Developing a core outcome set for interventions to improve discharge from mental health inpatient services: a survey, Delphi and consensus meeting with key stakeholder groups

Systematic review on the frequency and quality of reporting patient and public involvement in patient safety research

BACKGROUND

In recent years, patient and public involvement (PPI) in research has significantly increased; however, the reporting of PPI remains poor. The Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP2) was developed to enhance the quality and consistency of PPI reporting. The objective of this systematic review is to identify the frequency and quality of PPI reporting in patient safety (PS) research using the GRIPP2 checklist.

METHODS

Searches were performed in Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL from 2018 to December, 2023. Studies on PPI in PS research were included. We included empirical qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods, and case studies. Only articles published in peer-reviewed journals in English were included. The quality of PPI reporting was assessed using the short form of the (GRIPP2-SF) checklist.

RESULTS

A total of 8561 studies were retrieved from database searches, updates, and reference checks, of which 82 met the eligibility criteria and were included in this review. Major PS topics were related to medication safety, general PS, and fall prevention. Patient representatives, advocates, patient advisory groups, patients, service users, and health consumers were the most involved. The main involvement across the studies was in commenting on or developing research materials. Only 6.1% (n = 5) of the studies reported PPI as per the GRIPP2 checklist. Regarding the quality of reporting following the GRIPP2-SF criteria, our findings show sub-optimal reporting mainly due to failures in: critically reflecting on PPI in the study; reporting the aim of PPI in the study; and reporting the extent to which PPI influenced the study overall.

CONCLUSIONS

Our review shows a low frequency of PPI reporting in PS research using the GRIPP2 checklist. Furthermore, it reveals a sub-optimal quality in PPI reporting following GRIPP2-SF items. Researchers, funders, publishers, and journals need to promote consistent and transparent PPI reporting following internationally developed reporting guidelines such as the GRIPP2. Evidence-based guidelines for reporting PPI should be encouraged and supported as it helps future researchers to plan and report PPI more effectively.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The review protocol is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023450715).

What should inpatient psychological therapies be for? Qualitative views of service users on outcomes

BACKGROUND

There is limited research on what, when and how outcomes should be measured in psychological therapy trials in acute mental health inpatient wards.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to consider what outcomes service users think are important to measure.

METHODS

This qualitative study explored the views of 14 participants, who had an inpatient admission within the last year, on outcomes of psychological therapies using semistructured interviews. Data were analysed using thematic analysis from a critical realist perspective with both inductive and deductive coding.

RESULTS

The 126 outcomes that were important to participants were mapped onto an established taxonomy of outcomes across different health areas and the socioecological framework to consider the wider context and help summarise the outcomes. Most of the outcomes were mapped to the intrapersonal and interpersonal level. In addition to the outcome mapping, three themes were constructed from the qualitative data: (1) I am not a problem I am a person, (2) Feeling cared for and loved, (3) What does getting better look like.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results highlight the need for patient-reported outcomes which are cocreated with service users, disseminating research and training on preventing dehumanising experiences, enhancing psychological safety and therapeutic relationships and improving access to psychological therapy.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

The wider People with Personal Experience Involvement Committee at the University of Bath were consulted which included a focus group during the early planning stages. We also collaborated with a person with personal experience, at every stage of the research. This included developing our research question and aims, protocol, participant documents (e.g., information and debrief forms), advertisement and recruitment strategy, interview topic guide, the codes, the final themes and quotes and reviewing the manuscript. People with lived experience of being admitted to an acute mental health inpatient ward participated in our study.

Transitional Care Interventions From Hospital to Community to Reduce Health Care Use and Improve Patient Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Importance

Discharge from the hospital to the community has been associated with serious patient risks and excess service costs.

Objective

To evaluate the comparative effectiveness associated with transitional care interventions with different complexity levels at improving health care utilization and patient outcomes in the transition from the hospital to the community.

Data Sources

CENTRAL, Embase, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO were searched from inception until August 2022.

Study Selection

Randomized clinical trials evaluating transitional care interventions from hospitals to the community were identified.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

At least 2 reviewers were involved in all data screening and extraction. Random-effects network meta-analyses and meta-regressions were applied. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcomes were readmission at 30, 90, and 180 days after discharge. Secondary outcomes included emergency department visits, mortality, quality of life, patient satisfaction, medication adherence, length of stay, primary care and outpatient visits, and intervention uptake.

