Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorAimola, Len_US
dc.contributor.authorJasim, Sen_US
dc.contributor.authorTripathi, Nen_US
dc.contributor.authorBassett, Pen_US
dc.contributor.authorQuirk, Aen_US
dc.contributor.authorWorrall, Aen_US
dc.contributor.authorTucker, Sen_US
dc.contributor.authorHolder, Sen_US
dc.contributor.authorCrawford, MJen_US
dc.date.accessioned2019-01-31T13:51:06Z
dc.date.available2018-12-05en_US
dc.date.issued2018-12-22en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://qmro.qmul.ac.uk/xmlui/handle/123456789/55061
dc.descriptionThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.en_US
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND: Peer-review networks aim to help services to improve the quality of care they provide, however, there is very little evidence about their impact. We conducted a cluster randomized controlled trial of a peer-review quality network for low-secure mental health services to examine the impact of network membership on the process and outcomes of care over a 12 month period. METHODS: Thirty-eight low secure units were randomly allocated to either the active intervention (participation in the network n = 18) or the control arm (delayed participation in the network n = 20). A total of 75 wards were assessed at baseline and 8 wards dropped out the study before the data collection at 12 month follow up. The primary outcome measure was the quality of the physical environment and facilities of the services. The secondary outcomes included: safety of the ward, patient mental wellbeing and satisfaction with care, staff burnout, training and supervision. We hypothesised that, relative to control wards, the quality of the physical environment and facilities would be higher on wards in the active arm of the trial 12 months after randomization. RESULTS: The difference in the primary outcome between the groups was not statistically significant (4.1; 95% CI [- 0.2, 8.3] p = 0.06). The median number of untoward incidents rose in control services and remained the same at the member of the network (Difference between members and non-members = 0.55; 95% IC [0.29, 1.07] p = 0.08). At follow up, a higher proportion of staff in the active arm of the trial indicated that they felt safe on the ward relative to those in the control services (p = 0.04), despite reporting more physical assaults (p = 0.04). Staff working in services in the active arm of the trial reported higher levels of burnout relative to those in the control group. No difference was seen in patient outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: We did not find evidence that participation in a peer-review network led to marked changes in the quality of the physical environment of low secure mental health services at 12 months. Future research should explore the impact of accreditation schemes and examine longer term outcomes of participation in such networks. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN79614916 . Retrospectively registered 28 March 2014.en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipRoyal College of Psychiatrists’ College Centre for Quality Improvementen_US
dc.format.extent994 - ?en_US
dc.languageengen_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.relation.ispartofBMC Health Serv Resen_US
dc.rightsCreative Commons Attribution
dc.rightsAttribution 3.0 United States*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/us/*
dc.subjectForensic mental healthen_US
dc.subjectLow secure servicesen_US
dc.subjectPeer-review networksen_US
dc.subjectQuality improvementen_US
dc.subjectRandomised trialen_US
dc.titleImpact of a peer-review network on the quality of inpatient low secure mental health services: cluster randomised control trial.en_US
dc.typeArticle
dc.rights.holderThe Author(s) 2018
dc.identifier.doi10.1186/s12913-018-3797-zen_US
pubs.author-urlhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30577847en_US
pubs.issue1en_US
pubs.notesNot knownen_US
pubs.publication-statusPublished onlineen_US
pubs.volume18en_US
dcterms.dateAccepted2018-12-05en_US
rioxxterms.funderDefault funderen_US
rioxxterms.identifier.projectDefault projecten_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Creative Commons Attribution
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Creative Commons Attribution