Nurses' attitudes towards professional containment methods used in psychiatric wards and perceptions of aggression in Turkey

A Scoping Review on Staff Attitudes towards the Use of Coercion in Mental Healthcare

Attitudes of mental health professionals towards the use of coercion are highly relevant concerning its use coercion in mental healthcare, as mental health professionals have to weigh ethical arguments and decide within a legal frame in which situations to use coercion or not. Therefore, assessment of those attitudes is relevant for research in this field. A vital instrument to measure those attitudes towards the use of coercion is the Staff Attitude to Coercion Scale. This scoping review aims to provide a structured overview of the advantages and limitations in the assessment of attitudes toward coercion. We conducted a scoping review in Medline, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Web of Science, based on the PRISMA-ScR. Inclusion criteria were empirical studies on the attitudes of mental health professionals. We included 80 studies and systematically mapped data about the main results and limitations in assessing attitudes toward coercion. The main results highlighted the relevance and increased interest in staff attitudes towards coercion in mental healthcare. Still, the majority of the included studies relied on a variety of different concepts and definitions concerning attitudes. The data further indicated difficulties in developing new and adapting existing assessment instruments because of the equivocal definitions of underlying concepts. To improve the research and knowledge in this area, future studies should be based on solid theoretical foundations. We identified the need for methodological changes and standardized procedures that take into account existing evidence from attitude research in social psychology, nursing science, and other relevant research fields. This would include an update of the Staff Attitude to Coercion Scale based on the limitations identified in this review.

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.

A Call for Transformation: Moving Away from Coercive Measures in Mental Health Care

Coercion is common practice in mental health care [...].

Aggression in mental health care: Opportunities for the future-A qualitative study on the challenges when defining and managing aggression across inpatient disciplines

WHAT IS KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT?: Aggression towards caregivers is a global phenomenon in mental health care. Although attempts have been made to define aggression, there is no globally accepted definition. Discrepancies in defining aggression can lead to differences in judgement and a sub-par management of aggression. The fact that different disciplines work together in mental health care makes it an even more pressing matter as no research was found regarding a multidisciplinary definition of aggression. Currently, coercive measures, such as isolation, sedation or restraints, are the most common ways of managing aggression. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS TO EXISTING KNOWLEDGE?: Mental healthcare nurses and psychologists defined aggression by previous experiences, and they also agree that there are no alternatives in managing aggression when non-coercive techniques do not work. Several opportunities and examples of best practice were given by the participants, but the consensus was that caregivers are in need of alternatives when they are face to face with acute aggression. WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE?: It is vital for residential units to agree on a definition of aggression and acute aggression. It is our belief that this can aid them in preventing and de-escalating aggression as well as diminishing the use of coercive measures. Further primary research exploring the opportunities of non-coercive techniques, a multidisciplinary approach and the relationship between a workplace culture normalizing aggression and the mental well-being of healthcare workers is also needed.

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Aggression by patients against healthcare workers is a global recurring phenomenon in mental health care. Discrepancies in defining aggression can lead to differences in judgement, which in turn causes difficulties in managing aggression. The multidisciplinary nature of mental healthcare makes a standardized definition an even more pressing matter. No studies, however, were found exploring the way different disciplines approach the definition of aggression. Although traditional methods of managing aggression rely on coercive methods, current research favours the use of non-coercive measures.

AIM

The aim of this study was to explore the different ways mental healthcare nurses and psychologists define and manage aggression in a residential unit.

METHOD

A qualitative research design was used, consisting of interviews and focus groups. Transcripts were analysed using a reflexive thematic approach.

RESULTS

Three major themes were found: (1) approaches towards defining aggression, (2) experiencing aggression and (3) managing aggression: the need for alternatives.

DISCUSSION

In this study, aggression is defined by how aggression has been experienced, both mental health nurses and psychologists agree that there are no alternatives in managing aggression when non-coercive techniques do not work. Aggression is considered an integral part of the job indicating an "aggression-tolerating" workplace.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Three implications for practice were identified: (1) It is vital for residential units to agree on a broad-based definition of aggression, (2) further primary research exploring the opportunities of non-coercive techniques and a multidisciplinary approach is crucial and (3) the relationship between a workplace culture normalizing aggression and the mental well-being of healthcare workers also needs further study.

Experience of mental health nurses regarding mechanical restraint in patients with psychomotor agitation: A qualitative study

AIM

To explore mental health nurses' experiences whilst managing a patient with psychomotor agitation, and the factors that influence the decision to use mechanical restraints.

BACKGROUND

Psychomotor agitation is considered a potentially violent psychiatric emergency. The management of disruptive behaviours includes mechanical restraints as the last resort although its use has consequences for patients, professionals and the therapeutic relationship.

DESIGN

A qualitative study design with a hermeneutical approach was developed.

METHODS

A total of 31 nurses were purposively sampled from six short- and medium-stay mental health inpatient units. Data were obtained from semi-structured interviews. A thematic content analysis following the seven steps of Colaizzi's method was performed. Three researchers independently conducted an inductive analysis within a perspective of a hermeneutic paradigm. The COREQ checklist was followed in carrying out this research.