Results

Overall, 126 trials with 97 408 participants were included, 86 (68%) of which were of low risk of bias. Low-complexity interventions were associated with the most efficacy for reducing hospital readmissions at 30 days (odds ratio [OR], 0.78; 95% CI, 0.66 to 0.92) and 180 days (OR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.66) and emergency department visits (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.96). Medium-complexity interventions were associated with the most efficacy at reducing hospital readmissions at 90 days (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.92), reducing adverse events (OR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.24 to 0.75), and improving medication adherence (standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.49; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.67) but were associated with less efficacy than low-complexity interventions for reducing readmissions at 30 and 180 days. High-complexity interventions were most effective for reducing length of hospital stay (SMD, -0.20; 95% CI, -0.38 to -0.03) and increasing patient satisfaction (SMD, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.22 to 0.82) but were least effective for reducing readmissions at all time periods. None of the interventions were associated with improved uptake, quality of life (general, mental, or physical), or primary care and outpatient visits.

Conclusions and Relevance

These findings suggest that low- and medium-complexity transitional care interventions were associated with reducing health care utilization for patients transitioning from hospitals to the community. Comprehensive and consistent outcome measures are needed to capture the patient benefits of transitional care interventions.

A typology of healthcare pathways after hospital discharge for adults with COVID-19: the evolution of UK services during pandemic conditions

Introduction

Over half of post-COVID-hospitalisation adults have persistent symptoms 2 years after discharge, providing a challenge for individuals and healthcare systems. We therefore aimed to describe a typology of UK healthcare pathways post-hospital discharge as a first step towards understanding clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different healthcare pathways.

Methods

In 2021, we surveyed hospital sites taking part in the UK Post-hospital COVID-19 (PHOSP-COVID) study. The online survey explored the availability of proactive follow-up, patient selection, involvement of multidisciplinary teams, investigations, assessment and access to mental health and rehabilitation interventions. The typology was defined by a three-stage process: 1) using the survey results to develop a bespoke algorithm to inform a draft classification, 2) a stakeholder event for refinement and 3) finalisation between the Project Advisory Group and research team. The bespoke algorithm was used to map each site onto the classification with further mapping by level of mental health and rehabilitation provision.

Results

70% of hospital sites (45 out of 64) responded to the survey. 82% (37 out of 45) reported delivering a follow-up service after hospital discharge during the first few months of the pandemic. Only 13 out of 37 services (35%) were delivered by permanent staff. The final typology of five categories included no proactive follow-up, and a matrix of four groups based on patient selection (prespecified subgroup/all patients) and complexity of assessment (low/high). The complexity of assessment, rehabilitation and mental health interventions was variable within sites.

Discussion

We describe the first typology of post-hospitalisation COVID-19 healthcare pathways to enable modelling of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness to inform future policy. Our results highlight the heterogeneity and vulnerability of healthcare services after COVID-19 hospitalisation.

Evaluating a co-designed care bundle to improve patient safety at discharge from adult and adolescent mental health services (SAFER-MH and SAFER-YMH): protocol for a non-randomised feasibility study

INTRODUCTION

Patients being discharged from inpatient mental wards often describe safety risks in terms of inadequate information sharing and involvement in discharge decisions. Through stakeholder engagement, we co-designed, developed and adapted two versions of a care bundle intervention, the SAFER Mental Health care bundle for adult and youth inpatient mental health settings (SAFER-MH and SAFER-YMH, respectively), that look to address these concerns through the introduction of new or improved processes of care.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Two uncontrolled before-and-after feasibility studies, where all participants will receive the intervention. We will examine the feasibility and acceptability of the SAFER-MH in inpatient mental health settings in patients aged 18 years or older who are being discharged and the feasibility and acceptability of the SAFER-YMH intervention in inpatient mental health settings in patients aged between 14 and 18 years who are being discharged. The baseline period and intervention periods are both 6 weeks. SAFER-MH will be implemented in three wards and SAFER-YMH in one or two wards, ideally across different trusts within England. We will use quantitative (eg, questionnaires, completion forms) and qualitative (eg, interviews, process evaluation) methods to assess the acceptability and feasibility of the two versions of the intervention. The findings will inform whether a main effectiveness trial is feasible and, if so, how it should be designed, and how many patients/wards should be included.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval was obtained from the National Health Service Cornwall and Plymouth Research Ethics Committee and Surrey Research Ethics Committee (reference: 22/SW/0096 and 22/LO/0404). Research findings will be disseminated with participating sites and shared in various ways to engage different audiences. We will present findings at international and national conferences, and publish in open-access, peer-reviewed journals.

