Factors influencing suicide risk assessment clinical practice: protocol for a scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: Every year, suicide accounts for nearly 800 000 deaths worldwide. Appropriate risk assessment and intervention are imperative since evidence demonstrates that a large proportion of those who die by suicide visit health professionals prior to their death. Much previous research has focused on identifying patient-level risk factors that can improve the risk assessment process through scales and algorithms. However, the best practice guidelines emphasise the importance of clinical interviews and prioritise the clinician's final judgement. The purpose of this review is to (1) understand the clinician and organisational level barriers and facilitators that influence a clinician's assessment of suicide risk, (2) identify the types of biases that exist within this process and (3) list any evidence-based training protocols and educational initiatives to aid (or support) clinicians with this process. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This scoping review protocol uses the Arksey and O'Malley framework, and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses reporting guidelines for scoping reviews. Literature will be identified using a multidatabase search strategy developed in consultation with a medical librarian. The proposed screening process consists of a title and abstract scan, followed by a full-text review by two reviewers to determine the eligibility of articles. Studies outlining any factors that affect a clinician's suicide risk assessment process, ranging from individual experience and behaviours to organisational level influences, will be included. A tabular synthesis of the general study details will be provided, as well as a narrative synthesis of the extracted data, organised into themes using the Situated Clinical Decision-Making framework. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required for this review. Results will be translated into educational materials and presentations for dissemination to appropriate knowledge users. Knowledge outputs will also include academic presentations at relevant conferences, and a published, peer-reviewed journal article.

Education programs for medical psychiatry collaborative care: A scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: To understand the current state of collaborative care education programs reported in the literature. METHODS: Following Arksey and O'Malley methodology for scoping reviews, data was abstracted in following domains: article details, program details, program outcomes, and implementation factors. Numerical summaries were calculated where necessary. Implementation factors underwent a qualitative thematic analysis. RESULTS: This review identified 40 unique collaborative care education programs. Most programs (n = 25; 62.5%) were delivered to a multi-disciplinary group of learners through didactic (n = 34; 85.0%) and/or in vivo (n = 32; 80.0%) training methods. The majority of programs focused on clinical knowledge/skill acquisition (n = 38; 95.0%) as opposed to attitudes towards mental health and collaboration (n = 27; 67.5%). Implementation factors fell within four themes: program development, supportive environment, necessary resources, and clinical change agents/leaders. CONCLUSION: Despite the growing evidence for collaborative care, few collaborative care education programs are reported in the literature. Key elements of collaborative care education programs include: routine multi-disciplinary interaction, curriculum focus on attitudes; clinical change agents and leaders to accelerate implementation; and a user-centred design development process. Future implementations can learn from these experiences to avoid potential barriers and focus on enabling successful programs to enhance care.

Working with Research Integrity-Guidance for Research Performing Organisations: The Bonn PRINTEGER Statement.

This document presents the Bonn PRINTEGER Consensus Statement: Working with Research Integrity-Guidance for research performing organisations. The aim of the statement is to complement existing instruments by focusing specifically on institutional responsibilities for strengthening integrity. It takes into account the daily challenges and organisational contexts of most researchers. The statement intends to make research integrity challenges recognisable from the work-floor perspective, providing concrete advice on organisational measures to strengthen integrity. The statement, which was concluded February 7th 2018, provides guidance on the following key issues: § 1. Providing information about research integrity § 2. Providing education, training and mentoring § 3. Strengthening a research integrity culture § 4. Facilitating open dialogue § 5. Wise incentive management § 6. Implementing quality assurance procedures § 7. Improving the work environment and work satisfaction § 8. Increasing transparency of misconduct cases § 9. Opening up research § 10. Implementing safe and effective whistle-blowing channels § 11. Protecting the alleged perpetrators § 12. Establishing a research integrity committee and appointing an ombudsperson § 13. Making explicit the applicable standards for research integrity.

Scoping review protocol: education initiatives for medical psychiatry collaborative care.

INTRODUCTION: The collaborative care model is an approach providing care to those with mental health and addictions disorders in the primary care setting. There is a robust evidence base demonstrating its clinical and cost-effectiveness in comparison with usual care; however, the transitioning to this new paradigm of care has been difficult. While there are efforts to train and prepare healthcare professionals, not much is known about the current state of collaborative care training programmes. The objective of this scoping review is to understand how widespread these collaborative care education initiatives are, how they are implemented and their impacts. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The scoping review methodology uses the established review methodology by Arksey and O'Malley. The search strategy was developed by a medical librarian and will be applied in eight different databases spanning multiple disciplines. A two-stage screening process consisting of a title and abstract scan and a full-text review will be used to determine the eligibility of articles. To be included, articles must report on an existing collaborative care education initiative for healthcare providers. All articles will be independently assessed for eligibility by pairs of reviewers, and all eligible articles will be abstracted and charted in duplicate using a standardised form. The extracted data will undergo a 'narrative review' or a descriptive analysis of the contextual or process-oriented data and simple quantitative analysis using descriptive statistics. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Research ethics approval is not required for this scoping review. The results of this scoping review will inform the development of a collaborative care training initiative emerging from the Medical Psychiatry Alliance, a four-institution philanthropic partnership in Ontario, Canada. The results will also be presented at relevant national and international conferences and published in a peer-reviewed journal.