Skip to main content

The psychosocial response to a terrorist attack at Manchester Arena, 2017: a process evaluation

Abstract

Background

A 2017 terrorist attack in Manchester, UK, affected large numbers of adults and young people. During the response phase (first seven weeks), a multi-sector collaborative co-ordinated a decentralised response. In the subsequent recovery phase they implemented a centralised assertive outreach programme, ‘The Resilience Hub’, to screen and refer those affected. We present a process evaluation conducted after 1 year.

Methods

Case study, involving a logic modelling approach, aggregate routine data, and semi-structured interviews topic guides based on the Inter-Agency Collaboration Framework and May’s Normalisation Process Theory. Leaders from health, education and voluntary sectors (n = 21) and frontline Resilience Hub workers (n = 6) were sampled for maximum variation or theoretically, then consented and interviewed. Framework analysis of transcripts was undertaken by two researchers.

Results

Devolved government, a collaborative culture, and existing clinical networks meant that, in the response phase, a collaboration was quickly established between health and education. All but one leader evaluated the response positively, although they were not involved in pre-disaster statutory planning. However, despite overwhelming positive feedback there were clear difficulties. (1) Some voluntary sector colleagues felt that it took some time for them to be involved. (2) Other VCSE organisations were accused of inappropriate, harmful use of early intervention. (3) The health sector were accused of overlooking those below the threshold for clinical treatment. (4) There was a perception that there were barriers to information sharing across organisations, which was particularly evident in relation to attempts to outreach to first responders and other professionals who may have been affected by the incident. (5) Hub workers encountered barriers to referring people who live outside of Greater Manchester. After 1 year of the recovery phase, 877 children and young people and 2375 adults had completed screening via the Resilience Hub, 79% of whom lived outside Greater Manchester.

Conclusions

The psychosocial response to terrorist attacks and other contingencies should be planned and practiced before the event, including reviews of communications, protocols, data sharing procedures and workforce capacity. Further research is needed to understand how the health and voluntary sectors can best collaborate in the wake of future incidents.

Peer Review reports

Background

Recent mass casualty incidents

Whilst mass casualty events are uncommon, the number of transnational terrorist attacks has increased globally [1] (Table 1). Those physically present at a terror attack have a 33–39% of developing post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) within 1 year, with 17–29% of those close to the injured, 5–6% of emergency and recovery workers and 4% of local communities similarly affected [2]. Children are particularly vulnerable [3, 4]. The economic burden of mental health care may equal the medical costs [5] with considerable unmet need [6].

Table 1 Mass casualty incidents discussed in the text

Guidance for responding to mass casualty incidents

The central theme of the literature on such events is the need for a phased response (Table 2) [7, 8]. In this paper, we follow a widely-used seven-step model for designing and implementing any psychosocial response (Table 2) [8]. The preparedness phase should involve multi-agency planning, training, and the development of community resilience [8]. The response phase, typically the first 4–6 weeks after a disaster, requires universal and selective psychosocial support based on the principles of psychological first aid [9]. Assessments identify people with unmet psychosocial and mental health needs, signpost support services, monitor distress, or refer for individualised psychological interventions as appropriate [9]. In the subsequent recovery phase, primary care and specialist services should identify those who are still distressed, or have developed difficulties later on [8], providing evidence-based psychological interventions [9]. Preventive and therapeutic approaches are intended to reduce long-term, complex difficulties.

Table 2 The strategic, seven-step model of community care

Different recovery trajectories have been observed following single-incident trauma [10, 11]. Up to 70% of people may experience mild to moderate distress but not require formal psychological interventions, particularly if they receive adequate early support [8]. Others have a deteriorating response, with the potential to develop long-term difficulties, or an initial high stress response that may or may not improve over time [8]. Delayed distress may also be experienced [10]. First responders and members of clinical care teams may be directly or vicariously traumatised, but rarely seek help [12,13,14,15], with observed PTSD rates of 8–26% dependent on exposure and pre-incident training [16,17,18]. As a result of these differing trajectories, the guidance advocates a stepped care approach, screens and triages individuals [19]. Low-level interventions suffice for most survivors [20], and formal psychological interventions should only be delivered when there is clinical need [21]. The evaluation of screening models [22] particularly those aimed at children and young people [23], remains a research priority.

The national and regional policy context

The 1991–2002 NHS reforms separated purchasers and providers to engender competition [24, 25], a policy known to make inter-agency collaboration more difficult [26] In 2015, health and social care spending was devolved to the Greater Manchester (GM) Health and Social Care Partnership (HSCP) [27], an organisation jointly run by the NHS and local government [27, 28]. The HSCP aims to integrate services by bringing together representatives of ten local authorities, 12 Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) [29, 30], 15 NHS care provider organisations and NHS England (NHSE)—the body which oversees NHS budget, planning, commissioning and delivery from 2013 [31, 32]. Another important regional organisation was the Strategic Clinical Network (SCN), set up by NHS England (NHSE) to provide clinical leadership to improve health and care services [33, 34].

Overview of the psychosocial response to the Arena bombing

On 22 May 2017, a suicide bomber detonated an improvised explosive device in the foyer of Manchester Arena after a concert, killing 22 people and himself, and physically injuring 239 children and adults [35]. No preparation had been conducted for the mental health response to such a contingency (planning phase). In the response and recovery phases, the approach was: (a) universal; involving public health messages to reach anyone vicariously traumatised; (b) targeted; approaching those known to be directly affected; and (c) phased; recognising different communication and treatment needs across phases, with some survivors requiring long-term support [8, 36, 37].

In the response phase, a multi-sector collaboration shared universal messages (Table 2, Step 3). These included normalisation of distressing symptoms (such as shock, intrusive thoughts, sleep problems, etc.) [38, 39], and encouraged appropriate help-seeking. The information advised against non-evidence-based early therapy or ‘debriefing’, which is known to cause harm. Early on, some people who had been directly or vicariously affected by the incident were locally assessed and referred for specialist treatment according to risk and clinical need and on a non-systematic basis. Community support (Step 4) was provided through consultation with local schools, colleges, the media and group events, including psychoeducation and information about support on offer. Social cohesion was emphasised, to encourage mutual support and prevent reactive hate crime.

The ‘Manchester Resilience Hub’, a collaboration between four NHS mental health trusts in GM, was was set up in response to the Arena attack, during the recovery phase. Its overarching aim was—and remains—to reduce distress and minimise development of mental health difficulties, including post-traumatic sympotms, in the wake of the incident. The hub involves an assertive screen-and-refer outreach model [40], to systematically screen people of all ages, across the UK and beyond, with a stepped-care approach, tailoring treatment pathways to the needs of different individuals and groups [20, 41]. Those in need were initially identified by an email sent to concert ticket buyers, and are still referred, via promotion of the screening programme though traditional and social media, as well as approaches to professionals through occupational health departments (see below, Results | Implementation actions). At the hub, clinicians use an online screening tool incorporating online psychological measures, completed upon registration with the Hub, supplemented by telephone contact to assess need and triage [21, 42]. Invitations to repeat the screening are sent every 3 months.

