourhood deprivation measures on risk of drop-out from therapy for PTSD, number of sessions received or PTSD symptom severity at the start of treatment. However, post-treatment PCL-5 scores were significantly more severe for those living in highly deprived neighbourhoods, with lower estimated income and greater health and disability. There was also a non-significant trend for the same pattern based on employment and crime rates. There was no impact of access to housing and services or living environment. Those living in more deprived neighbourhoods experienced less of a reduction in PTSD symptoms after treatment from NHS Talking Therapies services. Given the small sample size in a single city, this finding needs to be replicated with a larger sample.

1. (1) Previous literature has shown that socioeconomic deprivation increases the risk of a range of mental health problems.

2. (2) Existing research suggests that economic variables such as income and employment are associated with greater incidence of PTSD.

3. (3) In the current study, those living in more deprived areas experienced less of a reduction in PTSD symptoms following psychological therapy through NHS Talking Therapies.

4. (4) The relatively poorer treatment outcomes in the current study are not explained by differences in baseline PTSD severity or drop-out rates, which were not significantly different comparing patients from different socioeconomic strata.

Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and eye-movement desensitisation and reprocessing (EMDR) are NICE-recommended evidence-based treatments for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). However, there is less specification of which individuals might find CBT versus EMDR more effective, or whether other factors influence treatment outcomes. This study describes a service evaluation of trauma-focused CBT (CT-PTSD) and EMDR treatment outcomes for PTSD in a London out-patient NHS Talking Therapies (NHS TT) service over 11 years (N=1580). The evaluation was conducted in an adult sample (mean age 37 years), of which 65% were women. The mean number of treatment episodes for PTSD in the service in the sample was 2.39 (SD=1.86), and the mean number of therapy sessions attended was 6.15 (SD=6.43). When using NHS TT recovery criteria, there was no significant difference between PTSD recovery rates in the service for those who received CT-PTSD (40.8%) versus EMDR (43.6%). CT-PTSD was associated with greater reductions in anxious and depressive (but not PTSD-specific) symptoms than EMDR, but this was confounded by the fact that individuals receiving CT-PTSD in the service had higher anxiety and depression scores at start-of-treatment. Older age and non-female gender were associated with higher anxiety and depression scores. PTSD recovery rates were comparable to other NHS TT services. There is no clear indication that either CBT or EMDR is a more effective treatment for PTSD symptoms in the service, although preliminary findings could inform treatment planning regarding differential effects of the treatments on anxious and depressive symptoms. Other clinical implications are discussed.

1. (1) To gain a better understanding of the relative effectiveness of trauma-focused CBT and EMDR for PTSD, as provided in a working NHS TT service.

2. (2) To allow better-informed clinical and treatment pathway planning for individuals with trauma problems in a talking therapies service.

3. (3) To contribute to the wider research literature on effective interventions for trauma within cognitive therapy and NHS frameworks.

The concept of Service Model Fidelity is considered as a parallel process to Treatment Fidelity in evidence-based psychological therapies. NHS Talking Therapies (formerly IAPT) aimed to increase access to an expanded, upskilled workforce on a national scale. This included systematic training, supervision and front-line service delivery, emphasising treatment fidelity to evidence-based interventions. A further feature of NHS Talking Therapies was modernising and restructuring of the health system that housed these trained practitioners. The term ‘service model fidelity’ (Cromarty, 2016) was coined to emphasise service modernisation aspects as a distinct entity. A definition of the latter is included. Examples of service model fidelity and of service model drift, are outlined to distinguish these from therapist drift. This links to past literature recommending changes in traditional mental health service design and emergent evidence from NHS Talking Therapies. The latter examines publicly available data identifying characteristics of service design, which appear to be predictors of enhanced clinical outcome. Challenges in modernising health systems are discussed and conclusions are made highlighting the crucial role of service model when delivering evidence-based therapies. Suggestions for further research into service configuration to improve experiences of service users are considered. This includes ongoing exploration of service design being more than a qualitative feature, and increasingly appearing as a key factor in enhanced clinical outcome.

1. (1) To identify service model fidelity as separate entity to treatment fidelity.

2. (2) To provide a clear definition of service model fidelity.

3. (3) To delineate therapist drift from service drift.

4. (4) To further examine the role of service model in delivering evidence-based interventions.