Background: Guidelines on the management of depression recommend that practitioners use patient-reported outcome measures for the follow-up monitoring of symptoms, but there is a lack of evidence of benefit in terms of patient outcomes. Objective: To test using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 questionnaire as a patient-reported outcome measure for monitoring depression, training practitioners in interpreting scores and giving patients feedback. Design: Parallel-group, cluster-randomised superiority trial; 1 : 1 allocation to intervention and control. Setting: UK primary care (141 group general practices in England and Wales). Inclusion criteria: Patients aged ≥ 18 years with a new episode of depressive disorder or symptoms, recruited mainly through medical record searches, plus opportunistically in consultations. Exclusions: Current depression treatment, dementia, psychosis, substance misuse and risk of suicide. Intervention: Administration of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 questionnaire with patient feedback soon after diagnosis, and at follow-up 10–35 days later, compared with usual care. Primary outcome: Beck Depression Inventory, 2nd edition, symptom scores at 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes: Beck Depression Inventory, 2nd edition, scores at 26 weeks; antidepressant drug treatment and mental health service contacts; social functioning (Work and Social Adjustment Scale) and quality of life (EuroQol 5-Dimension, five-level) at 12 and 26 weeks; service use over 26 weeks to calculate NHS costs; patient satisfaction at 26 weeks (Medical Informant Satisfaction Scale); and adverse events. Sample size: The original target sample of 676 patients recruited was reduced to 554 due to finding a significant correlation between baseline and follow-up values for the primary outcome measure. Randomisation: Remote computerised randomisation with minimisation by recruiting university, small/large practice and urban/rural location. Blinding: Blinding of participants was impossible given the open cluster design, but self-report outcome measures prevented observer bias. Analysis was blind to allocation. Analysis: Linear mixed models were used, adjusted for baseline depression, baseline anxiety, sociodemographic factors, and clustering including practice as random effect. Quality of life and costs were analysed over 26 weeks. Qualitative interviews: Practitioner and patient interviews were conducted to reflect on trial processes and use of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 using the Normalization Process Theory framework. Results: Three hundred and two patients were recruited in intervention arm practices and 227 patients were recruited in control practices. Primary outcome data were collected for 252 (83.4%) and 195 (85.9%), respectively. No significant difference in Beck Depression Inventory, 2nd edition, score was found at 12 weeks (adjusted mean difference –0.46, 95% confidence interval –2.16 to 1.26). Nor were significant differences found in Beck Depression Inventory, 2nd Edition, score at 26 weeks, social functioning, patient satisfaction or adverse events. EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version, quality-of-life scores favoured the intervention arm at 26 weeks (adjusted mean difference 0.053, 95% confidence interval 0.013 to 0.093). However, quality-adjusted life-years over 26 weeks were not significantly greater (difference 0.0013, 95% confidence interval –0.0157 to 0.0182). Costs were lower in the intervention arm but, again, not significantly (–£163, 95% confidence interval –£349 to £28). Cost-effectiveness and cost–utility analyses, therefore, suggested that the intervention was dominant over usual care, but with considerable uncertainty around the point estimates. Patients valued using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 to compare scores at baseline and follow-up, whereas practitioner views were more mixed, with some considering it too time-consuming. Conclusions: We found no evidence of improved depression management or outcome at 12 weeks from using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9, but patients’ quality of life was better at 26 weeks, perhaps because feedback of Patient Health Questionnaire-9 scores increased their awareness of improvement in their depression and reduced their anxiety. Further research in primary care should evaluate patient-reported outcome measures including anxiety symptoms, administered remotely, with algorithms delivering clear recommendations for changes in treatment. Study registration: This study is registered as IRAS250225 and ISRCTN17299295. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 17/42/02) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 17. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Suicide is a major public health issue and a leading cause of death among children and young people (CYP) worldwide. There is strong evidence linking adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) to an increased risk of suicidal behaviours in adults, but there is limited understanding regarding ACEs and suicidal crises in CYP. This study aims to examine the ACEs associated with CYP presenting at Emergency Departments for suicidal crises, and specifically the factors associated with repeat attendances. This is a case series study of CYP (aged 8–16) experiencing suicidal crisis who presented in a paediatric Emergency Department in England between March 2019 and March 2021 (n = 240). The dataset was subjected to conditional independence graphical analysis. Results revealed a significant association between suicidal crisis and several ACEs. Specifically, evidence of clusters of ACE variables suggests two distinct groups of CYP associated with experiencing a suicidal crisis: those experiencing “household risk” and those experiencing “parental risk”. Female sex, history of self-harm, mental health difficulties, and previous input from mental health services were also associated with repeat hospital attendances. Findings have implications for early identification of and intervention with children who may be at a heightened risk for ACEs and associated suicidal crises.

