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

NIHR ARC OxTV Showcase event and Equity in Research toolkit launch

The ARC OxTV’s first in-person ‘Showcase’ event was held on Monday the 28th November at the Saïd Business School. The event marked the launch of number of new initiatives, including new funding and bursary schemes, and a new Equity in Research toolkit.

Interning in research as a social worker: Emily Smout

A social worker’s story of undertaking an internship to investigate the impact of adversity on child development, and beginning her path in research.

NIHR Academy Training Camp: My experience from a brilliant 3-day residential training camp

NIHR ARC OxTV funded DPhil student Lucy Goddard shares her experiences of the recent NIHR Residential Training Camp – just one of the many opportunities afforded by being a member of the ARC OxTV.

Natriuretic peptide testing and heart failure survival

NIHR Academic Clinical Lecturer and GP Dr Clare Taylor gives a breakdown of the findings and their importance of a recent publication on heart failure and natriuretic peptide testing by herself and colleagues.

The Future of Public Involvement

Dr Claire Schwartz, ARC OxTV Programme and PPI Manager, shares her thoughts on the future of patient and public involvement.