Violence and aggression in mental health-care settings

Safewards: An integrative review of the literature within inpatient and forensic mental health units

Mental health inpatient units are complex and challenging environments for care and treatment. Two imperatives in these settings are to minimize restrictive practices such as seclusion and restraint and to provide recovery-oriented care. Safewards is a model and a set of ten interventions aiming to improve safety by understanding the relationship between conflict and containment as a means of reducing restrictive practices. To date, the research into Safewards has largely focused on its impact on measures of restrictive practices with limited exploration of consumer perspectives. There is a need to review the current knowledge and understanding around Safewards and its impact on consumer safety. This paper describes a mixed-methods integrative literature review of Safewards within inpatient and forensic mental health units. The aim of this review was to synthesize the current knowledge and understanding about Safewards in terms of its implementation, acceptability, effectiveness and how it meets the needs of consumers. A systematic database search using Medline, CINAHL, Embase and PsychInfo databases was followed by screening and data extraction of findings from 19 articles. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) was used to assess the quality of empirical articles, and the Johanna Brigg's Institute (JBI's) Narrative, Opinion, Text-Assessment and Review Instrument (NOTARI) was used to undertake a critical appraisal of discussion articles. A constant comparative approach was taken to analysing the data and six key categories were identified: training, implementation strategy, staff acceptability, fidelity, effectiveness and consumer perspectives. The success of implementing Safewards was variously determined by a measured reduction of restrictive practices and conflict events, high fidelity and staff acceptability. The results highlighted that Safewards can be effective in reducing containment and conflict within inpatient mental health and forensic mental health units, although this outcome varied across the literature. This review also revealed the limitations of fidelity measures and the importance of involving staff in the implementation. A major gap in the literature to date is the lack of consumer perspectives on the Safewards model, with only two papers to date focusing on the consumers point of view. This is an important area that requires more research to align the Safewards model with the consumer experience and improved recovery orientation.

Using Q-methodology to explore mental health nurses' knowledge and skills to use recovery-focused care to reduce aggression in acute mental health settings

When nurses practise recovery-focused care, they contribute positively to the consumer's mental health recovery journey and empower the person to be actively engaged in the management of their illness. While using recovery-focused care is endorsed in mental health policy, many health professionals remain uncertain about its application with consumers who have a risk for aggression during their admission to an acute mental health inpatient setting. This paper reports on Australian research using Q-methodology that examined the knowledge and skill components of recovery-focused care that nurses use to reduce the risk for aggression. The data from forty mental health nurses revealed five factors that when implemented as part of routine practice improved the recovery outcomes for consumers with risk of aggression in the acute mental health settings. These factors were as follows: (I) acknowledge the consumers' experience of hospitalization; (II) reassure consumers who are going through a difficult time; (III) interact to explore the impact of the consumer's negative lived experiences; (IV) support co-production to reduce triggers for aggression; and (V) encourage and support consumers to take ownership of their recovery journey. These findings provide nurses with a pragmatic approach to use recovery-focused care for consumers with risk for aggression and contribute positively to the consumers' personal recovery.

Changing practice using recovery-focused care in acute mental health settings to reduce aggression: A qualitative study

Consumer aggression is common in acute mental health settings and can result in direct or vicarious psychological or physical impacts for both consumers and health professionals. Using recovery-focused care, nurses can implement a range of strategies to reduce aggression and empower consumers to self-regulate their behaviour, when faced with challenging situations, such as admission to the acute care setting. Currently, there is limited literature to direct nurses in the use of recovery-focused care and how it can be used to reduce consumer aggression. Twenty-seven mental health nurses participated in this study. The constructivist grounded theory method guided data collection and analysis to identify categories that accurately described participants' experiences. Five categories emerged that described how nurses can implement recovery-focused care clinically to reduce the risk of consumer aggression: (i) identify the reason for the behaviour before responding; (ii) being sensitive to the consumer's trigger for aggression; (iii) focus on the consumer's strengths and support, not risks; (iv) being attentive to the consumer's needs; and (v) reconceptualize aggression as a learning opportunity. As the importance of promoting consumer recovery is now embedded in mental health policies internationally, nurses need to prioritize the application of recovery-focused care clinically. Further research to provide evidence-based outcomes supporting the use of recovery-focused care is needed.

Fear and blame in mental health nurses' accounts of restrictive practices: Implications for the elimination of seclusion and restraint

Restrictive practices continue to be used in mental health care despite increasing recognition of their harms and an international effort to reduce and ultimately eliminate their use. The aim of this qualitative study was to explore mental health nurses' views of the potential elimination of these practices. Nine focus groups were conducted with 44 mental health nurses across Australia, and the data analysed using thematic analysis. Overall, the nurses expressed significant fear about the potential elimination of restrictive practices and saw themselves as being blamed for both the use of these practices and the consequences should they be eliminated. Findings detail the conflicts facing staff in balancing the need for ward safety for everyone present while at the same time providing person-centred care. Nurses described the changing role of the mental health nurse in acute settings, being more focussed on risk assessment and medication while at the same time attempting to practise in trauma-informed person-centred ways. The impact on ward safety with increasing acuity of consumers plus the presence of forensic consumers and those affected by methamphetamine was emphasized. Change initiatives need to take into account nurses' deep concerns about the consequences of eliminating all forms of control measures in hospitals and respond to the symptoms and behaviours consumers present with and associated unpredictable and concerning behaviours. Attempts to eliminate restrictive practices should, therefore, be carefully considered and come with a clear articulation of alternatives to ensure the safety of consumers, visitors, and staff.