Accessible Summary: What is known on the subject?: Emergency departments (ED) are key settings to support and manage suicidal crisis; thus, ED staff are often the first point of contact for people in suicidal crisis. Despite this, some ED staff receive little training and/or education on how to best support such patients. What the paper adds to existing knowledge: Previous research focuses on one staffing role (e.g. triage nurses) whereas this paper includes staff working across the ED pathway. Administrative staff have often been excluded from research, despite representing a key part of the clinical pathway and being a person's initial contact with the ED. Overall findings demonstrate that staff experience a lack of confidence, training and burnout due to regularly supporting people in suicidal crisis. Staff also perceive there to be a negative ED culture, which often leads to poor attitudes towards suicidal crisis. The main challenges reported are an increase in working pressures, unavailability of resources and staff retention. Findings build upon previous research to highlight key challenges different staff face along the clinical pathway and the implications this can have on a patient's journey and follow‐up care provided. What are the implications for practice?: Findings are of particular importance and relevance to ED managers, and more broadly NHS England. Negative ED culture, poor staff attitudes and confidence can have a detrimental impact on both staff health and wellbeing, as well as a patient's journey throughout the ED, resulting in repeat presentations and absconding as appropriate support is not received. Policymakers need to consider staff burnout and lack of resources in mental health care strategies, and training programmes should be developed to improve culture and confidence among ED staff and managers to improve care for people attending EDs in suicidal crisis. Introduction: Emergency departments (EDs) are often the first point of contact for people in suicidal crisis. Yet, previous work has tended to focus on only one type of staffing role, failing to account for different staff perspectives along the clinical pathway.Aims: To explore and synthesise the perspectives of ED administrative (i.e. receptionists), medical (triage nurses) and mental health staff (liaison psychiatrists) working with people presenting in suicidal crisis.Method: Qualitative study guided by thematic analysis of semi‐structured interviews with 23 ED staff across six EDs in Cheshire and Merseyside, England.Results: Findings demonstrate that staff experience a lack of confidence, training and burnout due to regularly supporting people in suicidal crisis. The main challenges reported are an increase in working pressures, unavailability of resources and staff retention.Discussion: Staff felt unequipped to deal with suicide‐related presentations. Organisational support is perceived to be lacking, with increased staffing pressures and poor service availability. This lack of support was linked to job dissatisfaction.Implications for Practice: Findings are of particular relevance to individual EDs and NHS England. Addressing the challenges staff are reporting can have positive implications for staff wellbeing, as well as a patient's experience and journey throughout the ED.

Emergency department (ED) staff are often the first point of contact for individuals in suicidal crisis. Despite this, there is no published research systematically examining the factors influencin...

Background: Outcome monitoring of depression treatment is recommended but there is a lack of evidence on patient benefit in primary care.Aim: To test monitoring depression using the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) with patient feedback.Design and setting: An open cluster-randomised controlled trial was undertaken in 141 group practices.Method: Adults with new depressive episodes were recruited through record searches and opportunistically. The exclusion criteria were as follows: dementia; psychosis; substance misuse; and suicide risk. The PHQ-9 was administered soon after diagnosis, and 10–35 days later. The primary outcome was the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II) score at 12 weeks. The secondary outcomes were as follows: BDI-II at 26 weeks; Work and Social Adjustment Scale (WSAS) and EuroQol EQ-5D-5L quality of life at 12 and 26 weeks; antidepressant treatment; mental health and social service contacts; adverse events, and Medical Interview Satisfaction Scale (MISS) over 26 weeks.Results: In total, 302 patients were recruited to the intervention arm and 227 to the controls. At 12 weeks, 254 (84.1%) and 199 (87.7%) were followed-up, respectively. Only 40.9% of patients in the intervention had a GP follow-up PHQ-9 recorded. There was no significant difference in BDI-II score at 12 weeks (mean difference −0.46; 95% confidence interval [CI] = −2.16 to 1.26; adjusted for baseline depression, baseline anxiety, sociodemographic factors, and clustering by practice). EQ-5D-5L quality-of-life scores were higher in the intervention arm at 26 weeks (adjusted mean difference 0.053; 95% CI = 0.013 to 0.093. A clinically significant difference in depression at 26 weeks could not be ruled out. No significant differences were found in social functioning, adverse events, or satisfaction. In a per-protocol analysis, antidepressant use and mental health contacts were significantly greater in patients in the intervention arm with a recorded follow-up PHQ-9 (P= 0.025 andP= 0.010, respectively).Conclusion: No evidence was found of improved depression outcome at 12 weeks from monitoring. The findings of possible benefits over 26 weeks warrant replication, investigating possible mechanisms, preferably with automated delivery of monitoring and more instructive feedback.

Lack of data is holding back much needed improvements to services