Co-design with Integrated Care Teams: Establishing Information Needs.

Introduction: Co-design has been cited as playing a major role in the future of effective integrated care, however, there is a lack of reporting and reflection on the methods used. Information sharing is fundamental when working in integrated care, however sharing across professions, service settings and localities can be complex. Through co-design, we seek to establish a shared understanding of information needs within a newly formed integrated care team. In doing so we aim to inform future practice in the understanding of co-design. Description: Co-design Workshop 1 (N = 24 participants, plus 6 facilitators), collected 'Current Position' understanding of service information needs. Co-design Workshop 2 (N = 18 participants, plus 6 facilitators) sought a 'Future Position' understanding, identifying solutions and next steps for establishing information-need solutions. Reflection on the co-design process was conducted to inform future co-design practices. Conclusion: Identified was a wide range of future service information needs under the themes of Culture Building, Health System Needs, and Processes. We conclude with 4 key learning points on co-designing. 1. Ensure simplicity in format. 2. Interdisciplinary co-design and co-facilitation of workshops are beneficial. 3. Planning and preparation are key. 4. Co-designing can enhance communication for service improvement.

The Surgical Elimination of Violence? Conflicting Attitudes towards Technology and Science during the Psychosurgery Controversy of the 1970s.

ARGUMENT: In the 1970s a public controversy erupted over the proposed use of brain operations to curtail violent behavior. Civil libertarians, civil rights and community activists, leaders of the anti-psychiatry movement, and some U.S. Congressmen charged psychosurgeons and the National Institute of Mental Health, with furthering a political project: the suppression of dissent. Several government-sponsored investigations into psychosurgery rebutted this charge and led to an official qualified endorsement of the practice while calling attention to the need for more "scientific" understanding and better ethical safeguards. This paper argues that the psychosurgery debate of the 1970s was more than a power struggle between members of the public and the psychiatric establishment. The debate represented a clash between a postmodern skepticism about science and renewed focus on ultimate ends, on the one hand, and a modern faith in standards and procedures, a preoccupation with means, on the other. These diverging commitments made the dispute ultimately irresolvable.