Newborn bloodspot screening (NBS) is a highly successful public health programme that uses biochemical and other assays to screen for severe but treatable childhood-onset conditions. Introducing genomic sequencing into NBS programmes increases the range of detectable conditions but raises practical and ethical issues. Evidence from prospectively ascertained cohorts is required to guide policy and future implementation. This study aims to develop, implement and evaluate a genomic NBS (gNBS) pilot programme.

The BabyScreen+ study will pilot gNBS in three phases. In the preimplementation phase, study materials, including education resources, decision support and data collection tools, will be designed. Focus groups and key informant interviews will also be undertaken to inform delivery of the study and future gNBS programmes. During the implementation phase, we will prospectively recruit birth parents in Victoria, Australia, to screen 1000 newborns for over 600 severe, treatable, childhood-onset conditions. Clinically accredited whole genome sequencing will be performed following standard NBS using the same sample. High chance results will be returned by genetic healthcare professionals, with follow-on genetic and other confirmatory testing and referral to specialist services as required. The postimplementation phase will evaluate the feasibility of gNBS as the primary aim, and assess ethical, implementation, psychosocial and health economic factors to inform future service delivery.

This project received ethics approval from the Royal Children’s Hospital Melbourne Research Ethics Committee: HREC/91500/RCHM-2023, HREC/90929/RCHM-2022 and HREC/91392/RCHM-2022. Findings will be disseminated to policy-makers, and through peer-reviewed journals and conferences.

To explore trauma patients’ experiences of the long-term recovery pathway during 18 months following hospital discharge.

Longitudinal qualitative study.

Thirteen trauma patients with injuries associated with pain that had been interviewed 6 weeks after discharge from Oslo University Hospital in Norway, were followed up with an interview 18 months postdischarge.

The illness trajectory framework informed the data collection, with semistructured, in-depth interviews that were analysed thematically.

Compared with the subacute phase 6 weeks postdischarge, several participants reported exacerbated mental and physical health, including increased pain during 18 months following discharge. This, andalternating periods of deteriorated health status during recovery, made the pathway unpredictable. At 18 months post-discharge, participants were coping with experiences of reduced mental and physical health and socioeconomic losses. Three main themes were identified: (1) coping with persistent pain and reduced physical function, (2) experiencing mental distress without access to mental healthcare and (3) unmet needs for follow-up care. Moreover, at 18 months postdischarge, prescribed opioids were found to be easily accessible from GPs. In addition to relieving chronic pain, motivations to use opioids were to induce sleep, reduce withdrawal symptoms and relieve mental distress.

The patients’ experiences from this study establish knowledge of several challenges in the trauma population’s recovery trajectories, which may imply that subacute health status is a poor predictor of long-term outcomes. Throughout recovery, the participants struggled with physical and mental health needs without being met by the healthcare system. Therefore, it is necessary to provide long-term follow-up of trauma patients’ health status in the specialist health service based on individual needs. Additionally, to prevent long-term opioid use beyond the subacute phase, there is a need to systematically follow-up and reassess motivations and indications for continued use throughout the recovery pathway.