Conflict management: A qualitative study of mental health staff's perceptions of factors that may influence conflicts with forensic mental health inpatients

Mental health patients' preferences regarding restrictive interventions: An integrative review

WHAT IS KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT?: The use of restrictive interventions is described as a violation of patients' rights and autonomy. It must only be used as a last resort to manage dangerous behaviour, to prevent or reduce the risk of mental health patients harming themselves or others. International mental health policy and legislation agree that when restrictive interventions are applied, the least restrictive alternative should be chosen. WHAT THE PAPER ADDS TO EXISTING KNOWLEDGE?: The results are ambiguous, as to which restrictive intervention is preferred over others, but there are tendencies towards the majority preferring observation, with mechanical restraint being the least preferred. To make the experience less intrusive and restrictive, certain factors are preferred, such as a more pleasant and humane seclusion room environment, staff communicating during the application and staff of same gender applying the intervention. WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE?: When applying restrictive interventions, mental health professionals should consider environment, communication and duration factors that influence patient preferences, such as the opportunity to keep some personal items in the seclusion room, or, when using restraint, to communicate the reason and explain what is going to happen. More research is needed to clarify patients' preferences regarding restrictive interventions and their views on which are the least restrictive. Preferably, agreement is needed on standard measures, and global use of the same definition of restrictive interventions.

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: The use of restrictive interventions is a violation of patients' rights that causes physical and psychological harm and which is a well-known challenge globally. Mental health law and legislative principles and experts agree that when restrictive interventions are applied, the least restrictive alternative should be used. However, there is no consensus on what is the least restrictive alternative, especially from the patient perspective.

AIM

To investigate the literature on mental health patients' preferences regarding restrictive interventions applied during admission to a psychiatric hospital.

METHOD

An integrative review informed by the PRISMA statement and thematic analysis were undertaken.

RESULTS

There were tendencies towards patients preferring observation and, for the majority, mechanical restraint was the least preferred restrictive intervention. Factors such as environment, communication and duration were found to influence patients' preferences.

DISCUSSION

There is a lack of agreement on how best to measure patients' preferences and this complicates the choice of the least restrictive alternative. Nonetheless, our findings show that staff should consider environment, communication and duration when applying restrictive interventions.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

More research on restrictive interventions and the least restrictive alternative is warranted, but agreement is needed on standard measures, and a standard global definition of restrictive interventions.

A Nominal Group Technique to finalise Safewards Secure model and interventions for forensic mental health services

WHAT IS KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT?: Safewards was developed for acute mental health units, and while could be effective in forensic mental health services, there are some gaps in the model for such services, where factors including offending behaviour and longer term care can have an influence. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS TO EXISTING KNOWLEDGE?: The importance of acknowledging and addressing responses related to offending behaviour in forensic mental health settings, while also understanding the vulnerability of the consumer group and responsibilities to the maintenance of professional boundaries. Enhancing collaboration with consumers/families/carers/supporters is important in a forensic mental health setting, and an important element of Safewards Secure. WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE?: This study completes the development of Safewards Secure, designed to foster collaboration, address issues pertinent to forensic mental health settings to enhance implementation and acceptance of the model and reduce conflict and containment.

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Safewards is a model developed for acute mental health settings designed to reduce conflict and containment; however, it requires adaptation to forensic mental health settings.

AIM

To develop the Safewards Secure model, a model to assist forensic mental health services to reduce conflict and containment.

METHOD

A literature review was conducted to elicit possible modifiers and adjustments to the interventions. A Nominal Group Technique was then used to engage forensic mental health experts who had experience implementing Safewards (n = 12) to seek feedback about the suggestions and reach consensus on the Safewards Secure model and interventions. Data were thematically analysed.

RESULTS

Experts reached consensus on all suggestions, however, did recommend minor additions and modifications. Two themes were also interpreted: Safewards Secure is just as much for staff as it is for consumers, and the proposed additions encourage more meaningful staff to consumer collaboration.

DISCUSSION

This study identified key challenges experienced by nurses working in forensic mental health settings, however, these challenges were not seen as insurmountable. The Safewards Secure model offers prompts and suggestions to encourage reflection, collaboration and a humanistic approach to care in forensic mental health settings.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Addressing reactions to offending behaviour and encouraging more collaboration might assist in ensuring a more person-centred approach to forensic mental health nursing care.

Variation in opinions on coercion use among mental healthcare professionals: a questionnaire study

INTRODUCTION

Even if coercive measures are widely applied in psychiatry and have numerous well-known drawbacks, there is limited known on the agreement among mental healthcare professionals' opinions on their use. In a questionnaire study using standardized scenarios, we investigated variation in staff opinions on coercion.

METHODS

In a web-based survey distributed to staff at three psychiatry hospitals, respondents were asked to consider if and what coercion to use by introducing two hypothetical scenarios involving involuntary psychiatric admission and in-hospital coercion.

