Impact of peer-led quality improvement networks on quality of inpatient mental health care: study protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial

Excellence in forensic psychiatry services: international survey of qualities and correlates

BACKGROUND

Excellence is that quality that drives continuously improving outcomes for patients. Excellence must be measurable. We set out to measure excellence in forensic mental health services according to four levels of organisation and complexity (basic, standard, progressive and excellent) across seven domains: values and rights; clinical organisation; consistency; timescale; specialisation; routine outcome measures; research and development.

AIMS

To validate the psychometric properties of a measurement scale to test which objective features of forensic services might relate to excellence: for example, university linkages, service size and integrated patient pathways across levels of therapeutic security.

METHOD

A survey instrument was devised by a modified Delphi process. Forensic leads, either clinical or academic, in 48 forensic services across 5 jurisdictions completed the questionnaire.

RESULTS

Regression analysis found that the number of security levels, linked patient pathways, number of in-patient teams and joint university appointments predicted total excellence score.

CONCLUSIONS

Larger services organised according to stratified therapeutic security and with strong university and research links scored higher on this measure of excellence. A weakness is that these were self-ratings. Reliability could be improved with peer review and with objective measures such as quality and quantity of research output. For the future, studies are needed of the determinants of other objective measures of better outcomes for patients, including shorter lengths of stay, reduced recidivism and readmission, and improved physical and mental health and quality of life.

Reform of Forensic Mental Health Services in Italy: Stigma and Blaming the Messenger: Hermenoia

About 40 years after the reforms leading to the closure of psychiatric hospitals (Ospedale Psichiatrico [OP]) in Italy in favor of a widespread model with a strong rehabilitation emphasis, Italy has chosen to close High Security Hospitals as well (Ospedale Psichiatrico Giudiziario [OPG]). The new forensic treatment model is expected to be more respectful of the person, including the perpetrators of violent crimes, and aims to be less stigmatizing and more rehabilitative. Despite the favorable premises of the reform (Law n. 81/2014), Italian psychiatrists are now obliged to answer calls to give evidence on strictly legal issues such as the social dangerousness of the mentally ill offender drawing on evidence or paradigms that many believe do not belong to medical knowledge. Psychiatrists must now learn to communicate about the relationship between psychiatry and society as required by law. This public expression engages with the cultural climate of society. Otherwise, the risk is of increasing the level of complexity leading to real misunderstandings that paradoxically may feed the stigma. The Italian reform provides an opportunity for reflection on some issues concerning psychiatric action, on how the public perceives the mentally ill and their psychiatrists, on the relationship between psychiatry and the world of law, on clinical methodologies for structured professional judgment, on public communication regarding severe mental illness, and the risk that psychiatrists may inadvertently be blamed for conveying an unwelcome message about mental illness and social dangerousness-we have called this social sensitivity against psychiatrists "hermanoia," blaming the messenger. The authors do not provide certain solutions but propose good practices.

Effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership on health services planning, delivery and evaluation