Adult measures include the Trauma Screening Questionnaire [43], Generalised Anxiety Disorder 7 [44], Patient Health Questionnaire [45], and the Work and Social Adjustment Scale [46]. Children and Young People’s (CYP) measures include the Children’s Impact of Event scale [47], and subscales of the Revised Children’s Anxiety and Depression Scale [48] for depression, generalised anxiety disorder and separation anxiety. Established clinical thresholds are used to triage respondents; the most severe score is given priority where there is disagreement across measures. Adults at low risk are given normalisation messages and advice; those with moderate distress are encouraged to self-refer to their local ‘Improving Access to Psychological Therapies’ (IAPT) service, for brief, evidence-based, psychological interventions [49]. Adults with high levels of distress and all CYP are contacted by telephone, and referred to CYP or adult mental health services as appropriate. The Hub clinical team consists of degree-level recovery workers, who have received brief training around trauma and clinical records systems, and senior clinicians. Senior clinicians are clinical psychologists or therapists experienced in CBT or EMDR, and typically seconded from NHS mental health trusts around GM.

Objectives and theoretical perspectives

A clinical outcomes evaluation is presented elsewhere [50]. The objectives of this process evaluation were:

  • A logic model describing the resources and planning actions, necessary to implement parts of the seven-step model;

  • A process evaluation relating procedures [51] and context [52] to programmatic outcomes (numbers screened and in receipt of support);

  • An evaluation of how well Hub practices were embedded and sustained, using Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) [53, 54], a sociological theory of the middle range [55, 56]. This sociological concept of ‘normalisation’ should not be confused with the highly relevant psychiatric concept of ‘normalisation’, also discussed in the text, which refers to understanding intrusive and distressing thoughts as a natural part of cognitive processing while recovering from a trauma [38, 39].

Methods

Study design

Holistic single-case design with the unit of analysis at the level of the programme [57]. A Consolidated criteria for Reporting Qualitative studies (COREQ) checklist is provided as Additional file 1.

Development of programme theory

During the planning of the psychosocial response and its evaluation, a programme theory, expressing pathways essential for its success [58,59,60], was developed and revised through literature review, articulation of mental models, and interviews [61]. A logic model (Fig. 1), was drafted to express the programme theory in diagrammatic form [62, 63], with planning actions, resources and implementation actions based on Flynn's Leadership in Disasters framework [7]. The grey shaded areas represent Resilience Hub-specific activities in the recovery phase (equivalent to Table 2, Step 5).

Fig. 1
figure1

Idealised logic model for the wider collaboration. In the case study, the absence of a planning phase meant that planning actions were completed during the response phase. RAG Red-Amber-Green

Selection and withdrawal of evaluation participants

Key informants were drawn from the public sector (NHS, Education) and the Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise (VCSE) sector (specialist charities dealing with mental health or support of those affected by crime and terrorism). We sampled those involved in set up and planning (‘leaders’) and frontline workers (involved in implementation) for maximum variation [64] based on organisation and programme role. Further participants were sampled theoretically [65] based on information arising from the initial interviews. This included the use of snowball sampling [66] to confirm discrepant or divergent views [67].

Participants were directly invited, by telephone, e-mail, or face-to-face, sent the information sheet, consent form and Resilience Hub logic model. Four leaders expressed willingness to be interviewed, but were unavailable during the evaluation period. Another declined on the basis of not being closely enough involved. The final sample (Table 3) comprised 21 leaders and six frontline Hub workers (n = 6).

Table 3 Interviewees

Procedures

For leaders, DH conducted consent and interviews by telephone; for frontline staff, KA conducted these processes face-to-face or by telephone. Bespoke interview guides (Additional file 2) were developed for this study. Questions for leaders were based on a conceptual framework [55, 56] for ordering the actions and roles of leaders in disasters [7] and a synthetic framework summarising published theories of how organisations successfully collaborate [68]. Leaders were also asked to give feedback on the logic model. The topic guide for frontline workers contained questions based on NPT [53] and an abbreviated cognitive task analysis [69]. Interviews, which took a median of 69 (38–107) minutes, were digitally recorded on an encrypted machine and fully transcribed. Field notes were taken during and after interviews as required.

We used NVivo 11 (QSR International), to support a National Centre for Social Research ‘Framework’ approach to analysis [70]. DH and KA undertook all stages of the analysis of transcripts: familiarisation; identifying a thematic framework; indexing; charting; and, mapping and interpretation. Interviews were coded to the conceptual/theoretical frameworks that informed the relevant topic guides (Fig. 2), with one leader interview—which had a particular bearing on implementation—also coded within NPT [53]. Sample quotes coded to each construct of the conceptual/theoretical frameworks can be found in Additional file 3. DH and KA coded a sample of the transcripts, before conferring with other authors that the interpretations were plausible. In the results, logic model pathways are used to structure the responses of leaders which mainly related to the response stage. Minutes of meetings were consulted to enhance our understanding of the process and, where we found the over-lapping subject matter, we cross-referenced our findings with those of the Kerslake Report on the wider response to the incident [35].

Fig. 2
figure2

Conceptual frameworks used in the study

Results

We cross-refer to critical pathways on the logic model (Fig. 1) using hash (#) and arrow symbols. The logic model is idealised and simplified, including one element which should be undertaken, but was not (#2), and elements which were not in place until the recovery phase (#11–#14, #19, #22–#25). Findings associated with the Inter-Agency Collaboration Framework are detailed in Fig. 3; further explanation of the terms used in Fig. 3, and illustrative quotes, are given in Table 4.

Fig. 3
figure3

Findings based on the Inter-Agency Collaboration Framework

Table 4 Explanations for findings in the Inter-agency Collaboration Framework [68] (shown in Fig. 3)

Context

(Fig. 3.1). A collaborative spirit deriving from the HSCP (Fig. 3.4, 8) was evident in the close working relationships with counterparts at other organisations, the ability to ‘learn by doing’ [68] or ‘muddle through’ [71, 72] (Fig. 3.8), and the “muscle memory” (S03/F02) of partnership working, in pursuit of collaborative advantage [73, 74]. Commissioners were ambivalent about market mechanisms:

I don’t feel I need to worry about competitions… my job becomes one of finding the legal and other mechanisms to allow people to cooperate and work together (S03-F01).

The perceived status and legitimacy of leaders from existing networks, the HSCP and SCN, were critical in integrating the psychosocial response in the response phase (Fig. 4), in the absence of pre-incident planning (Fig. 3.3, 7). Under the UK Civil Contingencies Act, 2004, statutory responder services are obliged to conduct contingency planning through Local Resilience Forums (LRFs) [75]. GM LRF had not developed mental health response systems and mental health service providers were not included in pre-event simulations (Fig. 1 #2):

What was really clear immediately to me was that we should have been involved in the start with ‘Gold Command’ and that there should have been a pre-agreed plan…something really important about having a regular update, in anticipation of major incidents of where you’ve got capacity and how you can draw that in quickly (S02-F06).

Fig. 4
figure4

Timeline (response phase)

Planning and resources

Partnership working

An overall strategic co-ordinating group (Fig. 5) was attended by leaders from relevant agencies (health, criminal justice, etc.). At 07:30 on the day after the incident, one member of this group—the HSCP’s Executive Lead for Strategy and System Development—was asked to convene a ‘Recovery Group’ (Fig. 5) to integrate the psychosocial response to the incident (Fig. 1, #1 ↔ #3 → #8 → #16). Group membership was rapidly extended to health, education and VCSE contexts; a national trauma expert and a NHSE representative also attended. Guided by a whole-systems approach to supporting mental health difficulties [76], the Recovery Group attempted to harness a ‘network’ or ‘system’ to increase community and individual-level resilience during the response phase (Fig. 4). Services were fragmented on geographic and specialist (adult/CYPMH) lines with no single point of entry. So, leaders agreed that, during the recovery phase, they needed a more systematic, “robust way of screening… [and] assertively outreaching people… something that no other service was commissioned to do” (S02/F01; Fig. 1, #17/#18).

we knew that our job would be to identify the people who needed help and make sure that their local NHS services or other relevant services were able to deliver that help and be able to… help people navigate through the mental health system (S02/F04).

