Safety on mental health wards Mental and Behavioural Disorders
Conditions
Interventions
A mixed-methods process evaluation. A focused ethnography will explore how staff communicate and use safety data supported by interviews with service users and staff to further understand feasibility
enhanced understanding of feasibility and acceptability.
The digital intervention consists of up to four discrete ‘products’:
a service user recording interface to collect data
healthcare staff dashboard for data analysis
a ward interface for public consumption
an Application Program Interface (API).
The primary tool asks services users to answer a series of questions about how safe they feel recorded on a hand held tablet. Data will be recorded in real-time
Sponsors
University of Leeds
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
All
Inclusion criteria
Inclusion criteria: 1. Service user aged over 16 years 2. Current inpatient of a mental health ward 3. Capacity to consent to participate in research 4. Able to communicate in spoken English
Exclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria: Does not meet inclusion criteria
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame |
|---|---|
| Quantitative evaluation of the ‘effect’ of the intervention on patient safety: 1. Continuous routine safety data (incidents, NHS mental health safety thermometer (monthly), workforce data, admissions/discharges, and ward occupancy and acuity) 2. Standard measures of culture and ward atmosphere (measures from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture (HSOPC), staff perceptions of ‘ward atmosphere’ using the EssenCES scale), pre and post intervention for each participating ward | — |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame |
|---|---|
| Qualitative evaluation: Undertake a focused ethnography to explore the use of the intervention across a variety of wards and organisational settings. This combination of data will support an exploration of the intervention in terms of its’ use within each context, the challenges of engaging with the intervention, unintended consequences (positive and negative, and how these are mitigated), as well as an understanding of the likely requirements for a future trial design (outcomes, challenges, supporting factors etc). This will be presented as a case study for each ward. | — |
Countries
England, United Kingdom
Outcome results
None listed