Collaborative risk assessment and management planning in secure mental health services in England: protocol for a realist review.

INTRODUCTION: Secure mental health pathways are complex. They are typically based around secure hospitals, but also interface with justice agencies and other clinical services, including in the community. Consideration of risk is fundamental to clinical care and to decisions relating to a patient's stepwise journey through the pathway. Patient autonomy and involvement in decision-making are policy priorities for health services. However, improving collaboration in risk-related decisions in secure services is complicated by potential issues with insight and capacity and the necessary involvement of other agencies. In addition, although some collaborative approaches are feasible and effective, their impact, mechanisms and the contexts in which they work are not well understood. Therefore, using realist methodology, this review will outline what works, for whom, why and under what circumstances in terms of collaborative risk assessment and management in secure services. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The review will consist of four stages: (1) Development of an initial programme theory to explain how and why collaborative risk assessment and management works for different groups of people, (2) search for evidence, (3) data selection and extraction and (4) evidence synthesis and development of a final programme theory. Our initial programme theory will be informed by an informal search of the literature and consultation with experts and patient and public involvement and engagement representatives. Following this, our formal literature search will include both the published and unpublished literature. During full text screening, each document will be assessed according to the principles of rigour and relevance and, if included, data will be extracted and synthesised to refine the programme theory. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This protocol is for a review of published literature and so does not require ethical approval. The main output will be the final programme theory. Remaining gaps will inform planned future work to further refine the theory using mixed methods. Our dissemination strategy will be codeveloped with our public and patient involvement group and will include publishing findings in a peer-reviewed journal and presenting findings at relevant professional conferences, as well as engaging patient, carer and clinician groups directly.