Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

FORUM is a new online tool that brings both patient and clinician together for improved care and safety in forensic mental health services. In this blog, Dr Howard Ryland explores both the need for this tool and how it was developed through a collaborative approach with all involved.

A screenshot of the FORUM website. The text reads: A new patient reported outcome measure for forensic mental health services, combining the patient and clinician perspectives

Forensic mental health services provide care to people in secure psychiatric hospitals and via specialised community teams. Such services are typically low volume and high cost, often highly restrictive and average duration of inpatient care prior to discharge is long.

The Forensic Outcome Measure (FORUM), is designed to help safeguard patients and the public, monitor progress, inform treatment plans and assist in service evaluation and planning.

Forensic mental health services provide care and treatment for people with a mental illness who are considered to pose a risk to the public. In England alone there are more than 6,000 forensic beds, costing the NHS over a billion pounds a year. It is vital that we can measure the outcomes of these services to make sure they are delivering the right care to patients, while also keeping the public safe.

What constitutes an ‘outcome’ is a complex question. Traditionally, research in this area has focused narrowly on ‘serious adverse events,’ like death, reoffending, or rehospitalisation. While clearly important, these events are thankfully rare and so are less useful for tracking individual patients’ progress.

More broadly, an outcome can be any change or result, such as improved mental health, better life skills and independence, or quality of life, which happens as a result of a patient receiving care. The goal is to measure these outcomes over time to see if patients are benefiting from treatment.

However, outcome measurement in forensic mental health has been limited, with tools focused heavily on public risk and patient symptoms. This is a problem, as it means such tools have neglected outcomes like quality of life and social functioning that are particularly meaningful for patients. In fact, patients have often been excluded from measuring their own outcomes, with few tools designed with, or rated by, patients themselves.

With this in mind, our project aims to broaden the outcomes measured by integrating assessments of the full range of important areas, including quality of life and overall functioning, from the perspective of patients, as well as clinicians.

We set up a Patient and Public Advisory Group which included people with lived experience of admission to forensic services. This group worked with the research team every step of the way to co-design the project. We started from first principles, by taking a step back to ask the fundamental question: What are the important outcomes in forensic mental health services?

We conducted interviews and focus groups with patients, carers, clinicians, and policymakers to find out more. We looked carefully at what people told us were important outcomes for them, with a process called ‘thematic analysis’ -- a method used to identify, analyse, and report patterns or "themes" within interview and focus groups, helping to organise, describe an interpret the data in rich detail.

We then used an approach known as the Delphi technique to prioritise these outcomes. This involved two expert panels, one of patients and carers, the other of professionals, reviewing the outcomes, and asking them to rate how important they thought each outcome was. We did this twice; the second time panel members were shown their own response from the first round and the aggregate scores from both panels.

The Delphi process helped to create a consensus about the most important outcome areas from the perspective of the two panels, and we used this to develop our new measure.

We also learnt from the expert panels that patients and carers prioritised different outcomes to professionals. We wanted the measure to be quick and easy to use, while covering all the key areas, so we designed two separate questionnaires, one for patients and one for clinicians, which would combine to form the final measure. While some questions were similar between the two questionnaires, others were unique. For example, the patient questionnaire has questions about identify and quality of life, such as ‘I have felt good about myself and ‘My life has felt meaningful.’

To ensure that the questionnaires made sense to the people who would use them we rigorously road tested them, making changes as needed. Once we had versions that we were happy with we studied how they worked in practice, in a real-world forensic mental health setting, to see if the measure was still valid and reliable. For example, how did the new measure compare to existing measures and would two clinicians give the same patient similar scores.

We are now working on a project to understand how the new measure can best be used in day-to-day clinical practice outside of a research and development context.

We have called the new measure the FORensic oUtcome Measure, or FORUM for short. This acronym reflects the intention that patients and clinicians come together to discuss their views on outcomes using the FORUM and can then jointly develop a plan to address any needs identified through the process.

We are keen to find out how the FORUM works in other forensic mental health services. We are looking to collaborate with others anywhere in the world who think that the FORUM might help them. For more information, please visit the website or contact the team by emailing Dr Howard Ryland on

Recent blog posts

The Healing Power of Creative Arts: A DPhil Journey in Mental Health Research

Briana Applewhite, a 2nd year DPhil student in Psychiatry funded by NIHR ARC OxTV, shares insights from her research exploring creative arts therapies for alleviating trauma and PTSD symptoms in youth, including a recently published paper on social dance for mental health.

Family Solutions Plus: A new chapter in child safeguarding services

In this blog post, Dr Ruta Buivydaite and Dulcie Irving discuss their evaluation of Oxfordshire County Council's new child safeguarding approach, Family Solutions Plus. Early results show improved outcomes, though achieving some goals will take more time.

BLOG: How an online tool allows parents and therapists to work together to help children with anxiety

In this post, originally appearing in The Conversation, researchers from a recently published ARC -supported study explain more about their work that found an online platform enabling parents to provide therapy may effectively treat child anxiety while using therapists' time more efficiently.

ARC OxTV internships: A clinical physiotherapists experiences

Turning clinical insights into real-world research – our latest blog post from ARC OxTV internship awardee, Stephanie Taylor, shows how a dedicated Specialist Physiotherapist is using her ARC OxTV Internship to translate frontline experiences into potentially life changing research.

Bridging Gaps: mental health, economics and policy

In this blog post, Ed Penington explores the discussions around economic and policy challenges in mental health revealed at a recent half-day workshop, sponsored by the ARC OxTV titled: Let’s talk about mental health: economic and policy perspectives.