Outcome measurement is central to transforming mental health care by quantifying change, enabling comparison and driving improvement. In recognition of this, the Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCPsych) has established a working group on outcome measures, led by an Associate Registrar.

To support routine outcome measurement capture in clinical services, RCPsych has developed the ‘Outcome Measurement in Psychiatry’ report.

The working group intends to launch a survey of Members to:

1. 1) Understand psychiatrists’ current use of outcome measures.

2. 2) Understand psychiatrists’ views on barriers and facilitators to the use of outcome measures.

3. 3) Get feedback on the College Report.

The ‘Outcome Measurement in Psychiatry’ report was developed with input from all RCPsych Faculties and is scheduled for publication prior to the RCPsych International Congress.

Feedback will be sought on the ‘Outcome Measurement in Psychiatry’ report about whether the guiding principles are right, and if the College should be endorsing specific measures or advocating for the routine use of outcome measures. This will be used to guide future revisions of the report.

The working group believes the proposed survey will enable it to explore the facilitators and barriers to routine outcomes data capture both locally and nationally, including:

• • how to consider organisational drivers and buy in of clinical staff

• • digital enablement

• • understanding time points in a chronic relapsing remitting condition in the community vs. episode of therapy or hospital admission

• • clinical burden/benefit and buy in

• • training.

The group intends to use the intelligence gather to inform, influence and shape policy that promotes routine outcome data capture and publish its findings for wider dissemination.

Outcome measurement is a top priority for the RCPsych. A new Associate Registrar and working group is spearheading the College's work in this area, publishing guidance and conducting further research. Engagement and learning from our colleagues would provide critical intelligence to inform and influence future policy and strategy to enable routine outcome gathering embedded in mental health services.

Outcome measurement in forensic mental health services can support service improvement, research, and patient progress evaluation. This systematic review aims to identify instruments available for use as outcome measures in this field and assess the evidence for the most common instruments, specific to the forensic context, which cover multiple outcome domains.

Studies were identified by searching seven online databases. Additional searches were then performed for 10 selected instruments to identify additional information on their psychometric properties. Instrument manuals and gray literature was reviewed for information about instrument development and content validity. The quality of evidence for psychometric properties was summarized for each instrument based on the COnsensus-based Standards for health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) approach.

A total of 435 different instruments or variants were identified. Psychometric information on the 10 selected instruments was extracted from 103 studies. All 10 instruments had a clinician reported component with only two having patient reported scales. Half of the instruments were primarily focused on risk. No instrument demonstrated adequate psychometric properties in all eight COSMIN categories assessed. Only one instrument, the Camberwell Assessment of Need: Forensic Version, had adequate evidence for its development and content validity. The most evidence was for construct validity, while none was identified for construct stability between groups.

Despite the large number of instruments potentially available, evidence for their use as outcome measures in forensic mental health services is limited. Future research and instrument development should involve patients and carers to ensure adequate content validity.

Violence perpetrated by psychiatric inpatients is associated with modifiable factors. Current structured approaches to assess inpatient violence risk lack predictive validity and linkage to interventions.

Adult psychiatric inpatients on forensic and general wards in three psychiatric hospitals were recruited and followed up prospectively for 6 months. Information on modifiable (dynamic) risk factors were collected every 1–4 weeks, and baseline background factors. Data were transferred to a web-based monitoring system (FOxWeb) to calculate a total dynamic risk score. Outcomes were extracted from an incident-reporting system recording aggression and interpersonal violence. The association between total dynamic score and violent incidents was assessed by multilevel logistic regression and compared with dynamic score excluded.

We recruited 89 patients and conducted 624 separate assessments (median 5/patient). Mean age was 39 (s.d. 12.5) years with 20% (n = 18) female. Common diagnoses were schizophrenia-spectrum disorders (70%, n = 62) and personality disorders (20%, n = 18). There were 93 violent incidents. Factors contributing to violence risk were a total dynamic score of ⩾1 (OR 3.39, 95% CI 1.25–9.20), 10-year increase in age (OR 0.67, 0.47–0.96), and female sex (OR 2.78, 1.04–7.40). Non-significant associations with schizophrenia-spectrum disorder were found (OR 0.50, 0.20–1.21). In a fixed-effect model using all covariates, AUC was 0.77 (0.72–0.82) and 0.75 (0.70–0.80) when the dynamic score was excluded.

In predicting violence risk in individuals with psychiatric disorders, modifiable factors added little incremental value beyond static ones in a psychiatric inpatient setting. Future work should make a clear distinction between risk factors that assist in prediction and those linked to needs.

Self-harm is common in prisoners. There is an association between self-harm in prisoners and subsequent suicide, both within prison and on release. The aim of this study is to develop and evaluate a prediction model to identify male prisoners at high risk of self-harm.

We developed an 11-item screening model, based on risk factors identified from the literature. This screen was administered to 542 prisoners within 7 days of arrival in two male prisons in England. Participants were followed up for 6 months to identify those who subsequently self-harmed in prison. Analysis was conducted using Cox proportional hazard regression. Discrimination and calibration were determined for the model. The model was subsequently optimized using multivariable analysis, weighting variables, and dropping poorly performing items.

Seventeen (3.1%) of the participants self-harmed during follow up (median 53 days). The strongest risk factors were previous self-harm in prison (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 9.3 [95% CI: 3.3–16.6]) and current suicidal ideation (aHR = 7.6 [2.1–27.4]). As a continuous score, a one-point increase in the suicide screen was significantly associated with self-harm (HR = 1.4, 1.1–1.7). At the prespecified cut off score of 5, the screening model was associated with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.66 (0.53–0.79), with poor calibration. The optimized model saw two items dropped from the original screening tool, weighting of risk factors based on a multivariable model, and an AUC of 0.84 (0.76–0.92).

Further work is necessary to clarify the association between risk factors and self-harm in prison. Despite good face validity, current screening tools for self-harm need validation in new prison samples.

1. • Appreciate how services have developed over the past 15 years to provide support and treatment and divert mentally disordered people from custody at all stages in the criminal justice process

2. • Recognise how government policy has shaped the development of liaison and diversion services over the past 15 years

3. • Understand the impact of the 2007 amendments to the Mental Health Act on the diversion of mentally disordered people from custody

• Describe what QI means in healthcare contexts and explain how it is different from clinical audit

• Identify when QI methodology can add value to efforts to improve quality in clinical settings

• Describe contextual factors that influence the effectiveness with which QI can be applied

• Describe the recent changes to the Foundation Programme in psychiatry and how they will affect supervisors

• Learn how high-quality placements for foundation doctors can be developed

• Recognise how foundation doctors can be supported to achieve the generic and mental health-specific competencies of the foundation curriculum in psychiatry placements