Identifying predictors of adverse outcomes after termination of seclusion in psychiatric intensive care units.

BACKGROUND: Seclusion is a restrictive practice that many healthcare services are trying to reduce. Previous studies have sought to identify predictors of seclusion initiation, but few have investigated factors associated with adverse outcomes after seclusion termination. AIMS: To assess the factors that predict an adverse outcome within 24 h of seclusion termination. METHOD: In a cohort study of individuals secluded in psychiatric intensive care units, we investigated factors associated with any of the following outcomes: actual violence, attempted violence, or reinitiation of seclusion within 24 h of seclusion termination. Among the seclusion episodes that were initiated between 29 March 2018 and 4 March 2019, we investigated the exposures of medication cooperation, seclusion duration, termination out of working hours, involvement of medical staff in the final seclusion review, lack of insight, and agitation or irritability. In a mixed-effects logistic regression model, associations between each exposure and the outcome were calculated. Odds ratios were calculated unadjusted and adjusted for demographic and clinical variables. RESULTS: We identified 254 seclusion episodes from 122 individuals (40 female, 82 male), of which 106 (41.7%) had an adverse outcome within 24 h of seclusion termination. Agitation or irritability was associated with an adverse outcome, odds ratio 1.92 (95% CI 1.03 to 3.56, P = 0.04), but there was no statistically significant association with any of the other exposures, although confidence intervals were broad. CONCLUSIONS: Agitation or irritability in the hours preceding termination of seclusion may predict an adverse outcome. The study was not powered to detect other potentially clinically significant factors.

Characterisation and outcomes of patients referred to a regional cancer of unknown primary team: a 10-year analysis.

BACKGROUND: In the United Kingdom, national guidance published in 2010 recommended the establishment of specialist teams to improve clinical pathways for patients presenting with malignancies of undefined primary origin (MUO) and cancer of unknown primary (CUP). This study sought to define outcomes of patients referred to a regional MUO/CUP service. METHODS: Data were collected prospectively on all patients (n = 1225) referred to a regional CUP team over a 10-year period. Patient demographics, clinical, pathological and outcome data were recorded and analysed. RESULTS: Confirmed CUP (cCUP) was diagnosed in 25% of patients. A primary metastatic cancer was identified in 36%, 5% were diagnosed with provisional CUP (pCUP), 27% retained the diagnosis of MUO and in 8% a non-cancer diagnosis was made. Median survival was low in all patients with a final malignant diagnosis: primary identified 9.0 months, cCUP 4.0 months, pCUP 1.5 months and MUO 1.5 months. CONCLUSIONS: Patients presenting with MUO have poor outcomes irrespective of the final diagnosis. These patients need a patient-centred, streamlined, rapid diagnostic pathway. There are clear benefits to primary and secondary care teams having access to a dedicated, multidisciplinary MUO/CUP service, with clinical nurse specialists supporting the patients, to help facilitate this pathway and ensure early oncology review.

The value of involving patients and public in health services research and evaluation: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Public and Patient Involvement, Engagement and Participation research encompasses working with patients/service users (people with a medical condition receiving health service treatment), public members, caregivers and communities (who use services or care for patients). The Partner Priority Programme (PPP) was developed by the National Health Service [NHS] and National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care [NIHR CLAHRC] NWC to share information and experience on evaluating new services being offered to patients that were seeking to reduce health inequalities, improve people's health and wellbeing and reduce emergency hospital admissions. This paper seeks to explore an approach developed for involving the public as equal partners within the evaluation and decision-making processes of health and social care services research. The aim of this study was to identify how public advisors were included, the impact of their involvement, and how change occurred within the organisations following their involvement. METHODS: A qualitative approach using focus group discussions was adopted to explore the experiences of two cohorts of participants involved in PPP project teams. Focus groups were held with public advisors (n = 9), interns (n = 9; staff or public who received a funded internship for a PPP project), NHS and Local Authority initiative leads (n = 10), and academic facilitators (n = 14). These were transcribed verbatim and analysed using a thematic approach. RESULTS: Thirty-two public advisors were recruited to support 25 PPP projects across the Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and CLAHRC North West Coast [NWC] partner organisations. Three inter-related themes were conceptualised: 1)"Where it all started - involving public advisors" identified the varying journeys to recruitment and experiences of becoming a public advisor; 2)"Steps toward active involvement and engagement" related to public advisors becoming core team members; and 3) "Collaborative working to enhance public and patient involvement" relayed how projects identified the benefits of working jointly with the public advisors, particularly for those who had not experienced this style of working before. CONCLUSIONS: The findings indicate that the PPP model is effective for embedding Public and Patient Involvement [PPI] within health services research, and recommends that PPI is integrated at the earliest opportunity within research projects and service evaluations through the use of support-led and facilitative programmes.

