Development of a Supported Self-management Intervention for People With Severe Mental Illness and Type 2 Diabetes: Theory and Evidence-Based Co-design Approach.

BACKGROUND: Type 2 diabetes is 2 to 3 times more common among people with severe mental illness (SMI). Self-management is crucial, with additional challenges faced by people with SMI. Therefore, it is essential that any diabetes self-management program for people with SMI addresses the unique needs of people living with both conditions and the inequalities they experience within health care services. OBJECTIVE: We combined theory, empirical evidence, and co-design approaches to develop a type 2 diabetes self-management intervention for people with SMI. METHODS: The development process encompassed 4 steps: step 1 involved prioritizing the mechanisms of action (MoAs) and behavior change techniques (BCTs) for the intervention. Using findings from primary qualitative research and systematic reviews, we selected candidate MoAs to target in the intervention and candidate BCTs to use. Expert stakeholders then ranked these MoAs and BCTs using a 2-phase survey. The average scores were used to generate a prioritized list of MoAs and BCTs. During step 2, we presented the survey results to an expert consensus workshop to seek expert agreement with the definitive list of MoAs and BCTs for the intervention and identify potential modes of delivery. Step 3 involved the development of trigger films using the evidence from steps 1 and 2. We used animations to present the experiences of people with SMI managing diabetes. These films were used in step 4, where we used a stakeholder co-design approach. This involved a series of structured workshops, where the co-design activities were informed by theory and evidence. RESULTS: Upon the completion of the 4-step process, we developed the DIAMONDS (diabetes and mental illness, improving outcomes and self-management) intervention. It is a tailored self-management intervention based on the synthesis of the outputs from the co-design process. The intervention incorporates a digital app, a paper-based workbook, and one-to-one coaching designed to meet the needs of people with SMI and coexisting type 2 diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention development work was underpinned by the MoA theoretical framework and incorporated systematic reviews, primary qualitative research, expert stakeholder surveys, and evidence generated during co-design workshops. The intervention will now be tested for feasibility before undergoing a definitive evaluation in a pragmatic randomized controlled trial.

The process and perspective of serious incident investigations in adult community mental health services: integrative review and synthesis.

AIMS AND METHOD: Serious incident management and organisational learning are international patient safety priorities. Little is known about the quality of suicide investigations and, in turn, the potential for organisational learning. Suicide risk assessment is acknowledged as a complex phenomenon, particularly in the context of adult community mental health services. Root cause analysis (RCA) is the dominant investigative approach, although the evidence base underpinning RCA is contested, with little attention paid to the patient in context and their cumulative risk over time. RESULTS: Recent literature proposes a safety-II approach in response to the limitations of RCA. The importance of applying these approaches within a mental healthcare system that advocates a zero suicide framework, grounded in a restorative just culture, is highlighted. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Although integrative reviews and syntheses have clear methodological limitations, this approach facilitates the management of a disparate body of work to advance a critical understanding of patient safety in adult community mental healthcare.

Implementation and clinical utility of a Computer-Aided Risk Score for Mortality (CARM): a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: The Computer-Aided Risk Score for Mortality (CARM) estimates the risk of in-hospital mortality following acute admission to the hospital by automatically amalgamating physiological measures, blood tests, gender, age and COVID-19 status. Our aims were to implement the score with a small group of practitioners and understand their first-hand experience of interacting with the score in situ. DESIGN: Pilot implementation evaluation study involving qualitative interviews. SETTING: This study was conducted in one of the two National Health Service hospital trusts in the North of England in which the score was developed. PARTICIPANTS: Medical, older person and ICU/anaesthetic consultants and specialist grade registrars (n=116) and critical outreach nurses (n=7) were given access to CARM. Nine interviews were conducted in total, with eight doctors and one critical care outreach nurse. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were given access to the CARM score, visible after login to the patients' electronic record, along with information about the development and intended use of the score. RESULTS: Four themes and 14 subthemes emerged from reflexive thematic analysis: (1) current use (including support or challenge clinical judgement and decision making, communicating risk of mortality and professional curiosity); (2) barriers and facilitators to use (including litigation, resource needs, perception of the evidence base, strengths and limitations), (3) implementation support needs (including roll-out and integration, access, training and education); and (4) recommendations for development (including presentation and functionality and potential additional data). Barriers and facilitators to use, and recommendations for development featured highly across most interviews. CONCLUSION: Our in situ evaluation of the pilot implementation of CARM demonstrated its scope in supporting clinical decision making and communicating risk of mortality between clinical colleagues and with service users. It suggested to us barriers to implementation of the score. Our findings may support those seeking to develop, implement or improve the adoption of risk scores.