Witness to Harm; Holding to Account: What Is the Importance of Information for Members of the Public Who Give Evidence and May Be Witness in a Regulatory Hearing of a Health or Care Professional?

BACKGROUND: Health and social care regulators are organisations that seek to maintain public trust in professionals and protect the public from harmful practitioners. For example, they ensure that practitioners have the correct qualifications to practice and investigate any concerns raised about them. Serious concerns can result in a fitness to practise (FtP) hearing where a member of the public may be required to give evidence as a witness. Being a witness and being cross-examined is known to often be traumatic, particularly for members of the public in criminal trials. There is some research evidence that registered professionals who are the subject of the proceedings may suffer mental ill health as result of the experience. But there is scant research that specifically explores the experiences of members of the public giving evidence in a FtP hearing. The regulator web pages are an important source of information for public witnesses to prepare themselves for a FtP hearing. AIM: This study aimed to examine the publicly available information for public witnesses from the 13 health and social care regulators in the United Kingdom to evaluate the content, amount, type and format of information available and make recommendations about how regulators can improve these. METHODS: Regulator websites were searched during November 2021-February 2022 for information for the public on what happens after raising a concern with a regulator. Resources were downloaded and qualitative content analysis conducted. Our findings were validated by interviews (n = 7) with the public including people with experience of FtP and a focus group of the public (n = 5). RESULTS: One hundred and forty-six resources (97 webpages and 25 public facing documents, 20 videos and 4 easy read documents) were found. Topics included screening and investigation, preparing for a hearing, during a hearing and after a hearing, and support for witnesses. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: We conclude that there are many deficiencies in the information content and its presentation for the public and some exemplars, such as the use of flowcharts and short videos to explain the FtP processes. Recommendations for practice take the form of a framework with three themes, (i) co-production, (ii) preferred content and (iii) format. It may be used by regulators to enhance their support for members of the public as witnesses in FtP hearings. PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Our advisory group of people with lived experience of involvement as members of the public in FtP discussed the findings and contributed to the recommendations.

A case of swine influenza A(H1N2)v in England, November 2023.

Under International Health Regulations from 2005, a human infection caused by a novel influenza A virus variant is considered an event that has potential for high public health impact and is immediately notifiable to the World Health Organisation. We here describe the clinical, epidemiological and virological features of a confirmed human case of swine influenza A(H1N2)v in England detected through community respiratory virus surveillance. Swabbing and contact tracing helped refine public health risk assessment, following this unusual and unexpected finding.

A Web-Based Intervention to Support the Mental Well-Being of Sexual and Gender Minority Young People: Mixed Methods Co-Design of Oneself.

BACKGROUND: Sexual and gender minority youth are at greater risk of compromised mental health than their heterosexual and cisgender peers. This is considered to be due to an increased burden of stigma, discrimination, or bullying resulting in a heightened experience of daily stress. Given the increasing digital accessibility and a strong preference for web-based support among sexual and gender minority youth, digital interventions are a key means to provide support to maintain their well-being. OBJECTIVE: This paper aims to explicate the co-design processes and underpinning logic of Oneself, a bespoke web-based intervention for sexual and gender minority youth. METHODS: This study followed a 6-stage process set out by Hagen et al (identify, define, position, concept, create, and use), incorporating a systematic scoping review of existing evidence, focus groups with 4 stakeholder groups (ie, sexual and gender minority youth, professionals who directly support them, parents, and UK public health service commissioners), a series of co-design workshops and web-based consultations with sexual and gender minority youth, the appointment of a digital development company, and young adult sexual and gender minority contributors to create content grounded in authentic experiences. RESULTS: Oneself features a welcome and home page, including a free accessible to all animation explaining the importance of using appropriate pronouns and the opportunity to create a user account and log-in to access further free content. Creating an account provides an opportunity (for the user and the research team) to record engagement, assess users' well-being, and track progress through the available content. There are three sections of content in Oneself focused on the priority topics identified through co-design: (1) coming out and doing so safely; (2) managing school, including homophobic, biphobic, or transphobic bullying or similar; and (3) dealing with parents and families, especially unsupportive family members, including parents or caregivers. Oneself's content focuses on identifying these as topic areas and providing potential resources to assist sexual and gender minority youth in coping with these areas. For instance, Oneself drew on therapeutic concepts such as cognitive reframing, stress reduction, and problem-solving techniques. There is also a section containing relaxation exercises, a section with links to other recommended support and resources, and a downloads section with more detailed techniques and strategies for improving well-being. CONCLUSIONS: This study contributes to research by opening up the black box of intervention development. It shows how Oneself is underpinned by a logic that can support future development and evaluation and includes diverse co-designers. More interactive techniques to support well-being would be beneficial for further development. Additional content specific to a wider range of intersecting identities (such as care-experienced Asian sexual and gender minority youth from a minority faith background) would also be beneficial in future Oneself developments. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/31036.

