Violence and its prediction at a psychiatric hospital

Development and evaluation of a de-escalation training intervention in adult acute and forensic units: the EDITION systematic review and feasibility trial

Background

Containment (e.g. physical restraint and seclusion) is used frequently in mental health inpatient settings. Containment is associated with serious psychological and physical harms. De-escalation (psychosocial techniques to manage distress without containment) is recommended to manage aggression and other unsafe behaviours, for example self-harm. All National Health Service staff are trained in de-escalation but there is little to no evidence supporting training's effectiveness.

Objectives

Objectives were to: (1) qualitatively investigate de-escalation and identify barriers and facilitators to use across the range of adult acute and forensic mental health inpatient settings; (2) co-produce with relevant stakeholders an intervention to enhance de-escalation across these settings; (3) evaluate the intervention's preliminary effect on rates of conflict (e.g. violence, self-harm) and containment (e.g. seclusion and physical restraint) and understand barriers and facilitators to intervention effects.

Design

Intervention development informed by Experience-based Co-design and uncontrolled pre and post feasibility evaluation. Systematic reviews and qualitative interviews investigated contextual variation in use and effects of de-escalation. Synthesis of this evidence informed co-design of an intervention to enhance de-escalation. An uncontrolled feasibility trial of the intervention followed. Clinical outcome data were collected over 24 weeks including an 8-week pre-intervention phase, an 8-week embedding and an 8-week post-intervention phase.

Setting

Ten inpatient wards (including acute, psychiatric intensive care, low, medium and high secure forensic) in two United Kingdom mental health trusts.

Participants

In-patients, clinical staff, managers, carers/relatives and training staff in the target settings.

Interventions

Enhancing de-escalation techniques in adult acute and forensic units: Development and evaluation of an evidence-based training intervention (EDITION) interventions included de-escalation training, two novel models of reflective practice, post-incident debriefing and feedback on clinical practice, collaborative prescribing and ward rounds, practice changes around admission, shift handovers and the social and physical environment, and sensory modulation and support planning to reduce patient distress.

Main outcome measures

Outcomes measured related to feasibility (recruitment and retention, completion of outcome measures), training outcomes and clinical and safety outcomes. Conflict and containment rates were measured via the Patient-Staff Conflict Checklist. Clinical outcomes were measured using the Attitudes to Containment Measures Questionnaire, Attitudes to Personality Disorder Questionnaire, Violence Prevention Climate Scale, Capabilities, Opportunities, and Motivation Scale, Coercion Experience Scale and Perceived Expressed Emotion in Staff Scale.

Results

Completion rates of the proposed primary outcome were very good at 68% overall (excluding remote data collection), which increased to 76% (excluding remote data collection) in the post-intervention period. Secondary outcomes had high completion rates for both staff and patient respondents. Regression analyses indicated that reductions in conflict and containment were both predicted by study phase (pre, embedding, post intervention). There were no adverse events or serious adverse events related to the intervention.

Conclusions

Intervention and data-collection procedures were feasible, and there was a signal of an effect on the proposed primary outcome.

Limitations

Uncontrolled design and self-selecting sample.

Future work

Definitive trial determining intervention effects.

Trial registration

This trial is registered as ISRCTN12826685 (closed to recruitment).

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 16/101/02) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 3. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Context

Conflict (a term used to describe a range of potentially unsafe events including violence, self-harm, rule-breaking, medication refusal, illicit drug and alcohol use and absconding) in mental health settings causes serious physical and psychological harm. Containment interventions which are intended to minimise harm from violence (and other conflict behaviours) such as restraint, seclusion and rapid tranquilisation can result in serious injuries to patients and, occasionally, death. Involvement in physical restraint is the most common cause of serious physical injury to National Health Service mental health staff in the United Kingdom. Violence to staff results in substantial costs to the health service in sickness and litigation payments. Containment interventions are also expensive (e.g. physical restraint costs mental health services £6.1 million and enhanced observations £88 million per annum). Despite these harms, recent findings indicate containment interventions such as seclusion and physical restraint continue to be used frequently in mental health settings. Clinical trials have demonstrated that interventions can reduce containment without increasing violence and other conflict behaviours (e.g. verbal aggression, self-harm). Substantial cost-savings result from reducing containment use. De-escalation, as an intervention to manage aggression and potential violence without restrictive practices, is a core intervention. 'De-escalation' is a collective term for a range of psychosocial techniques designed to reduce distress and anger without the need to use 'containment' interventions (measures to prevent harm through restricting a person's ability to act independently, such as physical restraint and seclusion). Evidence indicates that de-escalation involves ensuring conditions for safe intervention and effective communication are established, clarifying and attempting to resolve the patient's concern, conveyance of respect and empathy and regulating unhelpful emotions such as anxiety and anger. Despite featuring prominently in clinical guidelines and training policy domestically and internationally and being a component of mandatory National Health Service training, there is no evidence-based model on which to base training. A systematic review of de-escalation training effectiveness and acceptability conducted in 2015 concluded: (1) no model of training has demonstrated effectiveness in a sufficiently rigorous evaluation, (2) the theoretical underpinning of evaluated models was often unclear and (3) there has been inadequate investigation of the characteristics of training likely to enhance acceptability and uptake. Despite all National Health Service staff being trained in de-escalation there have been no high-quality trials evaluating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of training. Feasibility studies are needed to establish whether it is possible to conduct a definitive trial that can determine the clinical, safety and cost-effectiveness of this intervention.