Developing the Resident Measure of Safety in Care Homes (RMOS): A Delphi and Think Aloud Study

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to develop a measure of contributory factors to safety incidents in care homes to be completed by residents and/or their unpaid carers.

INTRODUCTION

Care home residents are particularly vulnerable to patient safety incidents, due to higher likelihood of frailty, multimorbidity and cognitive decline. However, despite residents and their carers wanting to be involved in safety initiatives, there are few mechanisms for them to contribute and make meaningful safety improvements to practice.

METHODS

We developed 73 evidence-based items from synthesis and existing measures, which we presented to a panel of stakeholders (residents/carers, health/social care professionals and researchers). We used two online rounds of Delphi to generate consensus (80%) on items important to include in the Resident Measure of Safety in Care Homes (RMOS); a consensus meeting was later held. The draft RMOS developed through the Delphi was presented to participants during 'Think Aloud' interviews using cognitive testing techniques.

RESULTS

The 29-item RMOS was developed. Forty-three participants completed Delphi round 1, and 27 participants completed round 2, 11 participants attended the consensus meeting and 12 'Think Aloud' interviews were conducted. Of the 73 original items, 42 items that did not meet consensus in Delphi round 1 were presented in round 2. After the consensus meeting, it was agreed that 35 items would comprise the RMOS questionnaire and were presented in the 'Think Aloud' interviews. Participants suggested numerous changes to items mostly to improve comprehension and ability to answer.

CONCLUSION

We have a developed an evidence-based RMOS, with good face validity, to assess contributory factors to safety in care homes from a resident/carer perspective. Future work will involve psychometrically testing the items in a pilot and developing a complementary simplified, dementia-friendly version to promote inclusivity.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Four patient and public contributors worked with researchers to develop the online questionnaires. Patients (residents) and carers participated on the consensus panel. One member of the research team is an expert by lived experience and was involved in design and analysis decisions. The item list and instructions for the questionnaires were reviewed for face validity, understanding and acceptability by a patient and public involvement group and modified.

Management of Incisional Self-Harm of the Upper Limb: A Systematic Review

Background

The incidence of incisional self-harm of the upper limbs is increasing, and recurrence rates are high. It is not known whether different wound treatment strategies (dressings only vs. surgery) or the operative setting (main theatre vs. non-main theatre) affect wound or mental health-related outcomes.

Methods

Four electronic databases (Ovid MEDLINE, OVID EMBASE, PsycINFO and CENTRAL) were searched from inception to 14/09/2021 for studies which describe the management of incisional self-harm wounds of the upper limb(s) in adults and children. Dual-author screening and data extraction were conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.

Results

In total, 19 studies (1477 patients) were included. Overall, the evidence was limited by a paucity of comparative data on wound management strategy and setting, and poor-quality outcome reporting. Only four studies clearly identified the operative setting for definitive wound management (two in main operating theatres, one in the emergency department and one using both settings, depending on injury severity). Few studies inconsistently reported surgical outcomes (n=9) or mental health outcomes (n=4), hindering evidence synthesis.

Conclusion

Further investigation is needed to determine the most cost-effective management strategies and settings for these injuries.

A systematic review and narrative synthesis of indirect psychological intervention in acute mental health inpatient settings

OBJECTIVES

Psychologists frequently deliver indirect psychological interventions in mental health inpatient settings to support staff to reflect upon and improve their clinical practice. However, research into these interventions is sparse. Therefore, this study aimed to undertake a systematic review and narrative synthesis of the indirect psychological interventions used in mental health inpatient settings.

METHODS

MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Embase were searched for eligible studies and forward-citation searching was undertaken. A narrative synthesis was undertaken to synthesize results. The quality of studies was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool.

RESULTS

Ten studies were included in the review, and all utilized a small to moderate sample size. We identified five categories of interventions involving a range of methodologies and the studies were assessed to be of good to adequate quality. The most common type of indirect intervention employed was case formulation sessions. Other types of indirect interventions included formal clinical supervision, reflective practice and staff practice-based education sessions. Overall, the utilization of indirect psychological interventions shows promise, particularly case formulation sessions.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of indirect psychological interventions within mental health inpatient settings may have benefits for patient care. However, additional larger scale research is required to further develop the evidence base of indirect interventions for this setting.