Improving support and planning ahead for older people with learning disabilities and family carers: a mixed-methods study.

Background: People with learning disabilities are living longer. Despite government policy to encourage people to lead supported lives in their community, family carers often maintain support due to dissatisfaction with services. This can lead to people moving from the family home in a crisis. Objectives: (1) Find out what is known about health needs and resources for older people with learning disabilities (aged ≥ 40 years); (2) identify exemplars of good services for older people with learning disabilities; (3) explore service exemplars through ethnographic case studies; (4) evaluate support for older people with learning disabilities and their families through co-producing and testing future planning tools and (5) co-produce recommendations and resources. Design and methods: Work package 1 rapid scoping reviews - three reviews focused on the health and social care needs of older people with learning disabilities and 'behaviours that challenge others', and family carers, and the co-ordination of support for this group. Work package 2 scoping and mapping exemplars of good practice - analysis of published service standards to assess excellence criteria, by mapping services, interviews (n = 30), survey (n = 9) and informal discussion with commissioners. Work package 3 ethnography of case studies of exemplar provision; independent supported living (n = 4); residential/nursing home (n = 2); day activities (n = 1), Shared Lives (n = 2). Fieldwork (20 days per model), interviews (n = 77) with older people with learning disabilities, family carers, support staff and commissioners. Work package 4 - co-producing and testing resources for older people with learning disabilities and their families involved interviews and focus groups with 36 people with learning disabilities, parents, and siblings, and experience-based co-design with 11 participants. Eight families evaluated the resources. Work package 5 - three stakeholder workshops co-produced service recommendations. Findings: The reviews confirmed an inadequate evidence base concerning the experiences and support of family carers and older people with learning disabilities and 'behaviours that challenge others'. Criteria of excellence were produced, and a shortlist of 15 services was identified for consideration in work package 3. The ethnographic work found that environmental, organisational and social factors were important, including supporting independence and choice about who people live with, matching staff to people, consistent relationships and adapting to ageing. Practices of institutionalisation were observed. In work package 4, we found that families were worried about the future and unsupported to explore options. 'Planning Ahead' cards and a booklet to record discussions were produced, and the evaluation was positively rated. Finally, formative discussion informed recommendations. Outputs include training packages, a carers' forum, a film, a podcast and academic papers. Conclusions: There is little focus on older people with learning disabilities and family carers. Services vary in their approach to planning for older-age support. Families are unsupported to plan, leaving people without choice. 'Behaviours that challenge others' was found to be unhelpful terminology. Recommendations: A new strategy is recommended for older people with learning disabilities and family carers that encompasses commissioning practices, professional input and peer learning, proactive support in ageing well and excellent service design. Limitations: The COVID-19 pandemic created recruitment challenges. Reliance on providers for recruitment resulted in a lack of diversity in work package 3. Families' plans, and therefore change, may be frustrated by insufficient service resources. Future work: Given the lack of focus in this area, there is a range of future work to consider: experiences of older people with learning disabilities from diverse ethnic backgrounds; supporting people to age and die 'in place'; best practice regarding designing/commissioning services, including housing; the role of social workers; access to nature; accessing mainstream support; and evaluation of the 'Planning Ahead' cards. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN74264887. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR129491) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 16. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

People with learning disabilities are living longer, but most live with their families, who are also getting older. This is because there are not enough suitable places for people with learning disabilities to live, and family carers worry that the person will not get the right support and have a good life. Our research aimed to improve support for people with learning disabilities and their family carers to plan ahead for a good life. We focused on people who are labelled with 'behaviours that challenge others'. We read what has been written about this area. We looked for and found examples of excellent support for older people with learning disabilities. Researchers and people with learning disabilities and family carers spent time hanging out with people where they live or spend their days to see what support they get. Then we had three meetings with everyone involved and discussed our research findings with people with learning disabilities, family carers, and professionals. We found that people can be supported to live good lives as they grow older. This can be living alone or with people they choose, and it means having staff they like and who like them and being supported to be active. However, we found that ageing of people with learning disabilities is often ignored, and some people were not living good lives. We also found that the label of 'behaviours that challenge others' is unhelpful. We worked with people with learning disabilities and family carers to make a set of cards with pictures and questions to help people plan ahead for a good life. We produced resources and made recommendations to create a new plan for older people with learning disabilities to support people to lead good lives. This is very important because there is a lack of attention to and support for people with learning disabilities as they age.

Lessons for the UK on implementation and evaluation of breastfeeding support: evidence syntheses and stakeholder engagement.

