A qualitative evaluation of a co-design process involving young people at risk of suicide.

BACKGROUND: Co-design is becoming common practice in the development of mental health services, however, little is known about the experience of such practices, particularly when young people are involved. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to conduct a process evaluation of the co-design which was undertaken for the development of an intervention for youth and adolescents at risk of suicide. This paper briefly outlines the co-design process undertaken during a COVID-19 lockdown and then focuses on a qualitative evaluation of the experience of taking part in a co-design process. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: The evaluation involved young consumers of a public youth mental health service, their carers/parents and service delivery staff who had taken part in the co-design process. METHOD: This study used follow-up semistructured interviews with the co-design participants to explore their experience of the co-design process. Inductive thematic analysis was used to draw out common themes from the qualitative data. RESULTS: It was found that despite the practical efforts of the project team to minimise known issues in co-design, challenges centred around perceptions regarding power imbalance, the need for extensive consultation and time constraints still arose. DISCUSSION: Despite these challenges, the study found that the co-design provided a human-centred, accessible and rewarding process for young people, parents and staff members, leaving them with the feeling that they had made a worthwhile contribution to the design of the new service, as well as contributing to changing practice in service design. CONCLUSION: With sensitivity and adaptation to usual practice, it is possible to include young people with suicidal ideation, their parents/carers and professional staff in a safe and effective co-design process. PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The authors would like to thank and acknowledge the young people with a lived experience and their carers who participated in the co-design process and research evaluation component of this study. We also wish to thank the clinical staff, peer workers and family peer workers who participated in this research.

Are codesigned programmes more difficult to implement? A qualitative study of staff perceptions on the implementation of a new youth mental health programme.

BACKGROUND: Codesigned interventions are becoming more common in health services and, in particular, in the design and development of mental health programmes and interventions. However, previous research has established that the transition from codesign to implementation can experience several challenges and that this transition process has received little research attention. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to explore the experience of staff members charged with the implementation of a codesigned intervention for young people and adolescents at risk of suicide. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Five staff members involved in the implementation of the new codesigned programme took part in semi-structured interviews. METHOD: The study involved qualitative evaluation of staff experiences during the implementation of a new child and youth suicide intervention. Interviews were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: The analysis identified four themes of 'disconnect', 'operational challenges, 'service user' and 'being authentic'. 'Disconnect' captures the difficulties of implementing a codesigned programme which leads to 'operational challenges' in meeting broader expectations while ensuring the feasibility of the programme. The third theme, 'service user', captures the realisation that the young people accessing the new service were different to those involved in the codesign process. The final theme, 'being authentic', highlights how staff needed to be responsive and flexible while remaining true to the principles proposed in the codesign. DISCUSSION: This study yielded some valuable insights into the challenges around the implementation of a codesigned intervention, an under-researched area. The findings suggest that adaption of the design may be necessary, if it is not informed by implementation constraints, making it necessary for the implementation team to be well-briefed on the initial design and given plenty of time to make the necessary adjustments in a coproduction process. Limitations for the generalisation of the results include a small sample of staff and particular challenges that may be unique to this study. CONCLUSION: The present study highlights that for health services undertaking codesign approaches, appropriate time and resources need to be considered for the implementation phase of an initiative, to ensure that there is effective translation from design to implementation and that new codesigned services can be effective within operational constraints. PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The authors would like to thank and acknowledge the young people with a lived-experience and their carers who participated in the codesign process and research evaluation component of this study. We also wish to thank the clinical staff, peer workers and family peer workers who participated in the evaluation.

Eyelid lacerations secondary to caesarean section delivery.

A 32-week-gestation female was delivered emergently via caesarian section to a mother in premature labor due to placental abruption. On delivery, the neonate was noted to have sustained right upper and lower eyelid full-thickness lacerations extending from the medial canthal area with associated right upper and lower full-thickness canalicular lacerations. The neonate underwent same-day surgical repair of her eyelid lacerations with stenting of her canalicular system with a Crawford tube. At 2 months postoperatively, the child is opening her right upper eyelid without any signs of deprivation ambylopia. This case demonstrates the need to inform expectant mothers of the intrinsic risks of periorbital trauma during the birthing process that may result in visual loss through either ambylopia and/or globe injury.