De-escalation of conflict in forensic mental health inpatient settings: a Theoretical Domains Framework-informed qualitative investigation of staff and patient perspectives

De-escalating aggression in acute inpatient mental health settings: a behaviour change theory-informed, secondary qualitative analysis of staff and patient perspectives

BACKGROUND

De-escalation is often advocated to reduce harm associated with violence and use of restrictive interventions, but there is insufficient understanding of factors that influence de-escalation behaviour in practice. For the first time, using behaviour change and implementation science methodology, this paper aims to identify the drivers that will enhance de-escalation in acute inpatient and psychiatric intensive care mental health settings.

METHODS

Secondary analysis of 46 qualitative interviews with ward staff (n = 20) and patients (n = 26) informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework.

RESULTS

Capabilities for de-escalation included knowledge (impact of trauma on memory and self-regulation and the aetiology and experience of voice hearing) and skills (emotional self-regulation, distress validation, reducing social distance, confirming autonomy, setting limits and problem-solving). Opportunities for de-escalation were limited by dysfunctional risk management cultures/ relationships between ward staff and clinical leadership, and a lack of patient involvement in safety maintenance. Motivation to engage in de-escalation was limited by negative emotion associated with moral formulations of patients and internal attributions for behaviour.

CONCLUSION

In addition to training that enhances knowledge and skills, interventions to enhance de-escalation should target ward and organisational cultures, as well as making fundamental changes to the social and physical structure of inpatient mental health wards. Psychological interventions targeting negative emotion in staff are needed to increase motivation. This paper provides a new evidence-based framework of indicative changes that will enhance de-escalation in adult acute mental health inpatient and PICU settings.

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.

User violence prevention and intervention measures to minimize and prevent aggression towards health care workers: A systematic review

Workplace violence in the health care setting is a social problem of great interest both at the health care level and in research in recent decades. The most common type of violence is the one coming from the user towards the professional. Although the bibliography includes multiple preventive actions focused on working with professionals, there are hardly any studies that explore and collect actions aimed at the user. The aim of this study is to analyze the results of the literature to provide an overview of the current evidence. Specifically, it aims to describe the various user-directed strategies or interventions aimed at reducing workplace violence experienced by professionals within the healthcare sector. A systematic review was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), methodology of publications published up to December 2022 in the main databases. Studies that met the previously established eligibility criteria were identified. A peer review of the risk of bias was performed and the data were extracted from a previously elaborated template. The search yielded 5231 articles of which 11 were finally included in the review. Of these, 3 had a quantitative design, 7 had a qualitative design and one had a combined design. Of these, 38 measures or actions aimed at the user were compiled, grouped into four blocks according to the attitudinal objective pursued: Improvement of communication and creation of links, involvement of the user in joint decisions with the staff, informing and training the user, and other independent proposals. This study makes it possible to explore actions aimed at users with the objective of reducing violence towards health professionals. It collects and makes available to the scientific community a set of measures aimed at making a change of attitude in the perpetrator themselves, with the involvement of the perpetrator in the health system. This set of collected measures provides researchers with a basis to be taken into account for the implementation of future prevention plans according to the new multicomponent prevention models and with the involvement of the perpetrator themselves.