RESULTS

One hundred thirty-two out of 601 invited staff members responded to the survey (Response Rate = 22%). There was large variation in participating staff members' opinions on how to best manage critical situations and what coercive measures were warranted. In the first scenario, 57% of respondents (n = 76) believed that the patient should be involuntarily admitted to hospital while the remaining respondents believed that the situation should be managed otherwise. Regarding the second scenario, 62% of respondents responded that some in-hospital coercion should be used. The majority of respondents believed that colleagues would behave similarly (60%) or with a tendency towards more coercion use (34%). Male gender, being nursing staff and having less coercion experience predicted being less inclined to choose involuntary hospital admission.

CONCLUSION

There is a high degree of variation in coercion use. This study suggests that this variation persists despite staff members being confronted with the same standardized situations. There is a need for evidence-based further guidance to minimize coercion in critical mental healthcare situations.

Staff responses to interventions aiming to reduce mechanical restraint in adult mental health inpatient settings: a questionnaire-based survey

PURPOSE

To explore mental health staff's responses towards interventions designed to reduce the use of mechanical restraint (MR) in adult mental health inpatient settings.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional, questionnaire-based survey. The questionnaire, made available online via REDCap, presented 20 interventions designed to reduce MR use. Participants were asked to rate and rank the interventions based on their viewpoints regarding the relevance and importance of each intervention.

RESULTS

A total of 128 mental health staff members from general and forensic mental health inpatient units across the Mental Health Services in the Region of Southern Denmark completed the questionnaire (response rate = 21.3%). A total of 90.8% of the ratings scored either 'agree' (45.2%) or 'strongly agree' (45.6%) concerning the relevance of the interventions in reducing MR use. Overall and in the divided analysis, interventions labelled as 'building relationship' and 'patient-related knowledge' claimed high scores in the staff's rankings of the interventions' importance concerning implementation. Conversely, interventions like 'carers' and 'standardised assessments' received low scores.

CONCLUSIONS

The staff generally considered that the interventions were relevant. Importance rankings were consistent across the divisions chosen, with a range of variance and dispersion being recorded among certain groups.

A Meta-Ethnographic Review of Forensic Psychiatry Inpatient Care. Nursing Staff Experiences of the Nurse-Patient Encounter

AIM

The aim of this review was to synthesise qualitative research into how nurses perceive and experience encountering patients in forensic inpatient care.

REVIEW METHOD

This review followed the steps of meta-ethnography developed by Noblit and Hare.

DATA SOURCES

Twelve studies, published from 2011 to 2021, were identified through a search of relevant databases in December 2021.

FINDINGS

The synthesis revealed three third-order and 10 second-order constructs during the translation of concepts in the studies. These are: Adopting the patient's perspective (liberation, comprehension and resistance), Action (security, trust, flexibility and predictability) and Activation (afraid or safe, involved or indifferent and boundaries). Further, a line of argument was developed which indicates that in forensic psychiatry inpatient care, nurses experience having to deal with internal and external resistance that affects their freedom of choice in the creation of a caring relationship.

CONCLUSION

The encounter is experienced as a continuous process in which the foundation is laid for the encounter (approach), the encounter unfolds and develops (action) and the nurse experiences the encounter (activation). The process is intertwined with and takes place in a context where care is influenced by the duality of the task (task), the culture of care (context), the patient's expression (patient) and the nurse's own impression of the patient's expression (oneself).

IMPLICATIONS

Professional communities should support initiatives that can strengthen nurses' self-awareness and provide opportunities for reflection on practice, which will both benefit the resilience of the nursing staff and the quality of care for patients in this setting.

Meanings of carers' lived experience of "regulating oneself" in forensic psychiatry

PURPOSE

This study aimed to illuminate the essential meanings of carers' lived experience of regulating themselves when caring for patients with mental illnesses in forensic inpatient care.

METHODS

Qualitative analysis was used to analyse data from narrative interviews with open-ended questions conducted with nine carers, which were analysed using a phenomenological-hermeneutic approach.

RESULTS

Findings revealed three themes, "preserving oneself as a carer," "building an alliance with the patient" and "maintaining stability in the community." Carers not only regulated emotions related to patients but also the ward to facilitate a caring climate. For carers, encounters with patients meant facing expressions of suffering that evoked unwanted emotions. Regulating one's emotions also meant being emotionally touched and facing one's vulnerability.

CONCLUSION

Regulating oneself was a strategy used by carers to get closer to the patient and establishing a trusting relationship. Regulating oneself meant becoming aware of one's shortcomings, not projecting them onto others, which may impair establishing relationships with patients and fulfilling the aim and caring task of forensic psychiatry. This study stresses the importance of carers being guided to manage their conflicting emotions and vulnerabilities and finding courage and an approach that allows a permissive climate of self-reflection.