Add us as a preferred source
The chief executive of Psyomics discusses the pressures on mental health services and why her platform should be looked at as a clinical operating system.
Mental health services across the country are caught in an escalating bind. Demand has soared, outstripping capacity and leaving clinicians and patients alike to navigate a strained system. Yet as the debate around service recovery continues, a fundamental question persists: how much of this crisis stems from a simple lack of resources, and how much is rooted in the structural way care is organised, accessed and delivered?
For Melinda Rees, chief executive of mental health technology pioneer Psyomics, the answer requires a reassessment of the clinical pathway. Having begun her career as a clinical psychologist, she has watched the landscape transform over decades. Today’s pressures are compounded by a complex convergence of factors – from a post-pandemic openness that encourages more people to seek help, to the heavy toll of economic inequality and the impact of digital distractions on younger cohorts.
Here, she talks to Healthcare Today about why she rejects endless pilot phases, how biomarker science is set to revolutionise diagnostics like bipolar disorder, and why keeping human empathy at the heart of care remains non-negotiable.
Mental health services are under pressure and demand outstrips capacity. How much of the problem is a lack of resources, and how much is the way services are organised?
When I began my training as a clinical psychologist, demand for mental health services was nowhere near the level we see today. The reasons behind this shift are complex and multifaceted.
First and foremost, we are now much more comfortable talking about how we feel. The COVID-19 pandemic was undeniably a catalyst for that. We now have generations of people coming through who feel less ashamed, are more open, and understand that help is available.
We have vast numbers of young adults in their 20s experiencing what is essentially an existential crisis. They struggle to find daily purpose because the job market is so tough, all while wrestling with anxiety over artificial intelligence and whether the effort is even worth it. It is a massive challenge for that generation, and I feel deeply for them.
At the same time, the wealth gap is widening, and as epidemiological studies consistently demonstrate, social inequality increases vulnerability to mental illness. Living in close proximity to extreme wealth when you are struggling financially is deeply draining; it saps your energy.
Then, of course, there are mobile phones. I simply do not think they are good for us. I could not do my job as dynamically as I do without one, but there is also a dark side: shorter attention spans and an increase in executive functioning difficulties in children.
All of these factors combined are driving the pressure we see today.
“We need to boost productivity and efficiency while reducing unwanted variation in clinical decision-making.”
You have argued for earlier intervention and better access to community mental health services. What needs to change?
What we need above all is efficiency. I say this as someone running a digital healthcare company: human touchpoints in mental healthcare are absolutely essential.
There are remarkably simple ways to automate workflow and remove these administrative bottlenecks. With modern tools, clinicians can dictate notes directly, and those models will only improve as they train.
Ultimately, we need to boost productivity and efficiency while reducing unwanted variation in clinical decision-making. Mental health is, by its very nature, a subjective art; clinicians are trained in vastly different ways and hold distinct clinical philosophies. While I resist forcing patients into rigid diagnostic boxes, we do need a shared, aligned framework to understand what treatments work best for whom. At present, we simply are not doing enough of that fundamental, sensible work.
Your technology aims to help services assess people more efficiently and direct them towards the right care. What difference does that make in practice?
It helps to start with how our technology works. Our platform sits right at the primary access point to mental healthcare. As a patient is referred – or self-refers – into NHS or independent sector mental health services, they are given the option to complete their assessment and triage information digitally. The platform organises that data and delivers it directly to the clinician. When the clinician sits down for that initial face-to-face appointment, they already have a comprehensive suite of information provided directly by the patient. Crucially, it represents the patient’s own voice, which is an immense clinical benefit.
In terms of real-world impact, the numbers speak for themselves. In the Midlands, we have seen a 78% reduction in repeat assessments for patients. Patients have told us for years how exhausting it is to constantly repeat their trauma and background; our platform largely eliminates that repetition.
We have also significantly reduced referral-to-treatment times – in one mental health trust, bringing the wait down from 52 days to 29 days. While I know we can improve even further, it represents a remarkable starting point.