The Recovery Group convened task-and-finish subgroups on communication workforce and clinical pathways (Fig. 1, #4, #5, #6,). Psychoeducation and informative content were rapidly tailored into factsheets and communications strategies, ensuring that messages were evidence-based and effectively worded [77] (Fig. 1, #4 → #10). Based on the guidance of experts in the field, national guidance from 2006 [36] was modified to allow highly targeted, evidence-based early intervention [78] (Fig. 1, #6,). Published and unpublished data from different mass casualty incidents were considered (Table 1, [3, 79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86]), especially those from Omagh [87, 88], because of the number of children involved and the length of follow-up.

Fig. 5
figure5

Three committees involved in the response phase

The development of the Resilience Hub

An NHS trust director of operations for CYPMH, a consultant CYP psychiatrist, and the SCN Adult Mental Health Lead drafted clinical pathways [89, 90] for adults and CYP, harmonised to allow for a family-oriented approach and avoid a ‘postcode lottery’. They proposed that all local mental health care providers would provide trauma therapy-trained staff to a telephone/email-based screening/outreach programme (the ‘Resilience Hub’). Part-time secondments would preserve capacity in, and disseminate staff learning across, the system. An NHS trust Clinical and Professional Lead for Psychological Therapies and a consultant CYP psychiatrist identified bank IAPT staff trained in EMDR, trauma-focussed CBT and family therapy (Fig. 1, #5 → #13). An NHS trust Director of Operations for CYPMH and the SCN Mental Health Lead submitted a business case for the Resilience Hub to commissioners on a third committee, the Critical Incident Board (Fig. 5), covering the costs of workforce, training, infrastructure, screening, communications (Fig. 1, #11-#14, #17-#19). Following the development of the business case the Critical Incident Board approved the pathways after revisions, and handled contracting. GM CCGs and the HSCP agreed to underwrite £2.3 m for 3 years of screening and active support from June 2017 until funds from central government could be secured. The speed of decision making from the local system was crucial in enabling the hub to mobilise and commence screening at the 3 month time point. The activity was linked to an extension of an existing contract between the provider trust and one of their commissioners, who took on contract/performance reviews.

The HSCP approached the ticketing company for the names, addresses and e-mail addresses of those who had bought the 20,000 tickets (#8 → #9), for assertive outreach use by the Hub (#9 → #17). Precise specification of the purposes of use meant it took Caldicott guardians—senior individuals responsible for protecting the confidentiality of identifiable health and care data in the NHS [91]—and others seven weeks to finalise the data-sharing agreement.

The Service Co-ordinator and a consultant clinical psychologist from the veteran’s mental health service and a CAMHS Operations Director led the set-up of the Hub (Fig. 1, #1 → #11/#12). A room with appropriate cabling was secured. The ‘Patient Case Management Information System’ (PCMIS, University of York, York), already in use by the veteran’s service, was modified to capture screening data and support triage (#18 → #22 → #23).

Criticisms of the partnership working

The majority of VCSE leaders believed that the Recovery Group duplicated existing work and involved them insufficiently and brought them in too late to affect the design work. All of the VCSE leaders felt that the Recovery Group failed to understand their sector’s assets (Fig. 1, #1 ↔ #3 → #8 → #16; Fig. 3.1, 2, 6, 7). The majority believed the central offer “failed to take into account people with subclinical need” (S05/F01) in line with Ministry of Justice guidance [92]: the Recovery Group decided they did not have the evidence or resources to deliver something like the International Program for Promoting Adjustment and Resilience (interPAR) model [93] (Fig. 3.5).

Implementation actions

Partnership working

The Recovery Group held teleconferences, initially daily then weekly, often with over fifty attendees. Delegates provided situation reports from, and disseminated information out to, health, education and VCSE service contexts (Fig. 1, #15 ↔ #16; Fig. 6). They developed a register of those affected (Fig. 1, #8 → #9), including those supported by:

  • hospitals and emergency services;

  • police family liaison officers or bereavement counsellors,;

  • Rapid Assessment, Interface and Discharge (RAID) teams, specialist mental health services working in acute hospitals [94];

  • college counsellors; or,

  • charities/family liaison officers.

Fig. 6
figure6

Simplified information flow within the response system. Information flow within the response system prior to setup of the Resilience Hub (the majority of listed organisations also communicated information to the public)

Outreach

Specialist mental health providers offered support to patients, families and professionals at major acute hospitals in receipt of the injured (#25). In interviews, it was reported that health professionals caring for the wounded had no systematic support as they came off-shift. NHS occupational health departments would not allow mental health services to contact staff directly which “compromised” (S02/F03) the fidelity of the proposed care model; NHS staff were described as often “very wary of their own occupational health department” (S02-F06). Employers and RAID teams made ‘backdoor’ referrals but some interviewees felt that ad hoc support systems, such as a drop-in centre and help-line, were not well used; affected professionals tended to “minimise” and resort to presenteeism, possibly due to cultural factors including stigma [12,13,14,15].

Phased self-help information was sent out (#10 → #17), two and six weeks after the incident, through traditional media, social media, websites and schools. Statutory sector interviewees reported difficulty getting messages out ‘intact’ outside of the region and were concerned that the media’s coverage might be counter-productive [95,96,97]. Information for health professionals was disseminated via splash screens, pop-up software windows, to local NHS staff via their intranet.

In the absence of ticketing data, the Recovery Group was initially unaware that the majority of those affected were living outside of Manchester (pp. 111–112, [35]). The VCSE sector and family liaison officers supported some of the underserved into sharing experiences on a social networking service, and protesting at the absence of support (Fig. 6). Recovery Group members went to great lengths to, “get an equity of response outside of Manchester” (S02-F06) including asking companies who provided travel to the concert to fund private therapy (Fig. 1, #26). NHSE teleconferenced with strategic clinical networks in other areas of the country to address barriers to care and disseminate advice/materials (#16 → #17).

Training

With particular expertise in blast injury trauma, the Veteran’s Service played an immediate role in educating local clinical networks. Trauma-focused therapists and accredited supervisors were in short supply, so bespoke training workshops were arranged for CBT and EMDR trauma therapists (#6 → #14 → #19). Oversubscribed, the sessions were recorded and hosted by the Psychological Professions Network on a password protected webpage. At the time of writing, mental health providers were considering accessing training on the delivery of Schwartz Rounds [98,99,100] to help staff address the emotional aspects of work and preserve staff mental health (#19 → #27).

Inappropriate care from outside of the system

All statutory sector interviewees expressed concern about the inappropriate, early use of active therapies [101,102,103] (#15 ↔ #16). They felt their normalisation messages, such as “it’s okay not to feel okay”, calmed the impulse to ‘just do something’ [104] amongst health workers. They reported challenging unregulated groups from overseas (pp. 48, 111, 120 [35]) who had re-traumatised people through inappropriate early intervention:

I went to a meeting… to …bring together voluntary sector groups …every time we sat at a table with this particular group they got up and left, so they wouldn’t be challenged by us… some of those people [treated by the VCSE group] subsequently have come to the Hub and been quite damaged by what they were offered… (S02-F06).

