A realist review of medication optimisation of community dwelling service users with serious mental illness.

BACKGROUND: Severe mental illness (SMI) incorporates schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, non-organic psychosis, personality disorder or any other severe and enduring mental health illness. Medication, particularly antipsychotics and mood stabilisers are the main treatment options. Medication optimisation is a hallmark of medication safety, characterised by the use of collaborative, person-centred approaches. There is very little published research describing medication optimisation with people living with SMI. OBJECTIVE: Published literature and two stakeholder groups were employed to answer: What works for whom and in what circumstances to optimise medication use with people living with SMI in the community? METHODS: A five-stage realist review was co-conducted with a lived experience group of individuals living with SMI and a practitioner group caring for individuals with SMI. An initial programme theory was developed. A formal literature search was conducted across eight bibliographic databases, and literature were screened for relevance to programme theory refinement. In total 60 papers contributed to the review. 42 papers were from the original database search with 18 papers identified from additional database searches and citation searches conducted based on stakeholder recommendations. RESULTS: Our programme theory represents a continuum from a service user's initial diagnosis of SMI to therapeutic alliance development with practitioners, followed by mutual exchange of information, shared decision-making and medication optimisation. Accompanying the programme theory are 11 context-mechanism-outcome configurations that propose evidence-informed contextual factors and mechanisms that either facilitate or impede medication optimisation. Two mid-range theories highlighted in this review are supported decision-making and trust formation. CONCLUSIONS: Supported decision-making and trust are foundational to overcoming stigma and establishing 'safety' and comfort between service users and practitioners. Avenues for future research include the influence of stigma and equity across cultural and ethnic groups with individuals with SMI; and use of trained supports, such as peer support workers. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021280980.

Training healthcare professionals to be ready for practice in an era of social distancing: a realist evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Programme changes due to the COVID-19 pandemic have impacted variably on preparation for practice of healthcare professional students. Explanations for such variability need exploration. The aim of our study was to understand what clinical learning, whilst under socially distanced restrictions, worked and why (or why not). METHODS: We conducted a realist evaluation of the undergraduate healthcare programmes at one UK university in 2020-21. Initial programme theories to be tested in this study were derived from discussions with programme leads about the changes they implemented due to the pandemic. Study participants were students and teaching faculty. Online interview transcripts were coded, identifying why interventions had worked or not. This resulted in a set of 'context-mechanism-outcome' (CMO) statements about each intervention. The initial programme theories were refined as a result. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: 29 students and 22 faculty members participated. 18 CMO configurations were identified relating to clinical skills learning and 25 relating to clinical placements. Clinical skills learning was successful whether in person, remote or hybrid if it followed the steps of: demonstration-explanation-mental rehearsal-attempt with feedback. Where it didn't work there was usually a lack of observation and corrective feedback. Placements were generally highly valued despite some deficiencies in student experience. Being useful on placements was felt to be good preparation for practice. If student numbers are to expand, findings about what works in distance learning of clinical skills and the value of various modes of induction to clinical workplace activity may also be relevant post-pandemic.

An orange will do: Suspending learner disbelief in simulations.

INTRODUCTION: Increasingly, educators are implementing simulation to supplement teaching. Where simulation is not already integral, difficulties have arisen with the utilization of simulation due to limited resources, training requirements, and educator uncertainty. PERSPECTIVE: A learner's ability to suspend disbelief in a simulation can impact the effectiveness of learning. In other words, they become so immersed in the simulation that they ignore obvious limitations and choose to believe the activity is realistic. When designing simulations, educators need to consider intended learning outcomes (ILOs), realism, and briefings/debriefings to help learners suspend disbelief. Realism encompasses physical realism (fidelity), conceptual realism, and emotional/experiential realism. The ILOs should drive the simulation design and type of realism required. These should be presented to learners in a briefing, explaining where and why they may need to suspend disbelief; this should be reiterated during a debriefing to centre a learner's focus on whether the ILOs were met. Without this, learners may not "buy into" the simulation and instead can get lost in detail not relevant to their learning. IMPLICATIONS: The use of cutting-edge equipment does not, on its own, ensure that learners get the most realistic learning experience. The goal of simulations should be to utilize resources in the most advantageous manner for attainment of ILOs. In a time when institutions may be pressured for time, staff, and resources, educators should remember that it is possible to facilitate effective learning in low-resource ways.

Medication optimisation in severe mental illness (MEDIATE): protocol for a realist review.

