Developing a research tool to detect iatrogenic adverse events in psychiatric health care by involving service users and health professionals.

WHAT IS KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT: Most health professionals working in psychiatric care will experience adverse events (AE) such as service user suicide or violence, during their career Norway lacks measures to capture potential iatrogenic injuries, such as risk assessment measures, to evaluate patient records for AEs in both inpatient and outpatient psychiatric clinics in hospitals WHAT THE PAPER ADDS TO EXISTING KNOWLEDGE: We have described an approach to the validation of a research tool between different national contexts; a process that went beyond language translation We have incorporated the understanding of health professionals and service users; to bring together the lifeworld of the patient with the professional definition of AEs, triggers and risk areas of AEs in a psychiatric context. The service users' experiences resulted in modifications to the tool. WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSES: Applying the 'Global Trigger Tool-Psychiatry' in Norway and Sweden can help mental health nurses to prevent iatrogenic harm and reduce the occurrence of AEs through the identification of potential triggers. Implementing 'Global Trigger Tool-Psychiatry' might help mental health nurses to improve patient safety in Norway and Sweden. ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION: There is little consensus on cross-cultural and cross-national adaptation of research instruments. AIM/QUESTION: To translate and validate a Swedish research tool (GTT-P) to detect iatrogenic adverse events in psychiatric health care by involving service users and health professionals in the process. METHOD: The GTT-P, designed to identify events in patient records that were triggers for adverse events, was translated to Norwegian using a cross-cultural adaptation approach. This involved two focus groups with clinical staff, one of which involved service users, and a joint discussion at a Dialogue Conference to generate consensus on the definition of the triggers of potential adverse events identifiable in patient records. RESULTS: We highlight both the differences and commonalities in defining the nature of risks, the adverse events and the triggers of such events. The Dialogue Conference resulted in three modifications of the tool, based on service users' experiences. Service user involvement and co-production was essential for both the translation and adaptation of the research instrument. DISCUSSION: We have described an approach to the validation of a research tool between different national contexts; a process that went beyond language translation. This approach enables a more nuanced understanding of potential risks within a psychiatric context as it engages differences in the care delivery. Applying the GTT-P in hospital-based psychiatric care might help to identify processes that need to be changed in order to promote patient safety and a safer work environment for mental health nurses. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: When translating and validating the GTT-P from Swedish to Norwegian, we have considered the knowledge and experiences of both service users and health professionals. The application of the GTT-P can promote greater patient safety in hospital settings.

The Norwegian way: COVID-19 vaccination policy and practice.

Objectives: To describe the evolution of the national vaccination programme in Norway and how changes in national policy informed by risk and equity shaped international vaccine debates, public trust and vaccine hesitancy. Methods: Documentary analysis of publicly available statistics, government documents and media sources. Results: Process equity founded on social solidarity was central to the approach taken to vaccination in Norway but within the context of a very low level of COVID-19 Infection. Conclusions: In the context of Norway with very low levels of infection, the risks associated with vaccine side effects were of a similar order to the risk of infection which led to an early decision to exclude the AstraZeneca vaccine and limit access to the Janssen vaccine. Public trust in the way the state managed the changes in the vaccination programme resulted in very limited public resistance to the vaccine programme, high levels of vaccine uptake and an acceptance of delays associated with the exclusion of two approved vaccines. Vaccination rates among Norwegian residents born in Eastern Europe were significantly lower than both foreign born and Norwegian born residents.

Mitigating risk in Norwegian psychiatric care: Identifying triggers of adverse events through Global Trigger Tool for psychiatric care.

BACKGROUND: Patients treated in psychiatric care are exposed to the risk of adverse events, similar to patients treated in somatic health care. OBJECTIVES: In this article we report the findings of triggers associated with adverse events (AEs) identified by a version of the Global Trigger Tool - Psychiatry (GTT-P) adapted for Norwegian hospital-based psychiatric treatment. METHODS: The design was a retrospective analysis of a random sample of 240 patient records from a psychiatric clinic in one Norwegian hospital. Patient records were sampled from both inpatient and outpatient psychiatric clinics in hospitals serving the northern part of the county of Trøndelag, Norway. RESULTS: Our analysis was based on the identification of 32 potential triggers of adverse events. Eighteen of the triggers were significantly related to adverse events. No adverse events were identified in patient records that did not also contain triggers included in the Global Trigger Tool. CONCLUSIONS: There is a clear relationship between the presence of triggers in a patient record and the likelihood of adverse events. Particularly relevant for psychiatric patients is 'suffering' as a trigger and this may also be relevant to somatic care and has implications for inclusion in the GTT-P.