Process outcomes

Reach

Systematic process outcome data collection was only undertaken as part of the Resilience Hub. There is disagreement on why the launch of the Resilience Hub was delayed, but there was late consideration of model’s appropriateness by senior civil servants, locally and nationally. The delay prevented a planned six-week mailout. Before the 3-month mailout, Hub procedures were piloted with first responders and some of the individuals who had protested at poor service access. At 31/07/2018, 1 year after the first mailout, over 7000 emails had been sent, inviting ticket purchasers and those referred from partner organisations to complete screening (#9 → #17 → #21). Of these, 3281 had completed screening (#22), 602 (18.3%) aged 0–15 years on that date, 275 (8.4%) aged 16–17 years and 2375 (72.4%) aged 18 years or over. At 31/07/2018, 79% of the individuals supported by the Resilience Hub lived outside of Greater Manchester. At 10/05/19, 66% of Hub clients had received individual phone and/or email support (#24). Table 5 illustrates the proportions of adults and CYP who had clinically significant screening questionnaire scores upon registration with the Hub. Hub staff, other clinicians, the police and VCSE workers also ran a series of targeted events for CYP, adults, and families, focused on normalising trauma responses, impact on relationships, connecting with those who have similar experiences, posttraumatic growth and resilience-building (#25).

Table 5 Proportion of adults and CYP at baseline with clinically significant mental health questionnaire scores, comparing Hub clients who registered within 3, 6, and 9 months of the attack

Governance

The Recovery Group continued as quarterly Resilience Hub Partnership Board, with a remit of: developing the Hub’s role; sharing intelligence on those affected; gauging pressures on staff wellbeing; resource use; giving voices to service users and stakeholders; building an evidence base and reporting mechanism. One VCSE interviewee characterised data presentations at the Partnership Board as “opaque”:

“mainly about … how many people have filled in the questionnaire and it’s really hard to work out how many people have actually had how much one-to-one support” (S05/F01).

Leader evaluation

The psychosocial response inevitably involved reconfiguration of scarce resources and tensions in responding to a surge in demand (Fig. 3.2, 3):

the message I sent out… was you will prioritise these folk because there is an evidence base whereby they are more vulnerable… I’m not overriding NHS rules about clinical priority what I was doing was on the base of clinical need (S03-F01).

a young girl was due to go to the concert… couldn’t make it because of an anxiety disorder, her friends went to the concert… ended up with CAMHS appointments… (S11/F01).

knowing what capacity we’ve got in the system … and how can it be freed, whilst also ensuring that your core business happens day to day because there was a backlash – minor – but there were some people who felt that this was this was taking staff away from basic core business (S02-F06).

when we second these staff into the Hub… it was difficult because… there’s a huge amount of pressure from… GM [for] hitting targets in IAPT.

As we have noted, VCSE sector interviewees all had criticisms of the programme, although two balanced this with praise: “everybody has … done an incredibly amazing job considering the size and scale of incident” (S11/F01). Statutory sector interviewees were overwhelmingly positive about the collaboration. All stressed (Fig. 3) how existing “system relationships” (S04-F02), and the social importance of the work [105] meant that people “leant in” (S09/F01). Any “reverting to type” (S02/F03)—for instance competition over ownership of work—was swiftly brokered by the “was brokered… by the partnership and by the commissioners” (S02/F03).

we were brought together because of the severity of the incident… and we managed to put aside our vested interest… by not collaborating you would just… allow a system to maintain its cracks through which people will fall. (S05-F06).

Interviews with Resilience Hub workers

Coherence: did the intervention make sense and ‘fit’?

Findings based on the NPT are summarised in Fig. 7; a Resilience-Hub-level logic model is provided in Fig. 8. Hub staff distinguished the Hub from other NHS services as “an all age service” with “a real focus on families that is aspirational in other services” (S02-F07). They described needing to convey their shared understanding of the Hub’s work to clients and other services, particularly around the Hub’s limited role in treatment. Staff had a clear sense of what was required of them, although several noted that this often changed. All constructed similar value for the Hub’s work:

it’s invaluable…the majority of clients…if I hadn’t have made that referral they wouldn’t be in services (S02/009).

Fig. 7
figure7

Findings based on normalisation process theory

Fig. 8
figure8

Logic model for Resilience Hub workers

Participation: how engaged and committed were providers?

Key individuals with expertise in working with adults, CYPs, trauma, leading services and commissioning drove forward the implementation of the Hub. Representation of non-NHS organisations on the Hub steering group was praised but representation of service-users and the emergency services (themselves service users) was felt to be insufficient by some. Staff described feeling “honoured” (S02/F07) or “privileged” (S02/F10) to work at the Hub; one related that insufficient cover in their permanent role had negatively impact on their working and personal life. All felt that it appropriate for them to be at the Hub, and that the supportive atmosphere kept them engaged.

Collective action: did the change occur and who did what?

Hub project management was responsive to lessons learnt and changing needs. As a result, informing staff on part-time secondment of changes to processes could be difficult. Team members, typically specialised in either CYP or adult work, built confidence in each other and the all-age model of work by sharing knowledge and skills. With training, peer support, and frequently updated processes, staff generally felt they had the relevant skills, although some outlined unmet training needs in, for instance, dealing with the media. Most participants described the Hub’s interface with other NHS services as the most difficult aspect the Hub’s work, for example, having to grasp the processes and eligibility criteria for services across the UK:

we’d spend quite a lot of time in the early days…trawling through websites and ringing service after service to find out which was the most appropriate…it was a lot of leg work (S02/009).

Hub workers had to gain credibility with GPs and local services in order to progress clients’ referrals. All participants described arranging access to trauma-focused interventions as the most time-consuming part of the job, particularly for clients living outside of Manchester.

trying to help people access the support they need in a timely fashion, has been a big frustration…I think the sticking points are, it seems to be about the capacity within services that we refer to. (S02/F10).

Key barriers included inflexible pathways that would only accept self- or GP referrals. The widespread geographical reach of the client base highlighted the variable provision of specialist therapy across the UK. Local service capacity was sometimes limited or non-existent; waiting times often exceeded NICE guidelines. Access was particularly difficult for CYPs, as “there’s no standardised waiting time criteria to get children seen” (S02/F13).

Reflexive monitoring: what change occurred—why or why not?

Processes were refined through data collection exercises, such as case note audits, that staff reviewed together. Client surveys generally returned positive feedback, and staff recorded informal client feedback. Staff acknowledged that the trajectory of clinical outcomes was difficult to attribute to the Hub. Participants evaluated the Hub very positively. A consistent observation was the Hub’s responsive and evolving nature. Continual service reconfiguration was needed to respond to the changing needs of clients and to emergent limitations, such as introducing home visits in response to the limitations of using telephone assessments for people with complex needs. Hub staff began to see clients for therapy “when we realised that some of the services in the North West weren’t able to meet the timescales for treatment and that people really struggle.” (S02/F13).

Discussion

This process evaluation expands upon and adds to the findings of the Kerslake Report. The findings are discussed below, with particular reference to their implications for actions and policy.

Planning and resources

The Greater Manchester response was generally viewed positively, considering the Local Resilience Forum’s plans for major incidents did not include mental health support (p197, [35]). In line with the Kerslake Review, “Emergency plans for major incidents should incorporate comprehensive contingencies for the provision of mental health support” (p. 197, [35]). In Manchester, trauma-focused therapists and accredited supervisors were in short supply; we therefore add that emergency planning should include regular assessment of workforce capacity, the production of on-call rotas, and anticipatory training. Simulation exercises are essential to test local arrangements for co-ordination and delivery of the mental health response and address any identified gaps.

