Editorial

I am writing this editorial as England endures a third period of lockdown and once again my NHS clinic has been compelled to close its doors to patients. The experience of the first lockdown, now almost a year ago, is a distant memory. Back then I had naively hoped that lockdown might increase the time available to authors for writing, and lead to an increase in submissions to the journal. As we now know, the complexities of remote working have often demanded more, rather than less, of our time. Consequently the work of the authors, reviewers, editorial and production teams has taken longer than usual, resulting in some delays in publishing our journal in 2020. As we adjust to the ‘new normal’ these challenges are being resolved, and we hope to return to the usual publication schedule in 2021.

Remote working has also challenged us to find new and creative ways to continue to offer psychoanalytic psychotherapy within the public sector. The first of the papers in this issue, by Angeliki Zoumpouli, seeks to answer the question ‘Is a “good enough” experience possible for patients and clinicians through remote consultations?’ In 2018 this journal published a review essay by Malika Verma entitled ‘Screen relations: the limits of computer-mediated psychoanalysis and psychotherapy’ (Verma, 2018). At that time remote therapy was rarely offered, except in circumstances such as geographical distance between patient and therapist. Verma described her experience of being the only psychoanalytic psychotherapist offering treatment in Southern India. Just two years later the provision of treatment via video call is familiar to the great majority of clinicians. Recognising the ubiquity of this type of practise, Zoumpouli sets out to describe how remote therapy can provide a ‘good enough’ experience for both patients and clinicians. Drawing on psychoanalytic and neuroscientific literature she uses four clinical examples to offer conceptualisations intended to optimise the experience o