Secluded/restrained patients' perceptions of their treatment: validity and reliability of a new questionnaire

The Effectiveness of a Leadership Subject Using a Hybrid Teaching Mode during the Pandemic: Objective Outcome and Subjective Outcome Evaluation

Positive youth development (PYD) is an innovative approach to protect students from mental health problems and promote their positive and holistic development. Although there are many studies on the beneficial effects of PYD programs on youth in high school and community contexts, it is not clear whether subjects adopting PYD principles can promote positive development for university students. Moreover, it is unclear whether such subjects are effective under COVID-19, where subjects are commonly taught via the "hybrid" mode (i.e., face-to-face plus online teaching). The present study examined students' changes in the PYD, wellbeing, and desired graduate attributes after they had taken a leadership subject utilizing PYD principles taught by the "hybrid" mode (N = 630). Adopting the one-group pre-test and post-test design (i.e., objective outcome evaluation), we found that students showed significant positive improvement in PYD indicators, wellbeing, as well as desired graduate attributes. Additionally, students had high satisfaction with the course design and teaching staff, and perceived many benefits from this subject based on the subjective outcome evaluation conducted at the end of the subject. Results also showed that students' satisfaction with the curriculum significantly and positively predicted their positive change in PYD indicators, indicating the convergence of subjective outcome evaluation and objective outcome evaluation. The results highlight the positive impacts of the hybrid mode leadership subject with PYD principles in higher education.

Psychiatric patients' perception of physical restraint

OBJECTIVE

To investigate psychiatric patients' subjective perception during and after belt fixation.

METHOD

All patients who were involuntarily admitted and physically restrained at a psychiatric intensive care unit within an 18-month study period were analysed. Ratings were obtained at four visits when questioning was possible.

RESULTS

Within a heterogeneous diagnostic sample of 47 patients, only 12 patients were eligible to participate during belt fixation. After cessation of fixation, eight patients lacked any memory of restraint, while 36 could be questioned. Visual analogue scale median scores indicated powerlessness and depressiveness rather than anxiety and aggression. Patients' acceptance of the coercive measure was significantly higher (P = 0.003), while patients' memory was significantly lower than expected (P < 0.001). About 50% of the patients documented high perceived coercion, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) could be supposed in a quarter of the restrained individuals. Subjective perceptions concerning fixation showed no significant changes over time. Results showed high interindividual variability.

CONCLUSION

Visual analogue scale revealed that belt fixation seemed to be forgotten or accepted in the majority of patients, probably due to psychiatric intensive care, psychopharmacological treatment and clinical improvements. The responses of a quarter of the patients assessed before discharge may be in accordance with symptoms of PTSD.

Secluded and restrained patients' perceptions of their treatment

Though some empirical and anecdotal accounts can be located in the extant literature, it remains the case that little is known about how secluded/restrained (S/R) patients perceive their overall treatment. The purpose of this study was to explore patients' perceptions of their hospital treatment measured after S/R. The data were collected with a Secluded and Restrained Patients' Perceptions of their Treatment (S/R-PPT) questionnaire from S/R patients aged 18-65 years. Ninety completed questionnaires were analysed. Patients perceived that they received enough attention from staff, and they were able to voice their opinions, but their opinions were not taken into account. Patients denied the necessity and beneficence of S/R. Women and older patients were more critical than men and younger patients regarding the use of restrictions. There were also statistically-significant differences in responses among patients at different hospitals. It is concluded that patients' opinions need more attention in treatment decisions. To achieve this, psychiatric treatment needs genuine dialogue between patients and staff, and individual care should have alternatives and no routine decisions. Therefore, the treatment culture must improve towards involving patients in treatment planning, and giving them a say when S/R is considered.