The financial impact on the local health economy of setting up the Hub is much bigger than areas would be able to absorb. There needs to be agreement between local and national commissioners and strategic leads as to how additional funding is identified in a timely manner to ensure appropriate resourcing of the mental health response.

Data and information sharing

Considerable efforts were necessary to identify and approach those affected with offers of mental health support, although the Civil Contingencies Act (CCA) 2004 allows the suspension of normal data protection procedures and the sharing of individual identifiable data. “Responders have a duty to share information with partner organisations” (p15, [77]) and “should be robust in asserting their power to share personal data lawfully in emergency planning, response and recovery situations” (p8, [106]).

Pre-existing partnership and network arrangements enabled swift, research-based development of policy, messages and materials. Up to date materials should be made accessible by the NHS England EPPR team. Local government websites can be of variable quality as strategic communicative tools for the promotion of resilience [107], and the integrity of their information should be regularly assessed.

Collaborative working

The basic seven-step model for designing and delivering the psychosocial response to a disaster (Table 2) [8] is unaffected by this evaluation, which reinforces the need to engage the right people at the right time. In this regard, the VCSE and statutory sectors have mutually corrective roles in providing routes for people in need to appropriate care (Table 2, Step 4).

Statutory sector leaders raised concerns about the inappropriate delivery of early therapy by some VCSE workers; the majority of VCSE leaders believed the health sector’s model resulted in unmet need in those whose symptom severity was below clinical thresholds for treatment. This predictable conflict over scope and status [68], was ameliorated in some parts of the response network through a culture of collaboration and close working relationships between sectors. The VCSE sector and the NHS outside of Greater Manchester remained less well integrated into the response network, despite efforts to improve information flow or referral quality and time.

The Home Office’s Victims of Terrorism Unit has been tasked with identifying and consolidating support pathways for those affected by terrorist attacks, and since the incident a VCS pathway has been developed for organisations including 3rd Sector building on the work from Manchester and London.

Leadership and workforce development

The development of the psychosocial and mental health response to the Manchester Arena attack has required leaders to communicate across organisational boundaries to deliver a shared vision working across agencies and systems. The Resilience Hub has provided an opportunity to develop trauma-based expertise within GM including the provision of training and resources. Staffing has initially relied on secondment of existing clinicians from across GM. Long-term sustainability of the Hub model will need to be considered, particularly on stepping down to local services. Trauma training and workforce development is required across community and specialist services in preparation for any future major incident.

Practical support for professionals and first responders should be integrated into response and recovery phases, and pathways developed to ensure that offers of support reach the people who may be affected. Cultural factors are likely to affect professionals in reporting mental health symptoms and engaging with mental health services. Subsequently, senior managers, HR and occupational health should consider formal and informal opportunities to support staff including; debriefs, drop-ins, Schwartz Rounds and support via primary care and community services so that services are sustainable over the long-term.

Further research

Evaluation of the longitudinal trajectories of participants’ mental health responses to the Arena incident is planned, through a retrospective case series using individuals’ screening scores at multiple time points post-incident. Cohorts of individuals will be identified according to mental health trajectory, client group (CYPs, adults, and professionals), and time at which clients registered with the Hub. The Hub’s acceptability and economic impact will be assessed.

Taking the Kerslake Review’s findings on board, further research is needed to understand the range of individual reasons why some individuals had not received mental health report several months after the review and why some of those who did found the response unacceptable.

The sudden nature of contingencies makes researching the response to them difficult [108, 109]. However, employing national research infrastructure, studies can be prearranged and left in ‘hibernation’ pending an incident [110]. Researchers should plan research to understand how the materials and processes designed by the Resilience Hub can be implemented in a shorter time period, involving national authorities and research infrastructure organisations.

Conclusions

All statutory sector and all but one third-sector interviewees considered the Resilience Hub a success given the absence of pre-event planning. Lessons, particularly regarding system development and integration, have been outlined, and implications for planning and policy explored. Any response to large-scale trauma must include an appropriately resourced mental health component embedded within the emergency response plan (EPRR), including consideration of support for professionals and first responders. The response should include all key stakeholders including local and national third sector agencies. The ability to transcend organisational and agency boundaries is crucial and requires leadership, collaborative working and an infrastructure to support data sharing and governance through pre-agreed arrangements. 

Availability of data and materials

Requests for further data not available in this publication can be directed to Daniel Hind, at the School of Health and Related Research. Email: d.hind@sheffield.ac.uk Tel: 0114 222 0707.

Abbreviations

CAMHS:

Children and Adolescent Mental Health Services

CBT:

Cognitive behavioural therapy

CCG:

Clinical Commissioning Group

CYP:

Children and young people

EMDR:

Eye movement desensitisation and reprocessing therapy

EPRR:

Emergency preparedness response and recovery

GM:

Greater Manchester

HSCP:

Health and social care partnership, organisation formed as part of the integration of services

IAC:

Inter-agency collaboration

IAPT:

Improving access to psychological therapies

LID:

Leadership in disasters

LRF:

Local resilience forum

NHS:

National Health Service

NPT:

Normalisation process theory

PTSD:

Post-traumatic stress disorder

RAG:

Red-Amber-Green

SCN:

Alliances of healthcare providers and commissioners which aim to improve quality and equity of care in priority service areas

VCSE:

Voluntary, community and social enterprise

References

  1. 1.

    Sandler T. The analytical study of terrorism: taking stock. J Peace Res. 2014;51:257–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343313491277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    García-Vera MP, Sanz J, Gutiérrez S. A systematic review of the literature on posttraumatic stress disorder in victims of terrorist attacks. Psychol Rep. 2016;119:328–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294116658243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Strelitz J, Lawrence C, Lyons-Amos C, et al. A journey of recovery supporting health & wellbeing for the communities impacted by the Grenfell Tower fire disaster. This report Report authors and contributors. London: Bi-borough Public Health Department; 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Norris FH, Friedman MJ, Watson PJ. 60,000 disaster victims speak: Part II. Summary and implications of the disaster mental health research. Psychiatry. 2002;65:240–60. https://doi.org/10.1521/psyc.65.3.240.20169.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Ellenberg E, Taragin MI, Hoffman JR, et al. Lessons from analyzing the medical costs of civilian terror victims: planning resources allocation for a new era of confrontations. Milbank Q. 2017;95:783–800. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.12299.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Whalley MG, Brewin CR. Mental health following terrorist attacks. Br J Psychiatry. 2007;190:94–6. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.106.026427.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Flynn BW, Bushnell P, Lurie N, et al. Leadership in disasters. In: Ursano RJ, Fullerton CS, Weisaeth L, et al., editors. Textbook of disaster psychiatry. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2017. p. 285–97.

    Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Williams R, Kemp V. Principles for designing and delivering psychosocial and mental healthcare. BMC Mil Health. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1136/jramc-2017-000880.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Williams R, Bisson JI, Kemp V, Ursano RJ, Fullerton CS, Weisaeth L. Health care planning for community disaster care. In: Textbook of disaster psychiatry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2017. p. 244–60.

  10. 10.