RESULTS

Four themes emerged from the analysis: 1) Nurses' perceptions of restraint methods, 2) Factors influencing decision-making, 3) Consequences for professionals of the use of mechanical restraint and 4) Alternatives to mechanical restraint.

CONCLUSIONS

Aspects such as the importance of teamwork, the issue of cognitive dissonance, ethical conflict and barriers to effecting the withdrawal of these measures affect the mental health nurse's decision-making process. The understanding of these aspects is crucial to further reducing its incidence and negative consequences and achieving the elimination of mechanical restraints.

RELEVANCE FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE

Knowing how nurses feel during the patient's episode of psychomotor agitation and which factors influence the decision on whether to apply coercive methods can guide us on the quality of care offered.

Influence of nursing staff attitudes and characteristics on the use of coercive measures in acute mental health services-A systematic review

WHAT IS KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT?: Aggressive behaviour is a major problem in clinical practice of mental health care and can result in the use of coercive measures. Coercive measures are dangerous for psychiatric patients and international mental healthcare works on the elimination of these interventions. There is no previous review that summarizes the attitude of nursing staff towards coercive measures and the influence of nursing staff characteristics on attitude towards and the use of coercive measures. WHAT THE PAPER ADDS TO EXISTING KNOWLEDGE?: The attitude of nurses shifted from a therapeutic paradigm (coercive measures have positive effects on patients) to a safety paradigm (coercive measures are undesirable, but necessary for the wards' safety). Nurses express the need for less coercive interventions to prevent seclusion and restraint, but their perception of intrusiveness is influenced by how often they use specific coercive measures. The knowledge from scientific literature on the influence of nursing staff on coercive measures is highly inconclusive, although the feeling of safety of nurses might prove to be promising for further research. WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE?: There is need for increased attention specifically for the feeling of safety of nurses, to better equip nurses for their difficult work on acute mental health wards. ABSTRACT: Introduction The use of coercive measures generally has negative effects on patients. To help prevent its use, professionals need insight into what nurses believe about coercion and which staff determinants may influence its application. There is need for an integrated review on both attitude and influence of nurses on the use of coercion. Aim To summarize literature concerning attitude of nurses towards coercive measures and the influence of staff characteristics on the use of coercive measures. Method Systematic review. Results The attitude of nurses changed during the last two decades from a therapeutic to a safety paradigm. Nurses currently view coercive measures as undesirable, but necessary to deal with aggression. Nurses express the need for less intrusive interventions, although familiarity probably influences its perceived intrusiveness. Literature on the relation between staff characteristics and coercive measures is inconclusive. Discussion Nurses perceive coercive measures as unwanted but still necessary to maintain safety on psychiatric wards. Focussing on the determinants of perception of safety might be a promising direction for future research. Implications for practice Mental health care could improve the focus on the constructs of perceived safety and familiarity with alternative interventions to protect patients from unnecessary use of coercive interventions.

International research into 22 years of use of chemical restraint: An evidence overview

BACKGROUND

Chemical restraint (CR) (also known as rapid tranquilisation) is the forced (non-consenting) administration of medications to manage uncontrolled aggression, anxiety, or violence in people who are likely to cause harm to themselves or others. Our population of interest was adults with mental health disorders (with/without substance abuse). There has been a growing international movement over the past 22 years towards reducing/eliminating restrictive practices such as CR. It is appropriate to summarise the research that has been published over this time, identify trends and gaps in knowledge, and highlight areas for new research to inform practice.

AIMS

To undertake a comprehensive systematic search to identify, and describe, the volume and nature of primary international research into CR published since 1995.

METHODS

This paper reports the processes and overall findings of a systematic search for all available primary research on CR published between 1 January 1996 and 31 July 2018. It describes the current evidence base by hierarchy of evidence, country (ies) producing the research, CR definitions, study purpose, and outcome measures.

RESULTS

This review identified 311 relevant primary studies (21 RCTs; 46 non-controlled experimental or prospective observational studies; 77 cross-sectional studies; 69 retrospective studies; 67 opinion pieces, position or policy statements; and 31 qualitative studies). The USA, UK, and Australia contributed over half the research, whilst cross-country collaborations comprised 6% of it. The most common research settings comprised acute psychiatric wards (23.3%), general psychiatric wards (21.6%), and general hospital emergency departments (19.0%).

DISCUSSION

A key lesson learnt whilst compiling this database of research into CR was to ensure that all papers described non-consenting administration of medications to manage adults with uncontrolled aggression, anxiety, or violence. There were tensions in the literature between using effective CR without producing adverse events, and how to decide when CR was needed (compared with choosing non-chemical intervention for behavioural emergencies), respecting patients' dignity whilst safeguarding their safety, and preserving safe workplaces for staff, and care environments for other patients. The range of outcome measures suggests opportunities to standardise future research.