INTRODUCTION: Severe mental illness (SMI) is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. People living with SMI often receive complex medication regimens. Optimising these regimens can be challenging. Non-adherence is common and addressing it requires a collaborative approach to decision making. MEDIATE uses a realist approach with extensive engagement with experts-by-experience to make sense of the complexities and identify potential solutions.Realist research is used to unpack and explain complexity using programme theory/theories that contain causal explanations of outcomes, expressed as context-mechanism-outcome-configurations. The programme theory/theories will enable MEDIATE to address its aim of understanding what works, for whom, in what circumstances, to optimise medication use with people living with SMI. METHOD AND ANALYSIS: MEDIATE will be conducted over six stages. In stage 1, we will collaborate with our service user/family carer lived experience group (LEG) and practitioner stakeholder group (SG), to determine the focus. In stage 2, we will develop initial programme theories for what needs to be done, by whom, how and why, and in what contexts to optimise medication use. In stage 3, we will develop and run searches to identify secondary data to refine our initial programme theories.Stage 4 involves selection and appraisal: documents will be screened by title, abstract/keywords and full text against inclusion and exclusion criteria. In stage 5, relevant data will extracted, recorded and coded. Data will be analysed using a realist logic with input from the LEG and SG. Finally, in stage 6, refined programme theories will be developed, identifying causal explanations for key outcomes and the strategies required to change contexts to trigger the key mechanisms that produce these outcomes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Primary data will not be collected, and therefore, ethical approval is not required. MEDIATE will be disseminated via publications, conferences and form the basis for future grant applications. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021280980.

Shared Decision-Making With a Virtual Patient in Medical Education: Mixed Methods Evaluation Study.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision-making (SDM) is a process in which clinicians and patients work together to select tests, treatments, management, or support packages based on clinical evidence and the patient's informed preferences. Similar to any skill, SDM requires practice to improve. Virtual patients (VPs) are simulations that allow one to practice a variety of clinical skills, including communication. VPs can be used to help professionals and students practice communication skills required to engage in SDM; however, this specific focus has not received much attention within the literature. A multiple-choice VP was developed to allow students the opportunity to practice SDM. To interact with the VP, users chose what they wanted to say to the VP by choosing from multiple predefined options, rather than typing in what they wanted to say. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate a VP workshop for medical students aimed at developing the communication skills required for SDM. METHODS: Preintervention and postintervention questionnaires were administered, followed by semistructured interviews. The questionnaires provided cohort-level data on the participants' views of the VP and helped to inform the interview guide; the interviews were used to explore some of the data from the questionnaire in more depth, including the participants' experience of using the VP. RESULTS: The interviews and questionnaires suggested that the VP was enjoyable and easy to use. When the participants were asked to rank their priorities in both pre- and post-VP consultations, there was a change in the rank position of respecting patient choices, with the median rank changing from second to first. Owing to the small sample size, this was not analyzed for statistical significance. The VP allowed the participants to explore a consultation in a way that they could not with simulated or real patients, which may be part of the reason that the VP was suggested as a useful intervention for bridging from the early, theory-focused years of the curriculum to the more patient-focused ones later. CONCLUSIONS: The VP was well accepted by the participants. The multiple-choice system of interaction was reported to be both useful and restrictive. Future work should look at further developing the mode of interaction and explore whether the VP results in any changes in observed behavior or practice.

Virtual patient educational intervention for the development of shared decision-making skills: a pilot study.

Background: Shared decision-making (SDM) involves a healthcare professional and a patient forming a congruent partnership, within which information is shared and decisions are made which align with the patient's values. SDM does not occur to the extent it ought to; SDM requires practice. Virtual reality could help facilitate this practice. Objective: To pilot an interactive, high-fidelity virtual patient (VP) who simulates SDM within a primary care consultation. Method: Academic pharmacists and doctors were recruited from the Keele University. Participants completed prequestionnaires and postquestionnaires. Results: 18 participants (14 pharmacists and 4 medical doctors) completed the study. 89% (n=16) suggested the VP was 'enjoyable' or 'highly enjoyable' to use and 72% (n=13) suggested it was 'very accessible'. There were diverse views about the way in which the user made their reply to the VP with ratings ranging from 'very poor' (n=2) to 'very good' (n=5); the modal rating was indifference (n=7). It seemed the multiple choice system caused the participants to feel restricted but it was unclear why those who liked the system did so. Conclusions: The VP was found to be enjoyable and thought-provoking. The data suggest that this type of intervention could be useful at many different stages of a professional's career although the multiple-choice conversation style may be too restrictive for more experienced consulters.

Improving Shared Decision Making Between Patients and Clinicians: Design and Development of a Virtual Patient Simulation Tool.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision making (SDM) involves the formation of a collaborative partnership between the patient and clinician combining both of their expertise in order to benefit decision making. In order for clinicians to be able to carry out this skilled task, they require practice. Virtual reality, in the form of a virtual patient, could offer a potential method of facilitating this. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to create a virtual patient that simulated a primary care consultation, affording the opportunity to practice SDM. A second aim was to involve patients in the design of a virtual patient simulation and report the process of the design. METHODS: We employed a multistep design process drawing on patient and expert involvement. RESULTS: A virtual patient, following a narrative style, was built, which allows a user to practice and receive feedback; both clinical and communication skills are required for the simulation. The patient group provided multiple insights, which the academic team had overlooked. They pertained mostly to issues concerning the patient experience. CONCLUSIONS: It is possible to design a virtual patient that allows a learner to practice their ability to conduct SDM. Patient input into the design of virtual patient simulations can be a worthwhile activity.