    Bonanno GA, Brewin CR, Kaniasty K, et al. Weighing the costs of disaster: consequences, risks, and resilience in individuals, families, and communities. Psychol Sci Public Interes Suppl. 2010;11:1–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100610387086.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Bryant RA, Nickerson A, Creamer M, et al. Trajectory of post-traumatic stress following traumatic injury: 6-year follow-up. Br J Psychiatry. 2015;206:417–23. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.114.145516.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Royle L, Keenan P, Farrell D. Issues of stigma for first responders accessing support for post traumatic stress. Int J Emerg Ment Health. 2009;11:79–85.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Corrigan PW, Druss BG, Perlick DA. The impact of mental illness stigma on seeking and participating in mental health care. Psychol Sci Public Interes. 2014;15:37–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100614531398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Kronenberg M, Osofsky HJ, Osofsky JD, et al. First responder culture: implications for mental health professionals providing services following a natural disaster. Psychiatr Ann. 2008;38:114–8. https://doi.org/10.3928/00485713-20080201-05.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Shubert J, Ritchie EC, Everly GS, et al. A missing element in disaster mental health: behavioral health surveillance for first responders. Int J Emerg Ment Health. 2007;9:201–13.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Perrin MA, DiGrande L, Wheeler K, et al. Differences in PTSD prevalence and associated risk factors among World Trade Center disaster rescue and recovery workers. Am J Psychiatry. 2007;164:1385–94. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2007.06101645.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Fullerton CS, Ursano RJ, Wang L. Acute stress disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, and depression in disaster or rescue workers. Am J Psychiatry. 2004;161:1370–6. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.161.8.1370.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Alvarez J, Hunt M. Risk and resilience in canine search and rescue handlers after 9/11. J Trauma Stress. 2005;18:497–505. https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.20058.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Department of Health. NHS Emergency Planning Guidance: Planning for the psychosocial and mental health care of people affected by major incidents and disasters: Interim national strategic guidance 30–7–2009.DH. 2009.

  20. 20.

    Ruzek JI. Models of early intervention following mass violence and other trauma. In: Ritchie EC, Watson PJ, Friedman MJ, editors. Interventions following mass violence and disasters: strategies for mental health practice. New York: The Guilford Press; 2006. p. 16–34.

    Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Williams R, Bisson J, Kemp V. Principles for responding to people’s psychosocial and mental health needs after disasters. Occas Pap R Coll Psychiatr. 2014;94:1–38.

    Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Litz BT, Gibson LE. Conducting resesarch on mental health interventions. In: Ritchie EC, Watson PJ, Friedman MJ, editors. Interventions following mass violence and disasters. New York, NY: The Guilford Press; 2006. p. 387–404.

    Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Slone M, Mann S. Effects of war, terrorism and armed conflict on young children: a systematic review. Child Psychiatry Hum Dev. 2016;47:950–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-016-0626-7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Edwards N. Using markets to reform health care. BMJ. 2005;331:1464–6. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.331.7530.1464.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Turner D, Powell T. NHS Commissioning before April 2013. Briefing paper CBP 05607. London: House of Commons Library; 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Nichol A, Coss CH, Brower RC. Hudson. 2007;35:1620–2.

    Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Walshe K, Coleman A, McDonald R, et al. Health and social care devolution: the Greater Manchester experiment. BMJ. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i1495.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Dickinson H. The evaluation of health and social care partnerships: an analysis of approaches and synthesis for the future. Heal Soc Care Community. 2006;14:375–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2524.2006.00650.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Naylor C, Curry N, Holder H, et al. Clinical commissioning groups: supporting improvement in general practice? London: King’s Fun; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Zachariadis M, Oborn E, Barrett M, et al. Leadership of healthcare commissioning networks in England: a mixed-methods study on clinical commissioning groups. BMJ Open. 2013;3:e002112. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2012-002112.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Glasper A. The Government’s mandate to NHS England for 2018–19. Br J Nurs. 2018;27:512–3. https://doi.org/10.12968/bjon.2018.27.9.512.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Edwards N. Implementation of the health and social care act. BMJ. 2013;346:f2090–f2090. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f2090.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    NHS Commissioning Board. The way forward: strategic clinical networks. London: NHS Commissioning Board; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Spencer A, Ewing C, Cropper S. Making sense of strategic clinical networks. Arch Dis Child. 2013;98:843–5. https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2013-303976.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Kerslake B. The Kerslake Report: An independent review into the preparedness for, and emergency response to, the Manchester Arena attack on 22nd May 2017. Manchester: 2018. https://www.kerslakearenareview.co.uk/

  36. 36.

    National Institute for Clnical Excellence. Post-traumatic stress disorder: the management of PTSD in adults and children in primary and secondary care (CG26). London: NICE; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Hobfoll SE, Bryant R, Layne CM, et al. Five essential elements of immediate and mid-term mass trauma intervention: empirical evidence five essential elements of immediate and mid-term mass trauma intervention: empirical evidence. Psychiatry. 2007;70:283–316. https://doi.org/10.1521/psyc.2007.70.4.283.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Steil R, Ehlers A. Dysfunctional meaning of posttraumatic intrusions in chronic PTSD. Behav Res Ther. 2000;38:537–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7967(99)00069-8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Ehlers A, Clark DM. A cognitive model of posttraumatic stress disorder. Behav Res Ther. 2000;38:319–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7967(99)00123-0.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Houston JB, First J, Spialek ML, et al. Public disaster communication and child and family disaster mental health: a review of theoretical frameworks and empirical evidence. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-016-0690-5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Bisson JI, Tavakoly B, Witteveen AB, et al. TENTS guidelines: development of post-disaster psychosocial care guidelines through a Delphi process. Br J Psychiatry. 2010;196:69–74. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.109.066266.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Interagency Standing Committee (IASC). IASC guidelines on mental health and psychosocial support in emergency settings. 2007. https://doi.org/10.1037/e518422011-002.

  43. 43.

    Brewin CR, Rose S, Andrews B, et al. Brief screening instrument for post-traumatic stress disorder. Br J Psychiatry. 2002;181:158–62.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Spitzer RL, Kroenke K, Williams JBW, et al. A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166:1092. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.166.10.1092.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Kroenke K, Spitzer RL. The PHQ-9: a new depression diagnostic and severity measure. Psychiatr Ann. 2002;32:509–15. https://doi.org/10.3928/0048-5713-20020901-06.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Mundt JC, Marks IM, Shear MK, et al. The Work and Social Adjustment Scale: a simple measure of impairment in functioning. Br J Psychiatry. 2002;180:461–4.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Horowitz M, Wilner N, Alvarez W. Impact of Event Scale: a measure of subjective stress. Psychosom Med. 1979;41:209–18.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Chorpita BF, Yim L, Moffitt C, et al. Assessment of symptoms of DSM-IV anxiety and depression in children: a revised child anxiety and depression scale. Behav Res Ther. 2000;38:835–55.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Murray H. Evaluation of a trauma-focused CBT training programme for IAPT services. Behav Cogn Psychother. 2017;45:467–82. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1352465816000606.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    French P, Barrett A, Allsopp K, et al. Psychological screening of adults and young people following the Manchester Arena incident. BJPsych Open. 2019;5:e85. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjo.2019.61.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Stufflebeam DL, Theory S, Jun TI, et al. A depth study of the evaluation requirement. Theory Pract. 1966;5:121–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405846609542011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Moore GF, Audrey S, Barker M, et al. Process evaluation of complex interventions: Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2015;350:h1258–h1258. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h1258.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    May C, Finch T. Implementing, embedding, and integrating practices: an outline of normalization process theory. Sociology. 2009;43:535–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038509103208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    May CR, Mair F, Finch T, et al. Development of a theory of implementation and integration: normalization process theory. Implement Sci. 2009;4:29. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-4-29.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Fawcett J. An overview of conceptual models, theories, and research. In: Fawcett J, editor. The relationship of theory and research. Philadelphia, PA: F.A. Davis; 1999. p. 1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Nilsen P. Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks. Implement Sci. 2015;10:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0242-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Yin RK. Designing case studies: identifying your case(s) and establishing the logic of your case study. In: Case study research: design and methods. London: Sage; 2014. pp 27–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-096682-3.10005-8

  58. 58.