BACKGROUND

Health services have traditionally been developed to focus on specific diseases or medical specialties. Involving consumers as partners in planning, delivering and evaluating health services may lead to services that are person-centred and so better able to meet the needs of and provide care for individuals. Globally, governments recommend consumer involvement in healthcare decision-making at the systems level, as a strategy for promoting person-centred health services. However, the effects of this 'working in partnership' approach to healthcare decision-making are unclear. Working in partnership is defined here as collaborative relationships between at least one consumer and health provider, meeting jointly and regularly in formal group formats, to equally contribute to and collaborate on health service-related decision-making in real time. In this review, the terms 'consumer' and 'health provider' refer to partnership participants, and 'health service user' and 'health service provider' refer to trial participants. This review of effects of partnership interventions was undertaken concurrently with a Cochrane Qualitative Evidence Synthesis (QES) entitled Consumers and health providers working in partnership for the promotion of person-centred health services: a co-produced qualitative evidence synthesis.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership, as an intervention to promote person-centred health services.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL databases from 2000 to April 2019; PROQUEST Dissertations and Theses Global from 2016 to April 2019; and grey literature and online trial registries from 2000 until September 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and cluster-RCTs of 'working in partnership' interventions meeting these three criteria: both consumer and provider participants meet; they meet jointly and regularly in formal group formats; and they make actual decisions that relate to the person-centredness of health service(s).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened most titles and abstracts. One review author screened a subset of titles and abstracts (i.e. those identified through clinical trials registries searches, those classified by the Cochrane RCT Classifier as unlikely to be an RCT, and those identified through other sources). Two review authors independently screened all full texts of potentially eligible articles for inclusion. In case of disagreement, they consulted a third review author to reach consensus. One review author extracted data and assessed risk of bias for all included studies and a second review author independently cross-checked all data and assessments. Any discrepancies were resolved by discussion, or by consulting a third review author to reach consensus. Meta-analysis was not possible due to the small number of included trials and their heterogeneity; we synthesised results descriptively by comparison and outcome. We reported the following outcomes in GRADE 'Summary of findings' tables: health service alterations; the degree to which changed service reflects health service user priorities; health service users' ratings of health service performance; health service users' health service utilisation patterns; resources associated with the decision-making process; resources associated with implementing decisions; and adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five trials (one RCT and four cluster-RCTs), with 16,257 health service users and more than 469 health service providers as trial participants. For two trials, the aims of the partnerships were to directly improve the person-centredness of health services (via health service planning, and discharge co-ordination). In the remaining trials, the aims were indirect (training first-year medical doctors on patient safety) or broader in focus (which could include person-centredness of health services that targeted the public/community, households or health service delivery to improve maternal and neonatal mortality). Three trials were conducted in high income-countries, one was in a middle-income country and one was in a low-income country. Two studies evaluated working in partnership interventions, compared to usual practice without partnership (Comparison 1); and three studies evaluated working in partnership as part of a multi-component intervention, compared to the same intervention without partnership (Comparison 2). No studies evaluated one form of working in partnership compared to another (Comparison 3). The effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership compared to usual practice without partnership are uncertain: only one of the two studies that assessed this comparison measured health service alteration outcomes, and data were not usable, as only intervention group data were reported. Additionally, none of the included studies evaluating this comparison measured the other primary or secondary outcomes we sought for the 'Summary of findings' table. We are also unsure about the effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership as part of a multi-component intervention compared to the same intervention without partnership. Very low-certainty evidence indicated there may be little or no difference on health service alterations or health service user health service performance ratings (two studies); or on health service user health service utilisation patterns and adverse events (one study each). No studies evaluating this comparison reported the degree to which health service alterations reflect health service user priorities, or resource use. Overall, our confidence in the findings about the effects of working in partnership interventions was very low due to indirectness, imprecision and publication bias, and serious concerns about risk of selection bias; performance bias, detection bias and reporting bias in most studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The effects of consumers and providers working in partnership as an intervention, or as part of a multi-component intervention, are uncertain, due to a lack of high-quality evidence and/or due to a lack of studies. Further well-designed RCTs with a clear focus on assessing outcomes directly related to partnerships for patient-centred health services are needed in this area, which may also benefit from mixed-methods and qualitative research to build the evidence base.

Evaluating the implementation of a chronic obstructive pulmonary disease management program using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research: a case study

BACKGROUND

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a prevalent chronic disease that requires comprehensive approaches to manage; it accounts for a significant portion of Canada's annual healthcare spending. Interprofessional teams are effective at providing chronic disease management that meets the needs of patients. As part of an ongoing initiative, a COPD management program, the Best Care COPD program was implemented in a primary care setting. The objectives of this research were to determine site-specific factors facilitating or impeding the implementation of a COPD program in a new setting, while evaluating the implementation strategy used.

METHODS

A qualitative case study was conducted using interviews, focus groups, document analysis, and site visits. Data were deductively analyzed using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to assess the impact of each of its constructs on Best Care COPD program implementation at this site.

