Jordan Frith:
The Outcomes Framework is an amazingly ambitious piece of work and a really natural progression from what the strategy talks about in terms of those prevention support and critical enabler domains. So the Outcomes Framework uses the same model to conceptualize what a suicide prevention system could look like. Where it differs from the objectives in the strategy is the Outcomes Framework thinks more about what are the things that we need to measure and that we're either currently measuring or need to be measuring that are really meaningful for communities. And that's another place where lived experience was really heavily involved is thinking if we got to decide what good looked like for us, what would that be? And then developing and developing and developing until we have this framework that can support better monitoring and implementation of the strategy.
Pino Miglirino:
The outcomes and the beauty of the outcomes, they're not just behavioural measures or performance measures or activity measures. And I was part of those discussions in the formation of the outcomes, and what I really appreciated about those was how can we make those outcomes so simple to understand? So if you present the Outcomes Framework to even a group like here, it comes across as really daunting. But when you break it down, it basically says, am I being able to live a life where stresses are reduced? Am I, if I am in a difficult situation, able to access services? Do I know about the services?
Have I been able to benefit from the services? So you actually, in a way, the outcomes measures almost need to be framed around or considered around an access and equity type approach that I should know what's available. I should be supported so that I don't get to a point of vulnerability or suicidality. When I am there, I should have no impediments to getting support, and those supports need to be culturally adapted so that I feel comfortable, and ultimately, it's actually providing me the support I need to deal with the issues that I have and move away from suicidality.
Nicholas Procter:
When I think about the relationship between the strategy and the Outcomes Framework, it tells me two things. Firstly, it tells me about the work that should happen on the ground for people in distress to support them to a better place, whatever that place might be. But it also tells me that if that's done well, that person in distress, their family, their network, their kinship, their ties, has been listened to, and listened to with compassion, with person-centered approaches and thinking that is culturally appropriate, that's age appropriate, that's gender appropriate, that meets their needs now and in the future. So it's a coming together for me of these two things to be able to open this up for the lives of people in service delivery, design, organization, but also for the lives of people in distress and the people that are important to them.
The National Strategy and the Outcomes Framework can't exist without each other. So the National Strategy provides a really clear picture of where we're trying to head, whereas the Outcomes Framework provides us with a really clear measure of how we're tracking towards that. And the Outcomes Framework, in a way, will also help hold us all accountable as to whether we're staying true to the intention of the National Strategy and what areas we need to improve in.