Humanised care in acute psychiatric hospitalisation units: Definition, values and strategic initiatives from the perspective of persons with mental health problems, primary carers and professionals

INTRODUCTION

Humanised care refers to the holistic approach to the person, considering their bio-psycho-social and behavioural dimensions. It becomes more complex when the person has mental health problems that may affect his or her will, cognition and relationship to the world. The literature on the humanisation of mental health is scarce and only offers the view of professionals.

AIM

To analyse the concept, values and strategic initiatives of humanised care in acute psychiatric units from the perspective of persons with mental health problems, carers and professionals.

METHOD

Qualitative grounded-theory approach. Data were collected through focus groups and in-depth interviews among persons with mental health problems, carers and professionals.

RESULTS

Thirteen focus groups and three in-depth staff interviews were performed, with a total of 61 participants. Humanised care is defined as quality care of an individualised, ethical and safe nature, empowering persons/carers to involve them in their health process, helping them resist the stigma of mental illness through a therapeutic relationship, bond and communication. Formal training, teamwork and effective communication are required. Six values and strategic initiatives were identified.

DISCUSSION

Each value and strategic initiatives acquires full meaning when connected with the rest. Without this interconnection, humanised care would be impossible.

Humanization of care in acute psychiatric hospitalization units: A scoping review

WHAT IS KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT?: Humanizing the world of health is a complex process that includes all the dimensions of the person. When a person has from a mental illness, the humanization of care becomes more important, as the disorder itself prevents the person to participate in their health process, even when showing self-harm or aggressive behaviours. These situations jointly with other factors related with professionals (insufficient ratio, inadequate treatment or lack of training) may cause the patient admitted to the acute psychiatric hospitalization unit to require the use of restrictive measures (involuntary admissions, mechanical restraints or forced administration of medication). WHAT THE PAPER ADDS TO EXISTING KNOWLEDGE?: We identify the relevance of the perception the patient and family have regarding the care received, as well as the relevance of factors related to the professionals, among which the attitude, the staff ratio, the nursing time of direct dedication, and the therapeutic environment and safety of the patient and the professionals. All patients must be treated with dignity, respect, regardless of the aggressive manifestations caused by their pathology. WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE?: A greater understanding of the care offered to admitted people affected by a mental disorder, their families and professionals who care for them in acute mental health units, giving greater importance to "caring" and not exclusively to "curing."

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Humanization in Mental Health refers to give the same relevance to the clinical needs and to the social, emotional and psychological needs.

AIM

To identify the published knowledge on current care models related to the humanization of care in acute psychiatric units.

METHOD

Scoping review based on the methodological model of Arksey and O'Malley, and PRISMA methodology. Database searches (Pubmed, Cinahl, Virtual Library, Cuiden, Academic Google and PsycInfo) with the terms: "Humanization," "Hospitals Psychiatric," "Emergency Psychiatric," "Psychiatric Service" and "Psychiatric intensive care units."

RESULTS

Twenty-two articles met the inclusion criteria. Four thematic units were identified: aspects related to (i) patient perceptions; (ii) Government policies and hospitality organizational culture; (iii) external factors such as the environment, family or associations; and (iv) safety and security.

DISCUSSION

Only one of the articles mentions the concept analysed, although all of them contribute with key aspects of healthcare humanization, such as the empowerment of the patient, the care model, the staff ratio, the therapeutic relationship, the nursing time of direct dedication to the patient, the therapeutic environment, safety and patient and staff perception of feeling safe.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

The present study can help to improve the care offered in acute mental health units.

[Impact of family restrictions during COVID-19 pandemic on the use of physical restraint in an acute hospital: An observational study]

INTRODUCTION

During the worldwide pandemic of COVID-19 caused by coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, hospitals developed contingency plans that transformed and reorganized the hospital activity. One of the measures was to restrict access to family members of hospitalized patients. The presence of the patient's family is considered an alternative to physical restraint. The aim of this study is to compare the use of physical restraint in hospitalized patients in an acute care hospital during the previous period of the pandemic of COVID-19 with the post-confinement period with hospitals being still closed to family.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We made an observational study that compares the prevalence of physical restraint in an acute care hospital during the previous period to the alarm state (February 2020) with the second period, when visits where restricted (May 2020). From the clinical history of the patients with physical restraint we collected the following variables: sex, diagnostic, hospital admission unit, reason for using physical restraint, localization, length, type of material, registration in the medical record, information given to the family, alternatives to the physical restraint and injuries related to the physical restraint.

RESULTS

We evaluated 690 patients: 388 during the previous period and 320 during the second period. From all patients, 29 needed physical restraint. The use of physical restraint went from 8 (2%) to 21 (7%) (p=0.003). In the second period, a not statistically significant increase in continuous physical restraint was identified compared to the first period.

CONCLUSIONS

The physical restraint prevalence has been superior during the second period in which families were not present with the hospitalized patients.