The purpose of involving the public and patients in research is to help them have a say in decisions about healthcare and enable patients or other people with relevant experience to contribute to how research is planned, carried out, and shared with a wider audience. The Partner Priority Programme (PPP) was developed by the National Health Service [NHS] and Local Authority partners to share information and experience on evaluating new services being offered to patients that were seeking to reduce health inequalities, improve people's health and wellbeing and reduce emergency hospital admissions. In this paper, we explore an approach we developed for involving public advisors (service users/patients, and caregivers) as equal partners within the evaluation and decision-making processes of health and social care services research. The aim of this study was to identify how public advisors were included, the impact of their involvement, and identify the changes organisations made as a result of public advisor involvement. Most projects had not included public advisors in their teams before and initially did not understand how to involve them. By attending scheduled meetings, they had time to learn how to engage with public advisors (and what methods to use to recruit them to be part of their teams). Participants also learned the benefits of including public advisors within their teams. With the help and support provided as part of the programme, public advisors seemed to grow in confidence and take part in teams as equal partners.

Public involvement in health research: what does 'good' look like in practice?

PLAIN ENGLISH SUMMARY: Background Patient and public involvement means researchers working with members of the public, patients or carers to jointly plan and carry out research.Aim This article is written by members of three involvement groups, and the university employees that they work with. We wanted to jointly reflect on what enables our collaborative work, and what the challenges are for everyone involved.What we did and how we did it We wanted to establish what the literature defines as 'good' public involvement and compare this with processes and practices in our involvement groups. We therefore carried out a literature review and each group met separately to discuss what characterises good involvement, and what the challenges are. From these discussions we developed a set of descriptions about each group. We compared the literature review findings with what came out of the discussions within the involvement groups.Findings Some of the involvement principles from the literature were similar to the priorities of the involvement groups. In addition, the groups identified characteristics of 'good' involvement practice that were not reported in the literature: passion and enthusiasm, informal and welcoming meeting spaces, and opportunities to share lived experiences. In this article we present examples of how principles for good involvement are practiced in these groups, and difficulties we have experienced. ABSTRACT: Background Patient and public involvement is important for producing relevant and accessible health research. Evidence of impact from involvement is growing, but there is also a need for research on how to create conditions for meaningful collaborations between researchers and public advisers.Objective We report on a co-produced self-reflective evaluation of involvement practices in three UK research programmes.Methods A structured review identified research-based principles for 'good' public involvement in research. In parallel, members of three involvement groups co-developed statements on how the groups work, and enablers and challenges to collaborative research. The author team analysed these statements using the findings from the review.Results We identified 11 international articles reporting research-based principles for involvement published between 2013 and 2017. We identified five 'values' and seven 'practice principles' for 'good' involvement. There was convergence between these principles and the priorities of the involvement groups. But the groups also identified additional good involvement practice that were not reported by the literature: passion, enthusiasm, informal and welcoming meeting spaces, and opportunities to share lived experiences. We present examples of how principles for good involvement are practiced in these groups, and highlight principles that have been challenging to implement.Conclusions Ongoing appraisal of public involvement is crucial. We present a process for self-evaluation, illuminate what 'good' means to researchers and public advisers involved in research, and identify areas for improvement. We conclude that provision of resources that enable support to public advisers in turn enable universities and research teams to implement other principles of good involvement.