Search

Objective To establish a consensus on the structure and process of healthcare services for patients with concussion in England to facilitate better healthcare quality and patient outcome.Design This consensus study followed the modified Delphi methodology with five phases: participant identification, item development, two rounds of voting and a meeting to finalise the consensus statements. The predefined threshold for agreement was set at ≥70%.Setting Specialist outpatient services.Participants Members of the UK Head Injury Network were invited to participate. The network consists of clinical specialists in head injury practising in emergency medicine, neurology, neuropsychology, neurosurgery, paediatric medicine, rehabilitation medicine and sports and exercise medicine in England.Primary outcome measure A consensus statement on the structure and process of specialist outpatient care for patients with concussion in England.Results 55 items were voted on in the first round. 29 items were removed following the first voting round and 3 items were removed following the second voting round. Items were modified where appropriate. A final 18 statements reached consensus covering 3 main topics in specialist healthcare services for concussion; care pathway to structured follow-up, prognosis and measures of recovery, and provision of outpatient clinics.Conclusions This work presents statements on how the healthcare services for patients with concussion in England could be redesigned to meet their health needs. Future work will seek to implement these into the clinical pathway.

Introduction Self-harm and suicide are major public health concerns among children and adolescents. Many risk and protective factors for suicide and self-harm have been identified and reported in the literature. However, the capacity of these identified risk and protective factors to guide assessment and management is limited due to their great number. This protocol describes an ongoing systematic review and meta-analysis which aims to examine longitudinal studies of risk factors for self-harm and suicide in children and adolescents, to provide a comparison of the strengths of association of the various risk factors for self-harm and suicide and to shed light on those that require further investigation.Methods and analysis We perform a systematic search of the literature using the databases EMBASE, PsycINFO, Medline, CINAHL and HMIC from inception up to 28 October 2020, and the search will be updated before the systematic review publication. Additionally, we will contact experts in the field, including principal investigators whose peer-reviewed publications are included in our systematic review as well as investigators from our extensive research network, and we will search the reference lists of relevant reviews to retrieve any articles that were not identified in our search. We will extract relevant data and present a narrative synthesis and combine the results in meta-analyses where there are sufficient data. We will assess the risk of bias for each study using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale and present a summary of the quantity and the quality of the evidence for each risk or protective factor.Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval will not be sought as this is a systematic review of the literature. Results will be published in mental health journals and presented at conferences focused on suicide prevention.PROSPERO registration number CRD42021228212.

A fertility clinic observed a reduction in its fresh intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) implantation rate key performance indicator (KPI) below benchmark threshold which was further monitored but did not improve. The clinic had been performing ICSI successfully for >16 years with good ICSI implantation rates meeting benchmark level. A root cause analysis (RCA) was conducted, including the input from an external observer, reviewing all systems and processes. A bundle of recommended changes was implemented as part of an improvement cycle with the aim to increase fresh ICSI implantation rates back to benchmark. Quality improvement (QI) methodology and tools were used including Statistical-Process-Control charts (BaseLine SAASoft). Measurements included standard clinical outcome data. KPIs were tracked following defined and controlled clinical and laboratory changes. Fresh ICSI implantation rates improved significantly (p=0.013, ChiSq). The improvement work was limited by its design of a plan-do-study-act (PDSA) cycle ‘intervention bundle’ as opposed to small PDSA cycles of single changes. Therefore, the improvement could not be attributed to any singular intervention within the bundle. It took longer than anticipated to see improvement due to the impact of the pandemic. The QI project highlighted the difficulty for clinics with low cycle volumes to sensitively monitor KPI’s in a timely and responsive way. The need to accumulate sufficient data to be confident of any trends/concerns means small clinics could be less responsive to any problems or too reactive to false positives. It is important to disseminate the learning from this improvement work because there is currently no agreed standardised optimal protocol for ICSI, resulting in clinics using slightly different approaches, and there are limited published reports where embryology KPI’s are tracked following defined and controlled laboratory/clinical changes. This project provides useful knowledge about ICSI improvement interventions and could be more effective within a larger clinic with higher cycle volumes.