Virtual Wards (VWs) facilitate hospital-level monitoring, diagnostics and treatment within patients’ homes, while the hospital team retains responsibility for care. International research indicates that VWs decrease hospital length of stay without increasing readmissions; however, the feasibility and key operational determinants within Dutch care remain uncertain. This protocol outlines the VW for Early Discharge in Patients Receiving Inpatient Care (VIP Care) study.

The VIP Care study is a single-centre prospective feasibility cohort study conducted at Erasmus University Medical Center (Erasmus MC), Rotterdam, the Netherlands. The study encompasses seven predefined subcohorts with n=51 eligible patients per subcohort: (1) bacterial, fungal or parasitic infections; (2) viral respiratory infections; (3) dehydration; (4) decompensated heart failure; (5) high-dose corticosteroid treatment; (6) post-transsphenoidal pituitary surgery follow-up and (7) severe inflammatory skin disease with or without bacterial or viral superinfection. Adults who require hospital-level monitoring and/or therapy may qualify for early discharge to the VW.

The VW integrates scheduled, patient-performed measurements using (European Conformity) CE-marked devices with structured symptom assessment submitted via a patient application, and data review in an electronic health record-integrated clinician cockpit. Submissions are evaluated by VW tele-nurses using prespecified Early Warning Score based thresholds and an escalation protocol. Patients receive a daily physician telephone review. Diagnostics and treatments are administered at home to hospital standards through established home-care services.

The primary outcome (feasibility) is adherence to transfer, defined as the proportion of eligible inpatients who provide written informed consent and are subsequently successfully transferred to the VW. The prespecified feasibility threshold is 30%. Secondary outcomes include reach (eligibility, invitation and consent rates among admitted patients), operational performance during the VW episode (alert frequency and handling, contact volumes and actions), length of stay on the ward and in the VW, emergency department reassessments and 30-day readmissions. Qualitative interviews will be conducted to identify implementation determinants.

The study received approval from the Erasmus MC Medical Ethics Committee (MEC-2024–0060; amendment MEC-2024–0060 A0001). Incremental risk is considered minimal. Written informed consent is obtained. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and an accessible lay summary.

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06936891; CCMO NL85516.078.24. Recruitment began in May 2025 and is ongoing.

Mental illness typically onsets during the developmental stages from adolescence to emerging adulthood (ages 15–24 years), referred to as ‘youth’. A subset of youth with mental illness may be identified as having ‘complex’ mental health needs, defined based on requiring prolonged, extensive and resource-intensive services across multiple sectors, functional impairment, and comorbid challenges or multimorbidity . Effective early intervention for youth with complex mental illness is crucial to prevent the sequelae of long-term mental health problems. Several resource-intensive outpatient models have been developed to meet the needs of youth with complex mental illness; however, to the best of our knowledge, no scoping review has synthesised the available evidence on these interventions. A comprehensive synthesis of existing intensive outpatient interventions is needed to identify, target and inform future research and clinical efforts to better serve youth with complex mental illness. As such, the proposed scoping review will address the following research questions: (1) What intensive outpatient interventions have been evaluated for youth with complex mental illness? (2) To which populations are these interventions targeted? and (3) What outcomes have been examined within the context of these models?

This review will follow the Arksey and O’Malley framework for scoping reviews, and we will report the results following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) recommendations. We will conduct a comprehensive literature search across seven academic databases to identify relevant peer-reviewed material in English from 1990 to the present. Inclusion criteria will address evaluations of outpatient models of care with intensive components targeted to youth ages 15–24 with features of complex mental illness. Studies will be screened independently for eligibility by two reviewers in Covidence using clear inclusion criteria. We will then collate, summarise and present the findings to provide a comprehensive overview of the existing evidence.

Ethical approval will not be required, as no data will be collected for the proposed project. Results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed articles, presented at conferences and shared with stakeholders to inform the development, implementation and evaluation of comprehensive transdiagnostic services targeting youth with complex mental illness.

To investigate discrepancies in perceptions regarding the accessibility and availability of rest and relaxation (R&R) spaces between hospital doctors in Scotland and NHS Scotland regional health boards (HBs), with the intention of informing best practices for organisational policy on the provision of R&R spaces both now and in the future.

A qualitative study, through an inhabited institutionalism (II) lens, of semi-structured interviews of hospital doctors across the career continuum in Scotland and all NHS regional HBs in Scotland providing written information relating to R&R space provision.

NHS Scotland during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond.

Hospital doctors (n=30) who had participated in a larger qualitative study and provided specific insights on R&R spaces. All NHS Scotland regional HBs (n=14).

Although HBs reported the provision of R&R spaces, numerous doctors reported R&R spaces had been removed, relocated or were inaccessible. Furthermore, limited awareness of their availability attributed to inadequate communication, compounded the issue. This divergence between institutional reporting and front-line experience can be interpreted through the lens of II, which posits that institutional polices are often interpreted and implemented differently.

This study emphasises how crucial R&R spaces are to promoting doctors’ well-being especially during the time of high stress. HBs must not only guarantee the accessibility and physical availability of R&R spaces but also enhance their communication regarding the provision.