146 Chapter 6 and regularities in the data’ (Green & Thorogood, 2013). We made a categorization map using MindMeister. After several rounds, all researchers agreed on the final version. Finally, we compared the results with the qualitative answers of the outcomes reported by MCD facilitators, to determine similarities and differences. Our qualitative analysis of the item Please formulate reasons for your satisfaction judgment about this MCD from the survey-after-the-series resulted in two groups of answers (positive and negative). The two subdivided lists of reasons – for positive and negative experiences – were also open coded in MAXQDA®. RESULTS From the included 131 MCD sessions in 16 teams, we received and analyzed 871 singleMCD-evaluation forms of participants. Six participant forms were missing, and 85 of these 871 returned questionnaires of participants (91%) had no information in any open-ended items. As regards the single-MCD-evaluation-forms of the 18 facilitators, we received and analyzed 122 forms from the 131 MCD sessions (93%). Furthermore, the closed item from the survey-after-the-series was answered by 149 of the 167 respondents of MCD participants (89%). Their descriptive data can be seen in Appendix 11. The one open-ended (satisfaction) item about participants’ general experience with MCD was answered by 143 of the 167 respondents (86%). First, we will present the overall outcomes of MCD sessions as experienced by prison staff. Secondly, we present quantitative results after the series, concerning the satisfaction of participants about the translations of the outcomes of MCD to their practice. Next, we show the differences in experienced outcomes among the professional disciplines of prison staff. Then, we present a categorization of participants’ reported outcomes to gain in-depth insights into what prison staff learned via MCD and last, we show the differences and similarities on the reported outcomes of staff by the MCD facilitators. Overall outcomes of MCD for prison staff After single MCD sessions, participants rated the three items in Table 1. The item referring to overall outcome (results or insights) of MCD for their practice was rated 7.4 out of 10. In the other two items, participants rated whether the session led to more insight into the case and to a better understanding of their colleagues: both scored 3.9 out of 5.