Background: Breastfeeding impacts positively on multiple health outcomes, but < 50% of UK women breastfeed at 8 weeks. Women with long-term conditions face additional challenges in breastfeeding. Objectives: To synthesise global and UK evidence to co-create an implementation and evaluation toolkit for cost-effective breastfeeding support in the NHS. Design: Evidence syntheses with stakeholder engagement. Review methods: Systematic reviews examined effectiveness of breastfeeding support for (1) healthy women and (2) women with long-term conditions using Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group methods. Mixed-methods systematic reviews synthesised process evaluations of effective breastfeeding support interventions for healthy women and experiences of receiving/providing support for breastfeeding women with long-term conditions. Cross-study synthesis integrated qualitative and quantitative findings. Systematic reviews synthesised evidence on the incremental costs and cost-effectiveness of breastfeeding support following National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance. All searches were conducted from May 2021 to October 2022. Stakeholder engagement and toolkit development comprised online discussions, a modified Delphi study, focus groups and four workshops. Participants were 23 stakeholders, 16 parents in the parents' panels, 15 women in the focus groups and 87 stakeholders who attended the workshops. Results: We found considerably more interventions designed for healthy women (review 1) than aimed at women with long-term conditions (reviews 1 and 4); approximately half of the studies were targeted at groups at higher risk of poor breastfeeding outcomes, and the impact of support may be different in these populations. Despite this, studies from review 2 found that women perceived the provision of support as positive, important and needed. Studies from review 5 echoed a range of suggestions from participants regarding potential strategies to improve breastfeeding support, with the most widely reported being the need to acknowledge the role and influence of other sources of support (e.g. partners, family, friends, peers, external professionals, web-based resources) and involving these sources in the provision of breastfeeding support for women with long-term conditions. In reviews 3 and 6, there was uncertainty about the cost-effectiveness of breastfeeding support interventions due to the limited number of studies and lack of good-quality evidence. Limitations: There was a lack of evidence for the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of breastfeeding interventions in the UK. There was often insufficient information reported about intervention characteristics. Conclusions: 'Breastfeeding only' support probably reduces the number of women stopping any or exclusive breastfeeding. The evidence for 'breastfeeding plus' interventions is less consistent, but these may reduce the number of women stopping exclusive breastfeeding at 4-6 weeks and at 6 months. We found no evidence of differential intervention effects regarding mode of provision or provider. Cost-effectiveness is uncertain due to the lack of good-quality evidence. Key enablers of successful implementation were responsiveness and tailoring of interventions to both women's and supporters' needs. Breastfeeding support as delivered in the included studies probably has little to no effect on breastfeeding outcomes for women with long-term conditions. The mixed-methods synthesis and stakeholder work identified that existing interventions may not address the complex needs of these women. The main study output is a co-produced toolkit to guide implementation and evaluation of breastfeeding support services in the UK. Future work: Evaluation of breastfeeding support for all women, particularly those at risk of poor breastfeeding outcomes (e.g. long-term conditions, deprivation). This could involve tailoring the toolkit to local contexts via implementation and effectiveness studies or using quality improvement studies. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42022337239, CRD42021229769 and CRD42022374509. The reviews of economic evidence were not registered; however, the review protocol can be accessed via the repository held by Queen's University Belfast Research Portal (https://pure.qub.ac.uk/). Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR130995) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 20. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

We know that breastfeeding is good for the health of mothers and babies, yet many mothers experience difficulties and stop breastfeeding before they want to. This is noticeable among women living in disadvantaged areas where there are low rates of breastfeeding. Good support may help women overcome difficulties so that they can continue to breastfeed. Women with chronic illnesses such as diabetes and depression face additional challenges in breastfeeding. We wanted to understand how to improve breastfeeding support for UK women. We brought together previous scientific studies to learn about what works. We also spoke with parents and service providers. We combined all our findings into a toolkit to help the NHS improve breastfeeding support for women. We found that, for healthy women, some forms of breastfeeding support can probably help reduce the number of women stopping breastfeeding and help them breastfeed exclusively. For women with chronic illnesses, we found that the types of support used in the studies probably did not help women to breastfeed. Most of the evidence did not come from the UK. We identified barriers to providing breastfeeding support for all women, especially those who are disadvantaged. We identified strategies that could help the NHS overcome these barriers. There was a lack of evidence on how cost-effective these interventions are compared with usual care, but parents and providers saw the value of paying for breastfeeding support. Giving women targeted breastfeeding support will help them to breastfeed; however, we need to test if this support works in the NHS. We also need to develop additional services for women with chronic illnesses. The NHS could use our findings to improve support for all breastfeeding women by identifying specific barriers and using evidence-based strategies to overcome them.