Core outcome set for peripheral regional anesthesia research: a systematic review and Delphi study

BACKGROUND/IMPORTANCE

There is heterogeneity among the outcomes used in regional anesthesia research.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to produce a core outcome set for regional anesthesia research.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and Delphi study to develop this core outcome set. A systematic review of the literature from January 2015 to December 2019 was undertaken to generate a long list of potential outcomes to be included in the core outcome set. For each outcome found, the parameters such as the measurement scale, timing and definitions, were compiled. Regional anesthesia experts were then recruited to participate in a three-round electronic modified Delphi process with incremental thresholds to generate a core outcome set. Once the core outcomes were decided, a final Delphi survey and video conference vote was used to reach a consensus on the outcome parameters.

RESULTS

Two hundred and six papers were generated following the systematic review, producing a long list of 224 unique outcomes. Twenty-one international regional anesthesia experts participated in the study. Ten core outcomes were selected after three Delphi survey rounds with 13 outcome parameters reaching consensus after a final Delphi survey and video conference.

CONCLUSIONS

We present the first core outcome set for regional anesthesia derived by international expert consensus. These are proposed not to limit the outcomes examined in future studies, but rather to serve as a minimum core set. If adopted, this may increase the relevance of outcomes being studied, reduce selective reporting bias and increase the availability and suitability of data for meta-analysis in this area.

Adapting the depression component of WHO Mental Health Gap Intervention Guide (mhGAP-IG.v2) for primary care in Shenzhen, China: a DELPHI study

Background

Primary care doctors in Shenzhen, China are increasingly expected to identify and prevent depressive disorder; however, they have received limited mental health training and community healthcare centres (CHC) do not provide standardised protocols for the diagnosis and care of depressive disorder. The World Health Organization’s mental health gap intervention guide, version 2 (mhGAP-IG.v2) is a decision support tool for non-specialists for the assessment, management and follow-up of mental, neurological and substance use disorders (including depressive disorder). Given that mhGAP-IG.v2 is a generic tool, it requires adaptation to take account of cultural differences in depression presentation and unique characteristics of China’s emergent mental health system.

Methods

A two-round, web-based, Delphi survey was conducted. A panel of primary care doctors from Shenzhen, were invited to score their level of agreement with 199 statements (arranged across 10 domains) proposing changes to the content and structure of mhGAP-IG.v2 for use in Shenzhen. Consensus was predefined as 80% panelists providing a rating of either “somewhat agree/definitely agree”, or “definitely disagree/somewhat disagree” on a five-point scale for agreement.

Results

79% of statements received consensus with a mean score of 4.26 (i.e. “somewhat agree”). Agreed adaptations for mhGAP-IG.v2 included:- an assessment approach which considers a broader spectrum of depression symptoms and reflects the life course of disease; incorporating guidance for screening tool usage; clarifying physicians’ roles and including referral pathways for intersectorial care with strong family involvement; aligning drug treatment with national formularies; stronger emphasis of suicide prevention throughout all sections of the guide; contextualizing health education; reflecting a person-centred approach to care. Panelists chose to maintain diagnostic and treatment advice for bipolar patients experiencing a depressive episode as in the current guide.

Conclusions

An adapted mhGAP-IG.v2 for depression recognises China’s cultural and contextual needs for assessment guidance; unique primary healthcare system organization, priorities and treatment availability; and diverse psychosocial educational needs. An adapted mhGAP-IG.v2 could both inform the future training programs for primary care in Shenzhen and also offer an additional mental health resource for non-specialists in other countries.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13033-022-00523-0.

Synthesizing Core Outcome Sets for outcomes research in cohort studies: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Life course studies are designed to "collect once, use multiple times" for observational and, increasingly, interventional research. Core Outcome Sets (COS) are minimum sets developed for clinical trials by multi-stakeholder consensus methodologies. We aimed to synthesize published COS that might guide outcomes selection for early life cohorts with an interventional focus.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Medline, COMET, and CROWN for COS published before January 2021 relevant to four life stages (pregnancy, newborns, children <8 years, and parents (adults aged 18-50 years)). We synthesized core outcomes into overarching constructs.

RESULTS

From 46 COS we synthesized 414 core outcomes into 118 constructs. "Quality of life", "adverse events", "medication use", "hospitalization", and "mortality" were consistent across all stages. For pregnancy, common constructs included "preterm birth", "delivery mode", "pre-eclampsia", "gestational weight gain", "gestational diabetes", and "hemorrhage"; for newborns, "birthweight", "small for gestational age", "neurological damage", and "morbidity" and "infection/sepsis"; for pediatrics, "pain", "gastrointestinal morbidity", "growth/weight", "breastfeeding", "feeding problems", "hearing", "neurodevelopmental morbidity", and "social development"; and for adults, "disease burden", "mental health", "neurological function/stroke", and "cardiovascular health/morbidity".

