Search

Background: Most feedback received by health services is positive. Our systematic scoping review mapped all available empirical evidence for how positive patient feedback creates healthcare change. Most included papers did not provide specific details on positive feedback characteristics., Objectives: Describe positive feedback characteristics by (1) developing heuristics for identifying positive feedback; (2) sharing annotated feedback examples; (3) describing their positive content., Methods: 200 items were selected from two contrasting databases: (1) https://careopinion.org.uk/; (2) National Health Service (NHS) Friends and Family Test data collected by an NHS trust. Preliminary heuristics and positive feedback categories were developed from a small convenience sample, and iteratively refined., Results: Categories were identified: positive-only; mixed; narrative; factual; grateful. We propose a typology describing tone (positive-only, mixed), form (factual, narrative) and intent (grateful). Separating positive and negative elements in mixed feedback was sometimes impossible due to ambiguity. Narrative feedback often described the cumulative impact of interactions with healthcare providers, healthcare professionals, influential individuals and community organisations. Grateful feedback was targeted at individual staff or entire units, but the target was sometimes ambiguous., Conclusion: People commissioning feedback collection systems should consider mechanisms to maximise utility by limiting ambiguity. Since being enabled to provide narrative feedback can allow contributors to make contextualised statements about what worked for them and why, then there may be trade-offs to negotiate between limiting ambiguity, and encouraging rich narratives. Groups tasked with using feedback should plan the human resources needed for careful inspection, and consider providing narrative analysis training., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Many male prisoners have significant mental health problems, including anxiety and depression. High proportions struggle with homelessness and substance misuse., Aims: This study aims to evaluate whether the Engager intervention improves mental health outcomes following release., Method: The design is a parallel randomised superiority trial that was conducted in the North West and South West of England (ISRCTN11707331). Men serving a prison sentence of 2 years or less were individually allocated 1:1 to either the intervention (Engager plus usual care) or usual care alone. Engager included psychological and practical support in prison, on release and for 3-5 months in the community. The primary outcome was the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation Outcome Measure (CORE-OM), 6 months after release. Primary analysis compared groups based on intention-to-treat (ITT)., Results: In total, 280 men were randomised out of the 396 who were potentially eligible and agreed to participate; 105 did not meet the mental health inclusion criteria. There was no mean difference in the ITT complete case analysis between groups (92 in each arm) for change in the CORE-OM score (1.1, 95% CI -1.1 to 3.2, P = 0.325) or secondary analyses. There were no consistent clinically significant between-group differences for secondary outcomes. Full delivery was not achieved, with 77% (108/140) receiving community-based contact., Conclusions: Engager is the first trial of a collaborative care intervention adapted for prison leavers. The intervention was not shown to be effective using standard outcome measures. Further testing of different support strategies for prison with mental health problems is needed.