Involvement that makes an impact on healthcare: Perceptions of the Swedish public.

AIM: 'Participation and influence in society' is the first of 11 objective domains in Swedish public health policy. The aim of this article is to investigate the views of the Swedish general population on the impact of a range of health participation activities, and whether these views were associated with sociodemographic characteristics. METHODS: The study utilizes a national representative survey of the Swedish population, aged 15 years and over ( n = 1500). RESULTS: Apart from voting in regional elections - which most of the respondents believed to be an influential way to make improvements in healthcare (74%) - respondents believed more in individual patient activities than activities associated with adopting a citizen role and acting collectively. A majority of respondents believed in the impact of replying to patient surveys (67%), making a complaint (61%), talking directly to staff (58%) or changing their healthcare provider (54%). Fewer believed in the impact of joining a patient organization (46%), taking part in a citizen council (35%) or joining a political party (34%). Beliefs in impact increased with educational attainment and decreased with age. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest people have more confidence in the impact of participating as individual patients rather than collectively and as citizens. To ensure that activities enable 'participation and influence in society', complementary opportunities for collective involvement that also take into account under-represented voices such as those with a low level of education need to be developed.

Disentangling patient and public involvement in healthcare decisions: why the difference matters.

Patient and public involvement has become an integral aspect of many developed health systems and is judged to be an essential driver for reform. However, little attention has been paid to the distinctions between patients and the public, and the views of patients are often seen to encompass those of the general public. Using an ideal-type approach, we analyse crucial distinctions between patient involvement and public involvement using examples from Sweden and England. We highlight that patients have sectional interests as health service users in contrast to citizens who engage as a public policy agent reflecting societal interests. Patients draw on experiential knowledge and focus on output legitimacy and performance accountability, aim at typical representativeness, and a direct responsiveness to individual needs and preferences. In contrast, the public contributes with collective perspectives generated from diversity, centres on input legitimacy achieved through statistical representativeness, democratic accountability and indirect responsiveness to general citizen preferences. Thus, using patients as proxies for the public fails to achieve intended goals and benefits of involvement. We conclude that understanding and measuring the impact of patient and public involvement can only develop with the application of a clearer comprehension of the differences.

What are tests for? The implications of stuttering steps along the US patient pathway.

This article explores the implications of how US family physicians make decisions about ordering diagnostic tests for their patients. Data is based on a study of 256 physicians interviewed after viewing a video vignette of a presenting patient. The qualitative analysis of 778 statements relating to trustworthiness of evidence for their decision making, the use of any kind of technology and diagnostic testing suggests a range of internal and external constraints on physician decision making. Test-ordering for family physicians in the United States is significantly influenced by both hidden cognitive processes related to the physician's calculation of patient resources and a health insurance system that requires certain types of evidence in order to permit further tests or particular interventions. The consequence of the need for physicians to meet multiple forms of proof that may not always relate to relevant treatment delays a diagnosis and treatment plan agreed not only by the physician and patient but also the insurance company. This results in a patient journey that is made up of stuttering steps to a confirmed diagnosis and treatment undermining patient-centred practice, compromising patient care, constraining physician autonomy and creating additional expense.

Undermining patient and public engagement and limiting its impact: the consequences of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 on collective patient and public involvement.

Patient and public involvement has been at the heart of UK health policy for more than two decades. This commitment to putting patients at the heart of the British National Health Service (NHS) has become a central principle helping to ensure equity, patient safety and effectiveness in the health system. The recent Health and Social Care Act 2012 is the most significant reform of the NHS since its foundation in 1948. More radically, this legislation undermines the principle of patient and public involvement, public accountability and returns the power for prioritisation of health services to an unaccountable medical elite. This legislation marks a sea-change in the approach to patient and public involvement in the UK and signals a shift in the commitment of the UK government to patient-centred care.

Revolution or evolution: the challenges of conceptualizing patient and public involvement in a consumerist world.

BACKGROUND: Changing the relationship between citizens and the state is at the heart of current policy reforms. Across England and the developed world, from Oslo to Ontario, Newcastle to Newquay, giving the public a more direct say in shaping the organization and delivery of healthcare services is central to the current health reform agenda. Realigning public services around those they serve, based on evidence from service user's experiences, and designed with and by the people rather than simply on their behalf, is challenging the dominance of managerialism, marketization and bureaucratic expertise. Despite this attention there is limited conceptual and theoretical work to underpin policy and practice. OBJECTIVE: This article proposes a conceptual framework for patient and public involvement (PPI) and goes on to explore the different justifications for involvement and the implications of a rights-based rather than a regulatory approach. These issues are highlighted through exploring the particular evolution of English health policy in relation to PPI on the one hand and patient choice on the other before turning to similar patterns apparent in the United States and more broadly. CONCLUSIONS: A framework for conceptualizing PPI is presented that differentiates between the different types and aims of involvement and their potential impact. Approaches to involvement are different in those countries that adopt a rights-based rather than a regulatory approach. I conclude with a discussion of the tension and interaction apparent in the globalization of both involvement and patient choice in both policy and practice.

