Optimising the delivery of breast cancer risk assessment for women aged 30-39 years: A qualitative study of women's views.

BACKGROUND: Identifying women aged 30-39 years at increased risk of developing breast cancer could allow them to consider screening and preventive strategies. Research is underway to determine the feasibility of offering breast cancer risk assessment to this age group. However, it is unclear how best to deliver and communicate risk estimates to these women, in order to avoid potential harms such as undue anxiety and increase benefits such as informed decision-making. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to investigate women's views on, and requirements for, this proposed novel approach to risk assessment. DESIGN: A cross-sectional qualitative design was used. METHODS: Thirty-seven women aged 30-39 years with no family history or personal history of breast cancer participated in seven focus groups (n = 29) and eight individual interviews. Data were analysed thematically using a framework approach. RESULTS: Four themes were developed. Acceptability of risk assessment service concerns the positive views women have towards the prospect of participating in breast cancer risk assessment. Promoting engagement with the service describes the difficulties women in this age group experience in relation to healthcare access, including mental load and a lack of cultural awareness, and the implications of this for service design and delivery. Impact of receiving risk results focuses on the anticipated impacts of receiving different risk outcomes, namely, complacency towards breast awareness behaviours following low-risk results, an absence of reassurance following average-risk results and anxiety for high-risk results. Women's information requirements highlights women's desire to be fully informed at invite including understanding why the service is needed. In addition, women wanted risk feedback to focus on plans for management. CONCLUSION: The idea of breast cancer risk assessment was received favourably among this age group, providing that a risk management plan and support from healthcare professionals is available. Determinants of acceptability of a new service included minimising effort required to engage with service, co-development of invitation and risk feedback materials and the importance of educational campaigning about the potential benefits of participation in risk assessment.

Family involvement, patient safety and suicide prevention in mental healthcare: ethnographic study.

BACKGROUND: Family involvement has been identified as a key aspect of clinical practice that may help to prevent suicide. AIMS: To investigate how families can be effectively involved in supporting a patient accessing crisis mental health services. METHOD: A multi-site ethnographic investigation was undertaken with two crisis resolution home treatment teams in England. Data included 27 observations of clinical practice and interviews with 6 patients, 4 family members, and 13 healthcare professionals. Data were analysed using framework analysis. RESULTS: Three overarching themes described how families and carers are involved in mental healthcare. Families played a key role in keeping patients safe by reducing access to means of self-harm. They also provided useful contextual information to healthcare professionals delivering the service. However, delivering a home-based service can be challenging in the absence of a supportive family environment or because of practical problems such as the lack of suitable private spaces within the home. At an organisational level, service design and delivery can be adjusted to promote family involvement. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this study indicate that better communication and dissemination of safety and care plans, shared learning, signposting to carer groups and support for carers may facilitate better family involvement. Organisationally, offering flexible appointment times and alternative spaces for appointments may help improve services for patients.

Challenges and adaptations to public involvement with marginalised groups during the COVID-19 pandemic: commentary with illustrative case studies in the context of patient safety research.

Patient and public involvement (PPI) is integral to research on patient safety in the NIHR Greater Manchester Patient Safety Translational Research Centre (NIHR GMPSTRC), and is central to our patient safety research within our theme focusing on people in marginalised groups. Due to the impact of COVID-19, researchers had to adapt how they do PPI. For marginalised groups, remote working and digital adaptations (the key adaptations made in accessing and utilising health services in the United Kingdom during COVID-19) can potentially lead to further marginalisation of people already marginalised and provide new barriers to others. This editorial showcases three case examples of PPI with marginalised groups during COVID-19, these are with: (1) adults with vision impairments, (2) adults and carers with lived experience of self-harm and/ or suicide and (3) adults with lived experience of homelessness. In these case examples, we focus on challenges relating to key aspects of PPI during the pandemic. First, setting up a PPI advisory group and secondly maintaining relationships and effective PPI with a pre-existing advisory group. We contrast these examples using more traditional ways of 'doing PPI' i.e. involving public contributors in various stages of the research cycle, with a more fully 'co-produced' approach to research when developing a new patient safety intervention. Important considerations for PPI with marginalised groups during COVID-19 include: how to avoid exacerbating the digital divide when using video conferencing for PPI, the need for enhanced awareness around flexibility and resources, and the value of working closely with specialist charities to enable adaptations that are sensitive to the changed circumstances and needs of PPI contributors.

The National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Greater Manchester Patient Safety Translational research Centre (GMPSTRC) carries out research to improve patient safety. We work in partnership with patients and members of the public to plan, manage, design, and carry out the research. This is labelled as patient and public involvement. A key area of GMPSTRC research focuses on people who may be marginalised from healthcare and potentially suffer increased patient safety risks relative to the general population. COVID-19 impacted on research in multiple ways, notably how researchers work with members of the public. Remote working via the use of internet enabled technology has now become more commonplace, although this raises concerns about digital exclusion and how to address barriers when face-to-face PPI is not possible. This article showcases three examples of how researchers and public contributors with lived experience have adapted to working together during the COVID-19 pandemic. These case examples are: (1) setting up a public involvement group for developing an intervention to reduce medication errors for adults with vision impairments; (2) working with a pre-existing group of public contributors who are adults and carers with lived experience of self-harm and/or suicide; and (3) working with a charity called Groundswell who train and support researchers with lived experience of homelessness. Challenges during COVID-19 have been making video conferencing meetings accessible to members who have a range of different needs, and addressing the digital divide by allowing members flexibility in how they contribute to research. The article provides examples of how these challenges were addressed.

'Relieved to be seen'-patient and carer experiences of psychosocial assessment in the emergency department following self-harm: qualitative analysis of 102 free-text survey responses.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to explore patient and carer experiences of psychosocial assessments following presentations to hospital after self-harm. DESIGN: Thematic analysis of free-text responses to an open-ended online survey. SETTING: Between March and November 2019, we recruited 88 patients (82% women) and 14 carers aged ≥18 years from 16 English mental health trusts, community organisations, and via social media. RESULTS: Psychosocial assessments were experienced as helpful on some occasions but harmful on others. Participants felt better, less suicidal and less likely to repeat self-harm after good-quality compassionate and supportive assessments. However, negative experiences during the assessment pathway were common and, in some cases, contributed to greater distress, less engagement and further self-harm. Participants reported receiving negative and stigmatising comments about their injuries. Others reported that they were refused medical care or an anaesthetic. Stigmatising attitudes among some mental health staff centred on preconceived ideas over self-harm as a 'behavioural issue', inappropriate use of services and psychiatric diagnosis. CONCLUSION: Our findings highlight important patient experiences that can inform service provision and they demonstrate the value of involving patients/carers throughout the research process. Psychosocial assessments can be beneficial when empathetic and collaborative but less helpful when overly standardised, lacking in compassion and waiting times are unduly long. Patient views are essential to inform practice, particularly given the rapidly changing service context during and after the COVID-19 emergency.