RESULTS

Eleven CFIR constructs were determined to meaningfully affect implementation. Five were identified as the most influential in the implementation process. Cosmopolitanism (partnerships with other organizations), networks and communication (amongst program providers), engaging (key individuals to participate in program implementation), design quality and packaging (of the program), and reflecting and evaluating (throughout the implementation process). A peer-to-peer implementation strategy included training of registered respiratory therapists (RRT) as certified respiratory educators and the establishment of a communication network among RRTs to discuss experiences, collectively solve problems, and connect with the program lead.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides a practical example of the various factors that facilitated the implementation of the Best Care COPD program. It also demonstrates the potential of using a peer-to-peer implementation strategy. Focusing on these factors will be useful for informing the continued spread and success of the Best Care COPD program and future implementation of other chronic care programs.

Models of care in forensic psychiatry

Forensic psychiatry services have grown and become more complex in structures, processes and pathways. Legacy customs, practices and changing policy are now organised into formal models of care. These are written accounts of how a health service is delivered, outlining best practice and services for patients progressing through the stages of their condition and the care and treatment available. This article explores the four key elements of a model of care: goals; pathways and processes; treatment programmes; and systematic evaluation. It describes the most common model of care in forensic services, which builds on structures of stratified therapeutic security. It also considers variations on this basic or standard model matched to needs arising from the complex interrelationship with other parts of the mental health service for the population served and with criminal justice, primary care and physical health, housing and welfare agencies.

Perspective On Excellence in Forensic Mental Health Services: What We Can Learn From Oncology and Other Medical Services

We propose that excellence in forensic and other mental health services can be recognized by the abilities necessary to conduct randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and equivalent forms of rigorous quantitative research to continuously improve the outcomes of treatment as usual (TAU). Forensic mental health services (FMHSs) are growing, are high cost, and increasingly provide the main access route to more intensive, organized, and sustained pathways through care and treatment. A patient newly diagnosed with a cancer can expect to be enrolled in RCTs comparing innovations with the current best TAU. The same should be provided for patients newly diagnosed with severe mental illnesses and particularly those detained and at risk of prolonged periods in a secure hospital. We describe FMHSs in four levels 1 to 4, basic to excellent, according to seven domains: values or qualities, clinical organization, consistency, timescale, specialization, routine outcome measures, and research. Excellence is not elitism. Not all centers need to achieve excellence, though all should be of high quality. Services can provide each population with a network of centers with access to one center of excellence. Excellence is the standard needed to drive the virtuous circle of research and development that is necessary for teaching, training, and the pursuit of new knowledge and better outcomes. Substantial advances in treatment of severe mental disorders require a drive at a national and international level to create services that meet these standards of excellence and are focused, active, and productive to drive better functional outcomes for service users.

Impact of a peer-review network on the quality of inpatient low secure mental health services: cluster randomised control trial

BACKGROUND

Peer-review networks aim to help services to improve the quality of care they provide, however, there is very little evidence about their impact. We conducted a cluster randomized controlled trial of a peer-review quality network for low-secure mental health services to examine the impact of network membership on the process and outcomes of care over a 12 month period.

METHODS

Thirty-eight low secure units were randomly allocated to either the active intervention (participation in the network n = 18) or the control arm (delayed participation in the network n = 20). A total of 75 wards were assessed at baseline and 8 wards dropped out the study before the data collection at 12 month follow up. The primary outcome measure was the quality of the physical environment and facilities of the services. The secondary outcomes included: safety of the ward, patient mental wellbeing and satisfaction with care, staff burnout, training and supervision. We hypothesised that, relative to control wards, the quality of the physical environment and facilities would be higher on wards in the active arm of the trial 12 months after randomization.

RESULTS

The difference in the primary outcome between the groups was not statistically significant (4.1; 95% CI [- 0.2, 8.3] p = 0.06). The median number of untoward incidents rose in control services and remained the same at the member of the network (Difference between members and non-members = 0.55; 95% IC [0.29, 1.07] p = 0.08). At follow up, a higher proportion of staff in the active arm of the trial indicated that they felt safe on the ward relative to those in the control services (p = 0.04), despite reporting more physical assaults (p = 0.04). Staff working in services in the active arm of the trial reported higher levels of burnout relative to those in the control group. No difference was seen in patient outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

We did not find evidence that participation in a peer-review network led to marked changes in the quality of the physical environment of low secure mental health services at 12 months. Future research should explore the impact of accreditation schemes and examine longer term outcomes of participation in such networks.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN79614916 . Retrospectively registered 28 March 2014.