Aggression on the psychiatric ward: Prevalence and risk factors. A systematic review of the literature

INTRODUCTION

On psychiatric wards, aggressive behaviour displayed by patients is common and problematic. Understanding factors associated with the development of aggression offers possibilities for prevention and targeted interventions. This review discusses factors that contribute to the development of aggression on psychiatric wards.

METHOD

In Pubmed and Embase, a search was performed aimed at: prevalence data, ward characteristics, patient and staff factors that are associated with aggressive behaviour and from this search 146 studies were included.

RESULTS

The prevalence of aggressive behaviour on psychiatric wards varied (8-76%). Explanatory factors of aggressive behaviour were subdivided into patient, staff and ward factors. Patient risk factors were diagnosis of psychotic disorder or bipolar disorder, substance abuse, a history of aggression, younger age. Staff risk factors included male gender, unqualified or temporary staff, job strain, dissatisfaction with the job or management, burn-out and quality of the interaction between patients and staff. Staff protective factors were a good functioning team, good leadership and being involved in treatment decisions. Significant ward risk factors were a higher bed occupancy, busy places on the ward, walking rounds, an unsafe environment, a restrictive environment, lack of structure in the day, smoking and lack of privacy.

CONCLUSION

Despite a lack of prospective quantitative data, results did show that aggression arises from a combination of patient factors, staff factors and ward factors. Patient factors were studied most often, however, besides treatment, offering the least possibilities in prevention of aggression development. Future studies should focus more on the earlier stages of aggression such as agitation and on factors that are better suited for preventing aggression such as ward and staff factors. Management and clinicians could adapt staffing and ward in line with these results.

Assessing aggressiveness quickly and efficiently: the Spanish adaptation of Aggression Questionnaire-Refined version

The assessment of aggressiveness and the prediction of aggression has become a relevant research and applied topic in Psychiatry and Psychology. There have been many attempts in order to get a fast and reliable tool to measure aggression. Buss and Durkee started the pathway, and recently Bryant and Smith developed a tool with an enormous potential, a fast-applicable, reliable and valid test. We herein report a Spanish adaptation of this test and we show that aggressiveness can be measured rapidly, and in a simple, valid and reliable way across different populations. We focus on the discriminant capacity of this test to detect aggressive individuals.

Patient safety in inpatient mental health settings: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Patients in inpatient mental health settings face similar risks (eg, medication errors) to those in other areas of healthcare. In addition, some unsafe behaviours associated with serious mental health problems (eg, self-harm), and the measures taken to address these (eg, restraint), may result in further risks to patient safety. The objective of this review is to identify and synthesise the literature on patient safety within inpatient mental health settings using robust systematic methodology.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-synthesis. Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Health Management Information Consortium, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Web of Science were systematically searched from 1999 to 2019. Search terms were related to 'mental health', 'patient safety', 'inpatient setting' and 'research'. Study quality was assessed using the Hawker checklist. Data were extracted and grouped based on study focus and outcome. Safety incidents were meta-analysed where possible using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Of the 57 637 article titles and abstracts, 364 met inclusion criteria. Included publications came from 31 countries and included data from over 150 000 participants. Study quality varied and statistical heterogeneity was high. Ten research categories were identified: interpersonal violence, coercive interventions, safety culture, harm to self, safety of the physical environment, medication safety, unauthorised leave, clinical decision making, falls and infection prevention and control.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient safety in inpatient mental health settings is under-researched in comparison to other non-mental health inpatient settings. Findings demonstrate that inpatient mental health settings pose unique challenges for patient safety, which require investment in research, policy development, and translation into clinical practice.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42016034057.