    Donaldson S, Lipsey M. Roles for theory in contemporary evaluation practice: developing practical knowledge. In: Shaw I, Greene J, Mark M, editors. The handbook of evaluation: policies, programs, and practices. London: Sage; 2006. p. 56–75.

    Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Coryn CLS, Noakes LA, Westine CD, et al. A systematic review of theory-driven evaluation practice from 1990 to 2009. Am J Eval. 2010;32:199–226. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214010389321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Leeuw FL, Donaldson SI. Theory in evaluation: reducing confusion and encouraging debate. Evaluation. 2015;21:467–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389015607712.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Funnell SC, Rogers PJ. Purposeful program theory: effective use of theories of change and logic models. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    McLaughlin JA, Jordan GB. Logic models: a tool for telling your programs performance story. Eval Program Plan. 1999;22:65–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-7189(98)00042-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    W.K. Kellogg Foundation. Logic model development guide. Battle Creek, Michigan: W.K. Kellogg Foundation 2004. http://www.wkkf.org/knowledge-center/resources/2006/02/WK-Kellogg-Foundation-Logic-Model-Development-Guide.aspx.

  64. 64.

    Patton MQ. Purposeful sampling. In: Patton MQ, editor. Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage; 1990. p. 169–86.

    Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Coyne IT. Sampling in qualitative research. Purposeful and theoretical sampling; merging or clear boundaries? J Adv Nurs. 1997;26:623–30. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.1997.t01-25-00999.x.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. 66.

    Marshall MN. Sampling for qualitative research. Fam Pract. 1996;13:522–5. https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/13.6.522.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. 67.

    Morrow SL. Quality and trustworthiness in qualitative research in counseling psychology. J Couns Psychol. 2005;52:250–60. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. 68.

    Hudson B, Hardy B, Henwood M, et al. In pursuit of inter-agency collaboration in the public sector. Public Manag Rev. 1999;1:235–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719039900000005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. 69.

    Crandall B, Klein G, Hoffman R. Working minds: a practitioner’s guide to cognitive task analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2006.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  70. 70.

    Ritchie J, Spencer L. Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. In: Bryman A, Burgess RG, editors. Analysing qualitative data. London: Routledge; 1994. p. 173–94.

    Google Scholar 

  71. 71.

    Lindblom C. The science of “muddling through.” In: Stein JM, editor. Classic readings in urban planning. London: Routledge; 2018. p. 31–40.

    Google Scholar 

  72. 72.

    Lowndes V. ‘We are learning to accommodate mess’: four propositions about management change in local governance. Public Policy Adm. 1997;12:80–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/095207679701200207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. 73.

    Huxham C, Macdonald D. Introducing collaborative advantage: achieving inter-organizational effectiveness through meta-strategy. Manag Decis. 1992;30:00251749210013104. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251749210013104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. 74.

    Kanter RM. Collaborative advantage: the art of alliances. Harv Bus Rev. 1994;72:96–108.

    Google Scholar 

  75. 75.

    Oldham K, Astbury K. Evolution of disaster risk governance in Greater Manchester: a case study from the UK. Procedia Eng. 2018;212:7–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2018.01.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. 76.

    Wolpert M, Harris R, Hodges S, et al. THRIVE elaborated. London: CAMHS Press; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  77. 77.

    England NHS. NHS England emergency preparedness, resilience and response framework. London: NHS England; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  78. 78.

    Meiser-Stedman R, Smith P, McKinnon A, et al. Cognitive therapy as an early treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder in children and adolescents: a randomized controlled trial addressing preliminary efficacy and mechanisms of action. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2017;58:623–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12673.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  79. 79.

    Gartenstein-Ross D, Moreng B. Tunisian Jihadism after the Sousse Massacre. CTC Sentin. 2015;8:14.

    Google Scholar 

  80. 80.

    Young MA. Transnational organised crime monthly briefing, July 2015: Attack on tourists in Port El Kantaoui highlights threat of terrorism and organised crime in Tunisia. Open Brief 2015.

  81. 81.

    Gobin M, Rubin GJ, Albert I, et al. Outcomes of mental health screening for United Kingdom Nationals affected by the 2015–2016 terrorist attacks in Tunisia, Paris, and Brussels. J Traum Stress. 2018;31:471–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.22317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. 82.

    De Stefano C, Orri M, Agostinucci JM, et al. Early psychological impact of Paris terrorist attacks on healthcare emergency staff: a cross-sectional study. Depress Anxiety. 2018;35:275–82. https://doi.org/10.1002/da.22724.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  83. 83.

    Vandentorren S, Pirard P, Sanna A, et al. Healthcare provision and the psychological, somatic and social impact on people involved in the terror attacks in January 2015 in Paris: Cohort study. Br J Psychiatry. 2018;212:207–14. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.2017.63.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  84. 84.

    Carles M, Levraut J, Gonzalez JF, et al. Mass casualty events and health organisation: terrorist attack in Nice. Lancet. 2016;388:2349–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32128-6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  85. 85.

    Hunt P. Lessons identified from the 2017 Manchester and London terrorism incidents Part 3: the postincident and recovery phase. J R Army Med Corps. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1136/jramc-2018-000936.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  86. 86.

    Confederation NHS. When tragedy strikes reflections on the NHS response to the. London: NHS Confederation; 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  87. 87.

    Duffy M, McDermott M, Percy A, et al. The effects of the Omagh bomb on adolescent mental health: a school-based study. BMC Psychiatry. 2015;15:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-015-0398-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. 88.

    Duffy M, Bolton D, Gillespie K, et al. A community study of the psychological effects of the Omagh car bomb on adults. PLoS ONE. 2013;8:e76618. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0076618.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  89. 89.

    Chitsabesan P, Barnes S, French P, et al. Manchester incident resilience pathway for children and young people: phase 2 guidance (provision of psychosocial and mental health care): multi-agency care pathway for children and young people affected by the Manchester Arena Incident. Manchester: Greater Manchester Combined Authority 2017. https://gmecscn.nhs.uk/attachments/article/572/ManchesterCYPA4_03-07.pdf. Accessed 25 Oct 2018.

  90. 90.

    French P, Ahmad M, Barnes S, et al. Manchester Incident Resilience Pathway for Adults (MIrP-Adult): Multi-agency care pathway for adults affected by the Manchester Bombing (May 2017). Manchester: Greater Manchester Combined Authority 2017. https://www.gmecscn.nhs.uk/attachments/article/572/ArenaAdultguidanceA4_03–07.pdf. Accessed 25 Oct 2018.

  91. 91.

    Greenough A, Graham H. Protecting and using patient information: the role of the Caldicott Guardian. Clin Med. 2004;4:246–9. https://doi.org/10.7861/clinmedicine.4-3-246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. 92.

    UK Ministry of Justice. Code of practice for victims of crime: Presented to Parliament pursuant to section 33 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004. London: HM Stationary Office 2015.

  93. 93.

    Forbes D, O’Donnell M, Bryant RA. Psychosocial recovery following community disasters: an international collaboration. Aust New Zeal J Psychiatry. 2017;51:660–2. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004867416679737.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. 94.

    Tadros G, Salama RA, Kingston P, et al. Impact of an integrated rapid response psychiatric liaison team on quality improvement and cost savings: the Birmingham RAID model. Psychiatrist. 2013;37:4–10. https://doi.org/10.1192/pb.bp.111.037366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. 95.