'Listen to my madness': understanding the experiences of people with serious mental illness.

This article explores the salience of disability theory for understanding the experiences of people with serious mental illness. Drawing on data from a focus group study, we suggest that users experience both impairment (as embodied irrationality) which can, in itself, be oppressive, and also have to manage their lives within a largely disabling society. We outline some of the strategies adopted by users to manage their situation and ensure they access and receive health services, and illustrate how these are a result of the complex relationship between disability and impairment. We suggest that using a framework of the social model of disability provides a useful way of understanding and making sense of the experience of users with serious mental illness.

Patients' and health professionals' views on primary care for people with serious mental illness: focus group study.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the experience of providing and receiving primary care from the perspectives of primary care health professionals and patients with serious mental illness respectively. DESIGN: Qualitative study consisting of six patient groups, six health professional groups, and six combined focus groups. SETTING: Six primary care trusts in the West Midlands. PARTICIPANTS: Forty five patients with serious mental illness, 39 general practitioners (GPs), and eight practice nurses. RESULTS: Most health professionals felt that the care of people with serious mental illness was too specialised for primary care. However, most patients viewed primary care as the cornerstone of their health care and preferred to consult their own GP, who listened and was willing to learn, rather than be referred to a different GP with specific mental health knowledge. Swift access was important to patients, with barriers created by the effects of the illness and the noisy or crowded waiting area. Some patients described how they exaggerated symptoms ("acted up") to negotiate an urgent appointment, a strategy that was also employed by some GPs to facilitate admission to secondary care. Most participants felt that structured reviews of care had value. However, whereas health professionals perceived serious mental illness as a lifelong condition, patients emphasised the importance of optimism in treatment and hope for recovery. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care is of central importance to people with serious mental illness. The challenge for health professionals and patients is to create a system in which patients can see a health professional when they want to without needing to exaggerate their symptoms. The importance that patients attach to optimism in treatment, continuity of care, and listening skills compared with specific mental health knowledge should encourage health professionals in primary care to play a greater role in the care of patients with serious mental illness.

Managing crisis: the role of primary care for people with serious mental illness.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: More than 30% of patients with serious mental illness in the United Kingdom now receive all their health care solely from primary care. This study explored the process of managing acute mental health crises from the dual perspective of patients and primary care health professionals. METHODS: Eighteen focus groups involving 45 patients, 39 general practitioners, and eight practice nurses were held between May and November 2002 in six Primary Care Trusts across the British West Midlands. The topic guide explored perceptions of gold standard care, current issues and critical incidents in receiving/providing care, and ideas on improving services. RESULTS: Themes relevant to the management of acute crisis included issues of process, such as access, advocacy, communication, continuity, and coordination of care; the development of more structured care that might reduce the need for crisis responses; and issues raised by the development of a more structured approach to care. CONCLUSIONS: Access to services is a complicated yet crucial feature of managing care in a crisis, with patients identifying barriers at the level of primary care and health professionals at the interface with secondary care. The development of more structured systems as a solution may generate its own ethical and pragmatic challenges.

Satisfaction with primary care: the perspectives of people with schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: Schizophrenia affects up to 1% of the population in the UK. People with schizophrenia use the National Health Service frequently and over a long period of time. However, their views on satisfaction with primary care are rarely sought. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to explore the elements of satisfaction with primary care for people with schizophrenia. METHOD: A primary care-based study was carried out using semi-structured interviews with 45 patients with schizophrenia receiving shared care with the Northern Birmingham Mental Health Trust between 1999 and 2000. RESULTS: Five major themes that affect satisfaction emerged from the data: the exceptional potential of the consultation itself; the importance of aspects of the organization of primary care; the construction of the user in the doctor-patient relationship; the influence of stereotypes on GP behaviour; and the importance of hope for recovery. CONCLUSION: Satisfaction with primary care is multiply mediated. It is also rarely expected or achieved by this group of patients. There is a significant gap between the rhetoric and the reality of user involvement in primary care consultations. Acknowledging the tensions between societal and GP views of schizophrenia as an incurable life sentence and the importance to patients of hope for recovery is likely to lead to greater satisfaction with primary health care for people with schizophrenia.