Patient Violence Toward Psychiatric Health Care Workers in Israel as Viewed Through Incident Reports

BACKGROUND

Rates of violence perpetrated by patients toward health care workers are known to be higher in psychiatry than in other fields. Objective standardized reports of violent incidents may clarify this phenomenon.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to assess the characteristics of patient violence, as evident from objective reports.

STUDY DESIGN

In this retrospective chart review study, conducted at a large mental health hospital in Israel between 2013 and 2015, reports of violent incidents perpetrated by people diagnosed with mental health problems against health care workers of the hospital were reviewed.

RESULTS

A total of 80 violent incidents were recorded. The findings outline the characteristics of a typical assailant, a typical victim, and a typical incident, and demonstrate associations between some of these characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS

This information may be beneficial for planning interventions for efficient coping with and prevention of violence at psychiatric inpatient facilities.

Learning and performance outcomes of mental health staff training in de-escalation techniques for the management of violence and aggression

BACKGROUND

De-escalation techniques are a recommended non-physical intervention for the management of violence and aggression in mental health. Although taught as part of mandatory training for all National Health Service (NHS) mental health staff, there remains a lack of clarity around training effectiveness.

AIMS

To conduct a systematic review of the learning, performance and clinical safety outcomes of de-escalation techniques training.

METHOD

The review process involved a systematic literature search of 20 electronic databases, eligibility screening of results, data extraction, quality appraisal and data synthesis.

RESULTS

A total of 38 relevant studies were identified. The strongest impact of training appears to be on de-escalation-related knowledge, confidence to manage aggression and deescalation performance (although limited to artificial training scenarios). No strong conclusions could be drawn about the impact of training on assaults, injuries, containment and organisational outcomes owing to the low quality of evidence and conflicting results.

CONCLUSIONS

It is assumed that de-escalation techniques training will improve staff's ability to de-escalate violent and aggressive behaviour and improve safety in practice. There is currently limited evidence that this training has these effects.

Assessing aggressive behavior in forensic psychiatric patients: validity and clinical utility of combining two instruments

OBJECTIVES

Accurate observation of aggressive behavior among forensic psychiatric patients requires valid instruments. This study examines the validity and clinical utility of combining the social dysfunction and aggression scale (SDAS) and staff observation aggression scale revised (SOAS-R).

METHODS

Nurses weekly obtained SDAS scores of 127 patients, resulting in 6.124 assessments. Aggressive incidents were documented by the SOAS-R. Internal consistency, subscale structure, interobserver reliability of the SDAS, and convergent validity with SOAS-R were analyzed.

CONCLUSION

A three-factor solution was found. Interobserver reliability was moderate, and good convergent validity was found. The SDAS, in conjunction with the SOAS-R, monitors changes in aggressiveness and may contribute to the prevention of aggressive behavior.

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.

Developing a web-based stress management intervention for occupational support workers

BACKGROUND

Occupational support workers in the mental healthcare sector are exposed to considerable occupational stress and have little access to stress management facilities.

AIMS

This article describes the process behind creating a web-based stress management intervention (SMI) for occupational support workers in the mental healthcare sector.

METHOD

Mixed methods were used to inform the content of the web-based SMI, following MRC strategy for designing interventions and PRIMA-EF guidelines for best practice in SMI design. We conducted a literature review to ascertain the content of interventions that had been shown to be successful in reducing stress in mental healthcare populations. In addition, we conducted focus groups in order to assess specific stressors that individuals in the occupational support sector deemed to be important.

RESULTS

The literature review showed that a variety of methods had been successful for reducing occupational stress in the mental healthcare sector including: Relaxation and Cognitive Behavioural Therapy techniques, and skills training in; time management, problem-solving and communication. Individuals in the focus groups identified both personal and organisational stressors to be addressed in the intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

This intervention was developed with reference to a design strategy, using input from the target population.

Reducing violence against nurses: the violence prevention community meeting

Research was undertaken to validate the efficacy of a new, nurse-led treatment, the Violence Prevention Community Meeting (VPCM), for reducing patient violence on an acute-care inpatient psychiatry unit. Nursing staff members carried event counters and recorded verbal and physical violence as it occurred over the 20-week study. Significant decreases in patient violence were found across day, evening, and night shifts for pre-treatment vs. treatment and pre-treatment vs. post-treatment comparisons. For the day shift, when twice-weekly VPCM treatment took place, violent incidents decreased 89% from pre-treatment to treatment and 57% from pre-treatment to post-treatment.