CONCLUSION

This COS synthesis generated outcome constructs that are of high value to stakeholders (participants, health providers, services), relevant to life course research, and could position cohorts for trial capabilities.

IMPACT

We synthesized existing Core Outcome Sets as a transparent methodology that could prioritize outcomes for lifecourse cohorts with an interventional focus. "Quality of life", "adverse events", "medication use", "hospitalization", and "mortality" are important outcomes across pregnancy, newborns, childhood, and early-to-mid-adulthood (the age range relevant to parents). Other common outcomes (such as "birthweight", "cognitive function/ability", "psychological health") are also highly relevant to lifecourse research. This synthesis could assist new early life cohorts to pre-select outcomes that are of high value to stakeholders (participants, health providers, services), are relevant to lifecourse research, and could position them for future trials and interventional capability.

Outcomes frequently specified in Cochrane reviews of community-based psychosocial interventions for adults with severe mental illness: A systematic search and narrative synthesis

Background

Outcome selection in intervention studies is a critical issue for synthesizing evidence. This study is aimed to investigate outcomes used in Cochrane reviews assessing community‐based psychosocial interventions for adults with severe mental illness.

Methods

Cochrane reviews that evaluated a community‐based psychosocial intervention for adults with severe mental illness were searched electronically and manually. We extracted all outcomes specified in the Methods section in each Cochrane review. Outcomes that represent the same concept and context were synthesized into an outcome term. Outcome terms were categorized according to the existing taxonomy.

Results

We included 33 Cochrane reviews. Of the 216 outcome terms identified, 13 were used in more than half of the reviews: quality of life, mental state, admission to hospital, economic outcome, leaving the study early, social functioning, satisfaction, global state, relapse, adverse events/effects, carer satisfaction, employment, and duration of admission. Most outcome terms were categorized into the life impact core area (55%), followed by the resource use area (21%).

Conclusions

Our study provides a candidate outcome list for developing a core outcome set for severe mental illness and offers a basis for comparison for future outcome investigation on mental health research.

Two hundred and sixteen outcome terms were found by investigating all the outcomes used in 33 Cochrane reviews assessing community‐based psychosocial interventions for adults with severe mental illness. Thirteen outcome terms were used in more than half of the reviews: quality of life, mental state, admission to hospital, economic outcome, leaving the study early, social functioning, satisfaction, global state, relapse, adverse events/effects, carer satisfaction, employment, and duration of admission.

Consensus development of priority outcome domains for community mental health cares by multiple stakeholders: Protocol for an online Delphi study in Japan

Background

Treatment goals for mental illness have expanded from hospital discharge and improved functioning to employment, living alone, and personal realization. These changes in treatment goals have also influenced mental health research. Recent studies have addressed the development of core outcome sets focusing on clinical aspects of mental illness such as depression and anxiety. However, a well‐developed framework of essential outcomes for people with mental illness (service users) who live in the community is lacking. In addition, recent worldwide trends suggest more patient and public involvement and the importance of considering multiple stakeholders’ views in the area of mental health research. Purpose of this study is to explore consensus on high‐priority outcome domains among multiple stakeholders in community mental healthcare fields in Japan.

Methods

A three‐step approach to developing an outcome list will be used. First, we developed a long list of outcomes for community mental health through a literature review, focus group interviews with key stakeholders, and online questionnaire surveys of service users and caregivers. Second, the long list was checked and revised in a pilot study. Third, the long list will be shortened to the outcome list through the Delphi methodology with participation from multiple stakeholders.

Discussion

Identifying important common outcome domains through collaboration with multiple stakeholders appears to contribute to the development of evidence for community mental health research in Japan. In addition, the study process itself may help promote patient and public involvement in education, practice, and research in the field of community mental health.

