Evaluating risk factors for violence at the inpatient unit level: combining young adult patients and those with mental retardation

Aggression in psychiatry wards: a systematic review

Although fairly frequent in psychiatric in-patient, episodes of aggression/violence are mainly limited to verbal aggression, but the level of general health is significantly lower in nurses who report 'frequent' exposure to violent incidents, and there is disagreement between patients and staff concerning predictors of these episodes. We searched the Pubmed, Embase and PsychInfo databases for English, Italian, French or German language papers published between 1 January 1990 and 31 March 2010 using the key words "aggress*" (aggression or aggressive) "violen*" (violence or violent) and "in-patient" or "psychiatric wards", and the inclusion criterion of an adult population (excluding all studies of selected samples such as a specific psychiatric diagnosis other than psychosis, adolescents or the elderly, men/women only, personality disorders and mental retardation). The variables that were most frequently associated with aggression or violence in the 66 identified studies of unselected psychiatric populations were the existence of previous episodes, the presence of impulsiveness/hostility, a longer period of hospitalisation, non-voluntary admission, and aggressor and victim of the same gender; weaker evidence indicated alcohol/drug misuse, a diagnosis of psychosis, a younger age and the risk of suicide. Alcohol/drug misuse, hostility, paranoid thoughts and acute psychosis were the factors most frequently involved in 12 studies of psychotic patients. Harmony among staff (a good working climate) seems to be more useful in preventing aggression than some of the other strategies used in psychiatric wards, such as the presence of male nurses.

Annotation: New research into general psychiatric services for adults with intellectual disability and mental illness

BACKGROUND

There are a variety of models for the mental health care of adults with comorbid intellectual disability (ID) and mental illness. There has been a long-running debate as to whether this should be provided by general psychiatric or specialised ID services. A previous review concluded that there was no clear evidence to support either model with research being often of a poor quality, lacking replication, and outcome measures were often inappropriate or varied between studies. This review aims assess differences in outcome for patients with ID and mental disorders treated in general or specialised ID mental health services.

METHOD

A literature review was conducted using electronic databases and websites of ID and mental health organisations to locate all references where people with ID receive mental health care in general psychiatric services from 2003. No meta-analysis was attempted because of the divergent nature of the studies.

RESULTS

People with ID (especially severe ID) have reduced access to general psychiatric services. General psychiatric inpatient care is unpopular especially with carers but can be improved by providing specially trained staff and in-reach from community ID teams. Opportunities may exist to enhance the care of people with borderline intellectual functioning within general psychiatric services.

CONCLUSIONS

Although no new randomised controlled trials have been published, the weight of research is accumulating to suggest that provision of general psychiatric services without extra help is not sufficient to meet the needs of people with ID.

The size, extent and nature of the learning disability nursing research base: a systematic scoping review

BACKGROUND

A research base should be of sufficient quality and quantity to inform nursing practice. It must allow nurses to access information about clients' needs and to identify effective strategies for meeting those needs. This paper presents the findings of a scoping review of 'learning disability nursing research'. The review aimed to determine whether there is a research base sufficient to support learning disability nursing practice.

METHOD

We undertook searches of the Cochrane Library and electronic databases (Medline, Psychinfo, Embase, CINAHL and British Nursing Index) for the years 1996-2006. Full references and abstracts were downloaded for papers returned. Papers considered relevant to the topic of the review were organised into three categories according to whether the main focus of the research was people with learning disabilities, carers or family members, or nurses. For each paper, information about the locality of the research, the topic of the research, design/method and sample size was extracted.

FINDINGS

We identified 180 relevant research studies, most of which made use of convenience samples of less than one hundred people. Very few studies evaluated the clinical impact of nursing interventions or the delivery of care by learning disability nurses. A small number of studies examined the impact or patient experiences of nurse-led interventions. These tend to small-scale evaluations of new service initiatives, such as the management of behavioural problems. Overall there was an absence of strong evidence about the effectiveness of specific nursing interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

The extent of learning disability nursing research is limited in quantity and it is difficult to draw comparisons across research studies. Much of the available evidence is drawn from small-scale evaluations; which may provide useful guidance and inspiration for service development but do not, in themselves, constitute a sufficient body of research evidence to support learning disability nursing practice.