A hermeneutic phenomenological exploration of 'last resort' in the use of restraint

Standards of proficiency for registered nurses-To what end? A critical analysis of contemporary mental health nursing within the United Kingdom context

Against the backdrop of cultural and political ideals, this article highlights both the significance of mental health nursing in meeting population needs and the regulatory barriers that may be impeding its ability to adequately do so. Specifically, we consider how ambiguous notions of 'proficiency' in nurse education-prescribed by the regulator-impact the development of future mental health nurses and their mental health nursing identity. A key tension in mental health practice is the ethical-legal challenges posed by sanctioned powers to restrict patients' freedom at the same time as the desire (and obligation) to promote patients' self-determined recovery. The genericism of the UK's Future Nurse Standards do little to prepare mental health nurses to navigate the tensions that ensue. This has consequences for nurses and patients alike, as both risk experiencing the distress and dissonance that attends giving or receiving poor care. We argue that more needs to be done to enable mental health nurses to define and articulate the nuances of the profession as part of becoming critical, thoughtful and confident practitioners. Educators can contribute to this mission by aligning curriculum, pedagogy and assessment to create meaningful opportunities for mental health nursing students to engage with the complexities of mental health nursing practice. Without this, the credibility of the profession will continue to be questioned; its future uncertain.

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.

Nurses' clinical decision-making in the use of rapid tranquillization in adult mental health inpatient settings: An integrative review

Rapid tranquillization is a restrictive practice that remains widely used in mental health inpatient settings worldwide. Nurses are the professionals most likely to administer rapid tranquillization in mental health settings. To improve mental health practices, an enhanced understanding of their clinical decision-making when using rapid tranquillization is, therefore, important. The aim was to synthesize and analyse the research literature on nurses' clinical decision-making in the use of rapid tranquillization in adult mental health inpatient settings. An integrative review was conducted using the methodological framework described by Whittemore and Knafl. A systematic search was conducted independently by two authors in APA PsycINFO, CINAHL Complete, Embase, PubMed and Scopus. Additional searches for grey literature were conducted in Google, OpenGrey and selected websites, and in the reference lists of included studies. Papers were critically appraised using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool, and the analysis was guided by manifest content analysis. Eleven studies were included in this review, of which nine were qualitative and two were quantitative. Based on the analysis, four categories were generated: (I) becoming aware of situational changes and considering alternatives, (II) negotiating voluntary medication, (III) administering rapid tranquillization and (IV) being on the other side. Evidence suggests that nurses' clinical decision-making in the use of rapid tranquillization involved a complex timeline with various impact points and embedded factors that continuously influenced and/or were associated with nurses' clinical decision-making. However, the topic has received scant scholarly attention, and further research may help to characterize the complexities involved and improve mental health practice.

Healthcare staff's experiences of using manual physical restraint: A meta-synthesis review

Manual restraint is a hands-on type of physical restraint used to prevent harm to service users and staff, and to administer necessary treatments. This article reports on a review and meta-synthesis of the qualitative literature on healthcare staff's experiences of using manual restraint. Three electronic databases (CINAHL Complete, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO) were systematically searched, and 19 studies were included. Thematic synthesis was used to synthesize the findings. The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklist was used to appraise study quality. The synthesis generated one overarching interpretive theme, "unpleasant but necessary," and five subthemes: "maintaining safety triumphs all," "emotional distress," "significance of coping," "feeling conflicted," and "depletion." Seven studies indicated that, from staff perspectives, manual restraint was not always used as a last resort. Healthcare staff experience manual restraint as a psychologically and physically unpleasant practice, yet paradoxically deem its use to be sometimes necessary to keep themselves and service users safe from harm. The findings indicate a need for healthcare staff support, post-restraint debriefing meetings with service users, and the implementation of manual restraint minimization programs in healthcare settings.

Getting a grip on Safewards: The cross impact of clinical supervision and Safewards model on clinical practice

The Safewards model is used across various mental health settings to reduce incidents of conflict and containment and its efficacy in reducing the use of seclusion and restraint, improving patients' experiences of care, and enhancing safety within clinical settings is well documented (Bowers, Journal of Psychiatric & Mental Health Nursing, 21, 2014, 499). However, there are barriers to successful implementation, including level of staff buy-in (Baumgardt et al., Frontiers in Psychiatry, 10, 2019, 340; Price et al., Mental Health Practice, 19, 2016, 14). This mixed-method study assessed the impact of adopting a Safewards model within a clinical supervision framework in an approach, named Group Reflective integrated Practice with Safewards (GRiP-S), which integrates Safewards theory within the clinical supervision framework. Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected using the questions derived from the Manchester Clinical Supervision Scale -26© (Winstanley & White, The Wiley International Handbook of Clinical Supervision. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2014). A total of 67 surveys and eight interviews were completed by nursing staff. Overall, the results showed that the GRiP-S approach improves the implementation of Safewards and nurses' clinical practice. Nursing staff satisfaction with clinical supervision and Safewards improved post GRiP-S pre-GRIP-S- 69.54 (SD 16.059); post-GRIP-S 71.47 (SD 13.978). The survey also identified nursing staff's perception of GRiP-S in the restorative and formative domains of clinical supervision improved. The restorative mean score pre-GRiP-S was 28.43 (SD 5.988) and post-GRiP-S 29.29 (SD 3.951). The formative mean score pre-GRiP-S was 20.10 (SD 5.617) and post-GRiP-S 20.63 (SD 13.978). The qualitative results further explained the satisfaction levels and the changes seen in perception domains. The GRiP-S approach reported (i) improved therapeutic relationships and patient centred care, (ii) improved staff communication and teamwork, (iii) barriers to GRiP-S engagement, and (iv) assistance with the change process. The results indicate that the GRiP-S approach had a positive impact on Safewards delivery and supports ongoing change of practice.