Study designs and outcomes used in evaluation studies of hospital-presenting self-harm: protocol for a methodological systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Self-harm is the most common risk factor for suicide, and so those who present to hospital following self-harm provide an opportunity for targeted clinical care interventions. Observational studies evaluating such interventions may be useful in overcoming limitations of controlled trials, but study design, statistical analyses and outcomes used must be appropriate. This methodological systematic review will describe, categorise, synthesise and compare the methodological aspects of studies evaluating interventions and aspects of clinical management following hospital-presenting self-harm in both observational and experimental (ie, controlled trials or quasi-experimental studies) study designs.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis-Protocol guidelines were followed in drafting this protocol. Search terms were developed (related to self-harm, hospital presentation and evaluation studies) and adapted for MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and grey literature databases. Two reviewers will independently screen 100 titles/abstracts until consensus is reached, with the remaining screened by one reviewer. Full-text screening will be conducted independently by two reviewers. Data will be extracted by one reviewer, and a second will check all data extracted. Validated risk of bias tools will be used. Data synthesis will focus on the heterogeneity of outcomes used in individual studies. Descriptive summary statistics of the data (eg, key study characteristics, type and frequency of outcomes) will be provided in categorical format, using frequencies and percentages. Outcomes will be reported separately for trials (both randomised and non-randomised trials), observational and quasi-experimental studies. Categorisation of outcomes will be guided by Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care resources for reviews of health systems interventions.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Results will be disseminated at national and international conferences and published in a peer-reviewed journal. Findings will be used to inform future studies in the area of hospital-presenting self-harm. Ethical approval is not required for this review.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020208714.

The Core Outcome DEvelopment for Carrier Screening (CODECS) study: protocol for development of a core outcome set

Background

Reproductive genetic carrier screening is a type of genetic testing available to those planning a pregnancy, or during their first trimester, to understand their risk of having a child with a severe genetic condition. There is a lack of consensus for ‘what to measure’ in studies on this intervention, leading to heterogeneity in choice of outcomes and methods of measurement. Such outcome heterogeneity has implications for the quality and comparability of these studies and has led to a lack of robust research evidence in the literature to inform policy and decision-making around the offer of this screening. As reproductive genetic carrier screening becomes increasingly accessible within the general population, it is timely to investigate the outcomes of this intervention.

Objectives

The development of a core outcome set is an established methodology to address issues with outcome heterogeneity in research. We aim to develop a core outcome set for reproductive genetic carrier screening to clarify and standardise outcomes for research and practice.

Methods

In accordance with guidance from the COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) Initiative, this study will consist of five steps: (i) a systematic review of quantitative studies, using narrative synthesis to identify previously reported outcomes, their definitions, and methods of measurement; (ii) a systematic review of qualitative studies using content analysis to identify excerpts related to patient experience and perspectives that can be interpreted as outcomes; (iii) semi-structured focus groups and interviews with patients who have undertaken reproductive genetic carrier screening to identify outcomes of importance to them; (iv) Delphi survey of key stakeholders, including patients, clinicians, and researchers, to refine and prioritise the list of outcomes generated from the previous steps; and (v) a virtual consensus meeting with a purposive sample of key stakeholders to finalise the core outcome set for reporting.

Discussion

This protocol outlines the core outcome set development process and its novel application in the setting of genetic testing. This core outcome set will support the standardisation of outcome reporting in reproductive carrier screening research and contribute to an evolving literature on outcomes to evaluate genetic testing and genetic counselling as health interventions.

COMET core outcome set registration

http://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/1381.

What does safety in mental healthcare transitions mean for service users and other stakeholder groups: An open-ended questionnaire study

BACKGROUND

Historically, safety mental health research has tended to focus on risks of homicide, suicide and deaths. Although wider safety issues are now recognized in regards to mental health services, the safety of mental health transitions, a key research and policy priority according to World Health Organisation, has not been explored.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to investigate perceptions of safety in mental health transitions (hospital to community) amongst five stakeholder groups.

DESIGN AND SETTING

An online, international cross-sectional, open-ended questionnaire.

PARTICIPANTS

There were five stakeholder participant groups: service users; families/carers; mental health-care professionals; researchers; and end users of research.

RESULTS

Ninety-three participants from 12 different countries responded. Three overarching themes emerged: 'individual/clinical', 'systems/services' and 'human, behavioural and social' elements of safe mental health transitions. Whilst there was a great focus on clinical elements from researchers and healthcare professionals, service users and carers considered safety in terms of human, behavioural and social elements of transitional safety (ie loneliness, emotional readiness for discharge) and systems/services (ie inter-professional communication).

DISCUSSION

Safety in mental health-care transitions is perceived differently by service users and families compared to healthcare professionals and researchers. Traditional safety indicators for care transitions such as suicide, self-harm and risk of adverse drug events are raised as important. However, service users and families in particular have a much wider perception of transitions safety.

CONCLUSION

Future quality and safety research and policy should consider including a service user voice and consider integration of psychosocial elements in discharge interventions.