Using interventions to reduce seclusion and mechanical restraint use in adult psychiatric units: an integrative review

The aim of this integrative review was to describe interventions aimed at reducing seclusion and mechanical restraint use in adult psychiatric inpatient units and their possible outcomes. CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Medic databases were searched for studies published between 2008 and 2017. Based on electronic and manual searches, 28 studies were included, and quality appraisal was carried out. Data were analysed using inductive content analysis. Interventions to proactively address seclusion were environmental interventions, staff training, treatment planning, use of information and risk assessment. Interventions to respond to seclusion risk were patient involvement, family involvement, meaningful activities, sensory modulation and interventions to manage patient agitation. Interventions to proactively address mechanical restraint were mechanical restraint regulations, a therapeutic atmosphere, staff training, treatment planning and review of mechanical restraint risks. Interventions to respond to mechanical restraint risks included patient involvement, therapeutic activities, sensory modulation and interventions to manage agitation. Outcomes related to both seclusion and mechanical restraint reduction interventions were varied, with several interventions resulting in both reduced and unchanged or increased use. Outcomes were also reported for combinations of several interventions in the form of reduction programmes for both seclusion and mechanical restraint. Much of the research focused on implementing several interventions simultaneously, making it difficult to distinguish outcomes. Further research is suggested on the effectiveness of interventions and the contexts they are implemented in.

Psychiatric nursing staffs' attitudes towards the use of containment methods in psychiatric inpatient care: An integrative review

One of the international objectives in psychiatric care is reducing the use of coercion. Containment methods are meant to keep patients safe, yet usually include coercion. Nurses play a key role in deciding whether or not containment should be used and, as such, their attitudes towards containment can significantly impact the extent to which these methods are applied. The aim of this integrative review was to identify, analyse, and synthesize the available research on psychiatric nursing staffs' attitudes towards containment methods in inpatient psychiatric care. An electronic search was conducted using the CINAHL, Scopus, and PsycINFO databases. In addition, the citations of identified studies were screened for relevant research. A total of 24 relevant papers published between 2002 and 2017 were selected for further analysis. These studies revealed variation in nursing staffs' attitudes towards the use of containment methods. The use of containment methods seems to be widely accepted and nurses reported rarely considering alternative measures. It appears that attitudes towards containment have continuously become more negative, although the change has not been very pronounced. The concept of attitude was only defined in two studies. Thus, future research should strive to clarify this concept, as a generally accepted definition for attitude within nursing research and the utilization of all dimensions of this concept are both essential to the nursing field. Currently, it would be important to focus on changing attitudes among psychiatric nursing staff to reduce the use of containment methods; this calls for more research on nursing staffs' attitudes.

Use of Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) in Non-Suicidal Self-Injury (NSSI): A systematic review

Conceptualization and assessment of non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI) has evolved substantially in recent years. In both cross-sectional and longitudinal studies, NSSI and its related variables have traditionally been assessed retrospectively, leading to less precise studies of the mechanisms involved in the maintenance, cessation, or aggravation of this behavior. Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) enables real-time collection of patient states, which can be very useful in the study of the mechanisms implied in this behavior. This systematic review aims to elucidate the current status of EMA use in NSSI investigation. An exhaustive search in PubMed and PsycINFO was conducted up to September 2017. All papers included were focused on the study of NSSI using EMA. Studies with methodological diversity were included, which were afterwards organized according to main topic of studies. There were no ineligibility criteria based on age or diagnosis. Twenty-three papers were studied, the majority of which are short-term studies focused on the study of affect dynamics and the emotion-regulation function of NSSI. Implications of these results and recommendations for future research are discussed.

Staff's normative attitudes towards coercion: the role of moral doubt and professional context-a cross-sectional survey study

Background

The use of coercion is morally problematic and requires an ongoing critical reflection. We wondered if not knowing or being uncertain whether coercion is morally right or justified (i.e. experiencing moral doubt) is related to professionals’ normative attitudes regarding the use of coercion.

Methods

This paper describes an explorative statistical analysis based on a cross-sectional survey across seven wards in three Norwegian mental health care institutions.

Results

Descriptive analyses showed that in general the 379 respondents a) were not so sure whether coercion should be seen as offending, b) agreed with the viewpoint that coercion is needed for care and security, and c) slightly disagreed that coercion could be seen as treatment. Staff did not report high rates of moral doubt related to the use of coercion, although most of them agreed there will never be a single answer to the question ‘What is the right thing to do?’.

Bivariate analyses showed that the more they experienced general moral doubt and relative doubt, the more one thought that coercion is offending. Especially psychologists were critical towards coercion. We found significant differences among ward types. Respondents with decisional responsibility for coercion and leadership responsibility saw coercion less as treatment. Frequent experience with coercion was related to seeing coercion more as care and security.

Conclusions

This study showed that experiencing moral doubt is related to some one’s normative attitude towards coercion. Future research could investigate whether moral case deliberation increases professionals’ experience of moral doubt and whether this will evoke more critical thinking and increase staff’s curiosity for alternatives to coercion.