    Pfefferbaum B, Doughty DE, Reddy C, et al. Exposure and peritraumatic response as predictors of posttraumatic stress in children following the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. J Urban Health. 2002;79:354–63. https://doi.org/10.1093/jurban/79.3.354.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  96. 96.

    Fremont WP. Childhood reactions to terrorism-induced trauma: a review of the past 10 years. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2004;43:381–92. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004583-200404000-00004.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  97. 97.

    Neria Y, Gross R, Litz B, et al. Prevalence and psychological correlates of complicated grief among bereaved adults 2.5–3.5 years after September 11th attacks. J Trauma Stress. 2007;20:251–62. https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.20223.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  98. 98.

    George MS. Stress in NHS staff triggers defensive inward-focussing and an associated loss of connection with colleagues: this is reversed by Schwartz Rounds. J Compassionate Health Care. 2016;3:9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40639-016-0025-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. 99.

    Johal S. Kindling kindness for compassionate disaster management. PLoS Curr. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1371/currents.dis.078959ba72f0d133cd2d8fd7c7d9b23d.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  100. 100.

    Goodrich J. Supporting hospital staff to provide compassionate care: do Schwartz Center Rounds work in English hospitals? J R Soc Med. 2012;105:117–22. https://doi.org/10.1258/jrsm.2011.110183.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  101. 101.

    Bisson JI, McFarlane A, Rose S. Psychological debriefing. In: Foa EB, Keane TM, Friedman MJ, editors. Effective treatments for PTSD: practice guidelines from the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2000. p. 317–9.

    Google Scholar 

  102. 102.

    Bisson JI, Jenkins PL, Alexander J, et al. Randomised controlled trial of psychological debriefing for victims of acute burn trauma. Br J Psychiatry. 1997;171:78–81.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  103. 103.

    McNally RJ, Bryant RA, Ehlers A. Does early psychological intervention promote recovery from posttraumatic stress? Psychol Sci Public Interest. 2003;4:45–79. https://doi.org/10.1111/1529-1006.01421.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  104. 104.

    Doust J, Del MC. Why do doctors use treatments that do not work? BMJ. 2004;328:474–5.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  105. 105.

    Benson JK. The interorganizational network as a political economy. Adm Sci Q. 1975;20:229–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  106. 106.

    HM Government. Data protection and sharing—guidance for emergency planners and responders non-statutory guidance to complement emergency preparedness and emergency response & recovery. London: HM Stationary Office; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  107. 107.

    Herbane B. Communications about resilience enhancing activities by English local authorities: an evaluation of online content. Public Manag Rev. 2011;13:919–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2011.589611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  108. 108.

    Rosen CS, Young HE, Norris FH. On a road paved with good intentions, you still need a compass. In: Ritchie EC, Watson PJ, Friedman MJ, editors. Interventions following mass violence and disasters: strategies for mental health practice. New York: The Guilford Press; 2006. p. 206–23.

    Google Scholar 

  109. 109.

    Litz BTBT, Gibson LELE. Conducting research health interventions on mental health. In: Ritchie EC, Watson PJ, Friedman MJ, editors. Interventions following mass violence and disasters: strategies for mental health practice. New York, NY: The Guilford Press; 2006. p. 387–404.

    Google Scholar 

  110. 110.

    Goodacre S, Irving A, Wilson R, et al. The PAndemic INfluenza Triage in the Emergency Department (PAINTED) pilot cohort study. Health Technol Assess (Rockv). 2015;19:1–70. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta19030.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  111. 111.

    Drury J, Cocking C, Reicher S. The nature of collective resilience: survivor reactions to the 2005 London bombings. Int J Mass Emerg Disasters. 2009;27:66–95.

    Google Scholar 

  112. 112.

    Rubin GJ, Brewin CR, Greenberg N, et al. Psychological and behavioural reactions to the bombings in London on 7 July 2005: cross sectional survey of a representative sample of Londoners. Br Med J. 2005;331:606–11. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38583.728484.3A.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  113. 113.

    Brewin CR, Fuchkan N, Huntley Z, et al. Outreach and screening following the 2005 London bombings: usage and outcomes. Psychol Med. 2010;40:2049–57. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291710000206.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  114. 114.

    Van Ostaeyen P. Belgian radical networks and the road to the Brussels attacks. CTC Sentin. 2016;9:7–12.

    Google Scholar 

  115. 115.

    Alter C, Hage J. Organizations working together. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc; 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  116. 116.

    Gray B. Conditions facilitating interorganizational collaboration. Hum Relat. 1985;38:911–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  117. 117.

    Newman J. Beyond the vision: cultural change in the public sector. Public Money Manag. 1994;14:59–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  118. 118.

    Meek VL. Organizational culture: origins and weaknesses. Organ Stud. 1988;9:453–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  119. 119.

    Pettigrew AM, Ferlie E, McKee L. Shaping strategic change: making change in large organizations: the case of the National Health Service. London: Sage Publications; 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  120. 120.

    Huxham C, Vangen SE. Naivety and maturity, inertia and fatigue: are working relationships between public organisations doomed to fail? Glasgow: Strathclyde Business School; 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  121. 121.

    Powell W. Neither market nor hierarchy: network forms of organisation. In: Frances J, Levacic R, Mitchell J, editors. The coordination of social life. London: Sage; 1991. p. 265–76.

    Google Scholar 

  122. 122.

    Spitzer RL, Kroenke K, Williams JBW, et al. A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: the GAD-7. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166:1092–7. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.166.10.1092.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  123. 123.

    Perrin S, Meiser-Stedman R, Smith P. The Children’s Revised Impact of Event Scale (CRIES): validity as a screening instrument for PTSD. Behav Cogn Psychother. 2005;33:487. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1352465805002419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  124. 124.

    Chorpita BF, Ebesutani C, Spence SH. Revised Children’s Anxiety and Depression Scale User’s Guide. 2015;1–34.

  125. 125.

    French P, Barrett A, Allsopp K, et al. Psychological screening of adults and young people following the Manchester Arena incident. BJPsych Open. 2019;5(5):e85. https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S2056472419000619/type/journal_article.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the participants who offered us their time.

Funding

This report presents independent research funded by the Department of Health. The views and opinions expressed by authors in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Department of Health.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

PF (Associate Director, Psychosis Research Unit) and PC (Consultant Psychiatrist, Young People’s Mental Health Research Unit) conceived the work. PF, PC, DH (Professor of Evaluation, ScHARR) and KA (Research Associate, Complex Trauma and Resilience Research Unit) designed the work. DH and KA acquired and analysed the data. PF, PC, DH and KA interpreted the data. DH and KA drafted the work. PF and PC substantially revised the work. PF, PC, DH and KA approved the submitted substantially modified versions of the work. PF, PC, DH and KA have agreed both to be personally accountable for their own contributions and to ensure that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work, even ones in which the they were not personally involved, are appropriately investigated, resolved, and the resolution documented in the literature. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel Hind.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study received ethical approval from the North West—Greater Manchester East Research Ethics Committee (18/NW/0188). Written informed consent was obtained prior to participation.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1

. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative studies (COREQ) checklist.

Additional file 2

. Interview guides.

Additional file 3

. Sample quotes coded to each construct of the utilised conceptual/theoretical frameworks.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hind, D., Allsopp, K., Chitsabesan, P. et al. The psychosocial response to a terrorist attack at Manchester Arena, 2017: a process evaluation. BMC Psychol 9, 22 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-021-00527-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • Process evaluation
  • Mental health
  • Psychosocial response
  • Terrorist attack
\