Once our system is fully embedded into a trust’s clinical workflow, completion rates among patients with moderate to severe mental health conditions hover around 74%, which is extraordinarily high. In one independent sector children’s mental health service, completion rates reached 99% for parents filling out information on behalf of their children, and 91% for the young people themselves. The level of engagement is unmistakable.
The NHS has a long history of piloting innovations that never achieve widespread adoption. What are the barriers for you?
We commercialised and generated revenue for our platform for the first time about four years ago, and in all that time, we have only ever run a single pilot – and that was deliberately restricted to our very first contract. Beyond that, I do not do pilots. I am explicit on this point: you either commit to the product or you do not.
We allow NHS clients the time they need to evaluate the platform, however, once a Trust makes that commitment, the partnership and trust are established. On average, our contracts run for three years, and many mental health Trusts pay upfront, demonstrating real institutional backing.
The primary reason we have achieved this level of adoption comes down to two factors. First, my clarity regarding the boundaries of pilots. Second, our platform possesses tremendous face validity; its practical value and logic are immediately obvious. Today, our footprint covers a population of 8 million patients, meaning any prospective mental health Trust can easily speak to a peer at another Trust to verify whether the system delivers results. We do not operate like a typical software vendor; we act as a true long-term clinical partner.
Despite that success, significant barriers to entry remain. While we have secured the early adopters and innovators, many healthcare organisations are not yet ready to drive operational change. Their primary concern is workforce adoption. Cost is another major hurdle; Trusts rarely have a dedicated budget line for digital health technology, meaning leadership must actively take a calculated risk on an initial investment.
Ultimately, every NHS organisation operates by committee. On average, we log between 100 and 200 distinct touchpoints with a single organisation before a procurement decision is reached. For a lean company, that process is extraordinarily resource-intensive. It requires us to absorb substantial financial risk, which is precisely why backing from investors remains essential to navigating and scaling within this market.
“I envision our platform as a clinical operating system – one that interacts dynamically with electronic patient record systems anywhere in the world.”
You are also looking at international markets, including the US. How transferable is the Psyomics model to other healthcare systems?
One of the main reasons I have spent a lot of time in the US recently is that we have validated the world’s first blood-based metabolomic biomarker for bipolar disorder here in the UK. Developing that science required substantial financial investment, and we have a duty to deploy those resources responsibly and ensure our investors see a return.
Taking our blood-based biomarker to the US market serves two clear purposes. First, it represents the largest commercial total addressable market globally. Second, it offers the fastest pathway through validation, regulation and commercialisation for a diagnostic tool of this kind. If we can accelerate the time to a bipolar diagnosis from ten years down to ten days or ten weeks, we can transform lives across a massive population. It creates a win-win scenario across clinical impact and commercial viability.
When it comes to our digital platform – which links directly to our work with biomarkers – its transferability depends on the underlying healthcare structure. In the UK, we operate within a capitated healthcare system where providers receive a set budget per patient. In the US, while fee-for-service models remain common, there are also significant capitated models, such as “payviders” – integrated healthcare networks that combine clinical delivery with insurance coverage. These organisations are naturally incentivised to focus on long-term health outcomes and cost containment, making our platform an ideal fit.
Psyomics is expanding beyond adult mental health assessment, including into services for children and young people. How do these strands fit into your long-term vision?
I envision our platform as a clinical operating system – one that interacts dynamically with electronic patient record systems anywhere in the world, while connecting clinicians directly with their patients. At present, our system focuses on gathering self-reported data from both adults and children. However, in the very near future, I want to integrate triangulated diagnostic indicators that go far beyond self-reporting alone.
That means incorporating digital biomarkers and blood-based biomarkers. As medical science advances, we will gain access to increasingly diverse data streams reflecting not just what patients tell us, but how their bodies function and how they behave objectively.
Our goal is for the Psyomics platform to serve as the underlying operating system that unifies all of these complex inputs. We began by digitising and improving the traditional clinical model – capturing the narrative stories people tell about how they feel. As the scientific evidence matures, we will continually plug in these advanced diagnostic layers to create a truly comprehensive, data-driven framework for mental healthcare.