Characteristics of aggression in a German psychiatric hospital and predictors of patients at risk

This study investigated the aggressive behaviour of all mentally ill patients within a whole psychiatric hospital with a catchment area of 325 000 inhabitants over a 1-year period (i) to assess the 1-year prevalence and characteristics of aggressive episodes and index inpatients, and (ii) to identify predictors of patients at risk by a multivariate approach. Staff Observation of Aggression Scale was used to assess aggressive behaviour. Characteristics of index inpatients were compared with those of non-index inpatients. Logistic regression analysis was applied to identify risk factors. A total of 171 out of 2210 admitted patients (7.7%) exhibited 441 aggressive incidents (1.7 incidents per bed per year). Logistic regression analyses revealed as major risk factors of aggression: diagnoses (organic brain syndromes OR = 3.6, schizophrenia OR = 2.9), poor psychosocial living conditions (OR = 2.2), and critical behaviour leading to involuntary admission (OR = 3.3). Predictors of aggressive behaviour can be useful to identify inpatients at risk. Nevertheless, additional situational determinants have to be recognized. Training for professionals should include preventive and de-escalating strategies to reduce the incidence of aggressive behaviour in psychiatric hospitals. The application of de-escalating interventions prior to admission might be effective in preventing aggressive behaviour during inpatient treatment especially for patients with severe mental disorders.

Social isolation, impulsivity and depression as predictors of aggression in a psychiatric inpatient population

Aggressive behavior among psychiatric inpatients remains an issue of concern for staff, families and patients themselves. At the present time, studies examining prediction of aggression among psychiatric inpatients have focused mainly on diagnostic or demographic risk factors. Unfortunately little is known about specific social functioning and personality risk factors that may help identify specific individuals at risk for aggressive behavior. Given that many individuals who have engaged in violent criminal behavior have been observed to experience a combination of social isolation, depression and impulsiveness, it is possible that this same combination of traits may function as a predictor of aggression among psychiatric inpatients. The current study examines whether psychiatric inpatients with a combination of social isolation, depression and impulsivity are significantly more likely to become aggressive than other psychiatric inpatients without that combination of factors. Results indicated that impulsivity functioned as a positive predictor of aggression, whereas depression acted as a protective factor. Perceived social support did not appear to relate strongly to aggression. Further, physicians' ratings of hostility were more predictive of aggressive incidents than were self-reports of hostility. Clinical implications of these findings are discussed.

Fifteen years of research with the Staff Observation Aggression Scale: a review

OBJECTIVE

Research on the prevalence and causes of in-patient aggression has been hindered by the use of different methods for measuring aggression. Since Palmstierna and Wistedt presented the Staff Observation Aggression Scale (SOAS) in 1987, this data collection method has been used in various studies, which may make comparisons more useful.

METHOD

Studies with SOAS aggression data were compiled using MEDLINE, the Internet, and references from SOAS papers.

RESULTS

Reviews of studies on psychometric properties suggest fair to good inter-rater reliability and validity for SOAS assessments. The number of aggressive incidents per patient per year found on acute admissions wards (n = 38) considerably varied, with a range of 0.4-33.2 incidents (mean = 9.3).

CONCLUSION

Although the aggression data included in the present review were obtained in highly comparable ways, substantial differences in aggression rates between wards were still found. Some countries (e.g. the Netherlands) appear to have a relatively high incidence of aggression on acute wards.

Aggression on a psychiatric acute ward: a three-year prospective study

The objectives of this 3-yr. prospective study of aggression on a Norwegian psychiatric acute ward serving a population of 170,000 were to monitor the rate and characteristics of aggressive behaviour, to identify possible interactional and situational precipitants to aggression, and to explore possible differences between aggressive and nonaggressive patients in terms of diagnosis, sex, age, numbers of admissions, admission type, and length of stay. Aggressive incidents were recorded on the Report Form for Aggressive Episodes (REFA). Severity of injuries was scored according to Fottrell's severity scale. Of the total 934 patients admitted, 98 (10.5%) accounted for a total of 981 aggressive episodes. About 55% of the aggressive incidents were assaults that resulted in 85 minor and 21 severe physical injuries. There was no evidence that diagnosis might be used to predict aggression in the clinical setting. Mean rate of admission per patient and length of stay was significantly higher in the aggressive group than in the nonaggressive group. However, several patients in the aggressive group also had admissions without being aggressive. About 13% of the aggressive patients accounted for nearly 50% of the aggressive incidents. There was no significant sex difference by total rate of aggression, but female patients tended to have higher rates of assaults and contributed to significantly more injuries than male patients. Nearly 20% of the aggressive episodes occurred during the first 24 hours of a stay and 54% during the first week. Limit setting, problems in communication, and physical contact, separately or in combinations, preceded nearly 90% of the aggressive episodes.