Treating insomnia in people who are incarcerated: a feasibility study of a multicomponent treatment pathway

Around 60% of people who are incarcerated have insomnia; 6-10 times more prevalent than the general population. Yet, there is no standardized, evidence-based approach to insomnia treatment in prison. We assessed the feasibility of a treatment pathway for insomnia in a high-secure prison to inform a future randomized controlled trial (RCT) and initial efficacy data for sleep and mental health outcomes. We used a within-participants pre-post design. The stepped-care pathway included: self-management with peer support, environmental aids, and cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBTi). Assessment measures for insomnia, well-being, mood, anxiety, suicidality, overall health, sleepiness, fatigue, and cognitive functioning were administered at baseline and pathway exit. Feasibility criteria included eligibility to participate, CBTi uptake, and assessment completion. Forty-two adult males who are incarcerated were approached of which 95.2% were eligible. Of those deemed eligible, most participated (36/40, 90.0%). Most who completed baseline completed post-assessments (28/36, 77.8%) and of these, most showed improvements in their subjective sleep (27/28, 96.4%). Large reductions were found from pre- to posttreatment in insomnia severity (d = -1.81, 95% CI: 8.3 to 12.9) and 57.0% reported no clinically significant insomnia symptoms at post-assessment. There was no overall change in actigraphy-measured sleep. Large treatment benefits were found for depression, anxiety, well-being, and cognitive functioning, with a medium benefit on suicidal ideation. The treatment pathway for insomnia in prison was feasible and may be an effective treatment for insomnia in people who are incarcerated, with additional promising benefits for mental health. A pragmatic RCT across different prison populations is warranted. This paper is part of the Sleep and Circadian Health in the Justice System Collection.

Patient safety in inpatient mental health settings: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Patients in inpatient mental health settings face similar risks (eg, medication errors) to those in other areas of healthcare. In addition, some unsafe behaviours associated with serious mental health problems (eg, self-harm), and the measures taken to address these (eg, restraint), may result in further risks to patient safety. The objective of this review is to identify and synthesise the literature on patient safety within inpatient mental health settings using robust systematic methodology.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-synthesis. Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Health Management Information Consortium, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Web of Science were systematically searched from 1999 to 2019. Search terms were related to 'mental health', 'patient safety', 'inpatient setting' and 'research'. Study quality was assessed using the Hawker checklist. Data were extracted and grouped based on study focus and outcome. Safety incidents were meta-analysed where possible using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Of the 57 637 article titles and abstracts, 364 met inclusion criteria. Included publications came from 31 countries and included data from over 150 000 participants. Study quality varied and statistical heterogeneity was high. Ten research categories were identified: interpersonal violence, coercive interventions, safety culture, harm to self, safety of the physical environment, medication safety, unauthorised leave, clinical decision making, falls and infection prevention and control.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient safety in inpatient mental health settings is under-researched in comparison to other non-mental health inpatient settings. Findings demonstrate that inpatient mental health settings pose unique challenges for patient safety, which require investment in research, policy development, and translation into clinical practice.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42016034057.

Identifying research priorities for patient safety in mental health: an international expert Delphi study

OBJECTIVE

Physical healthcare has dominated the patient safety field; research in mental healthcare is not as extensive but findings from physical healthcare cannot be applied to mental healthcare because it delivers specialised care that faces unique challenges. Therefore, a clearer focus and recognition of patient safety in mental health as a distinct research area is still needed. The study aim is to identify future research priorities in the field of patient safety in mental health.

DESIGN

Semistructured interviews were conducted with the experts to ascertain their views on research priorities in patient safety in mental health. A three-round online Delphi study was used to ascertain consensus on 117 research priority statements.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Academic and service user experts from the USA, UK, Switzerland, Netherlands, Ireland, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Sweden, Australia, New Zealand and Singapore were included.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Agreement in research priorities on a five-point scale.

RESULTS

Seventy-nine statements achieved consensus (>70%). Three out of the top six research priorities were patient driven; experts agreed that understanding the patient perspective on safety planning, on self-harm and on medication was important.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first international Delphi study to identify research priorities in safety in the mental field as determined by expert academic and service user perspectives. A reasonable consensus was obtained from international perspectives on future research priorities in patient safety in mental health; however, the patient perspective on their mental healthcare is a priority. The research agenda for patient safety in mental health identified here should be informed by patient safety science more broadly and used to further establish this area as a priority in its own right. The safety of mental health patients must have parity with that of physical health patients to achieve this.