Search

There has been recent discussion in Australia and New Zealand concerning the utility of Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) and the role of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists (RANZCP) in their development. The College Board therefore established a Steering Group (SG) to oversee an exploration of options and produce recommendations about contemporary approaches to the development of high-quality evidence-based clinical practice guidance for psychiatry. This paper outlines the SG's conclusions and recommendations, as well as the underlying methods and reasoning. In particular, we discuss best practice and recent developments in the synthesis of research evidence. Account has been taken of the opportunities offered by digital technologies, the proliferation of clinical evidence and awareness of the gains to be made by increased inclusion of lived-experience perspectives. It is recommended that the broader concept of best practice resources (BPRs) as now emphasised in so many fields of service is the most appropriate starting point for the College's role in this area especially as the expertise of the College and its fellows lends itself to the development of a range of BPRs. In conclusion, contemporary guidance needs to be tailored to the requirements of the practitioners seeking it, to articulate the real-world needs and experiences of patients, and to be delivered in a contemporary format that is responsive to rapidly emerging evidence. The experience in Australia and New Zealand may have implications elsewhere for the development of CPGs and BPRs more broadly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: User engagement in mental health service design is heralded as integral to health systems quality and performance, but does engagement improve health outcomes? This article describes the CORE study protocol, a novel stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled trial (SWCRCT) to improve psychosocial recovery outcomes for people with severe mental illness., Methods: An SWCRCT with a nested process evaluation will be conducted over nearly 4 years in Victoria, Australia. 11 teams from four mental health service providers will be randomly allocated to one of three dates 9 months apart to start the intervention. The intervention, a modified version of Mental Health Experience Co-Design (MH ECO), will be delivered to 30 service users, 30 carers and 10 staff in each cluster. Outcome data will be collected at baseline (6 months) and at completion of each intervention wave. The primary outcome is improvement in recovery score using the 24-item Revised Recovery Assessment Scale for service users. Secondary outcomes are improvements to user and carer mental health and well-being using the shortened 8-item version of the WHOQOL Quality of Life scale (EUROHIS), changes to staff attitudes using the 19-item Staff Attitudes to Recovery Scale and recovery orientation of services using the 36-item Recovery Self Assessment Scale (provider version). Intervention and usual care periods will be compared using a linear mixed effects model for continuous outcomes and a generalised linear mixed effects model for binary outcomes. Participants will be analysed in the group that the cluster was assigned to at each time point., Ethics and Dissemination: The University of Melbourne, Human Research Ethics Committee (1340299.3) and the Federal and State Departments of Health Committees (Project 20/2014) granted ethics approval. Baseline data results will be reported in 2015 and outcomes data in 2017., Trial Registration Number: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12614000457640., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)