Search

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: The use of physical and mechanical restraints and seclusion in psychiatric facilities to manage violent and aggressive behaviours has long been a contentious issue, balancing patient safety with ethical considerations. With advancements in psychiatry and increased understanding of mental illness, there have been expectations that such interventions would no longer be required; however, their use persists in clinical practice. Management policies differ across countries and are largely influenced by legal frameworks. This study aimed to identify the factors influencing the incidence of these interventions across two psychiatric facilities in Saudi Arabia and to examine associations among inpatient variables. METHODS: = 268). Data from 333 restriction events were analysed using descriptive statistics, chi-square tests, and negative binomial regression to calculate incidence rates and explore associated factors. RESULTS: The findings revealed a complex interplay of factors related to patient characteristics and clinical and environmental conditions within the facilities. Key contributing variables included symptom deterioration and the duration of observation required. Longer observation periods were associated with certain diagnoses, particularly schizophrenia and mood disorders. CONCLUSIONS: Restraints and seclusion remain influenced by multiple interacting factors within psychiatric settings. These findings highlight the need to reduce their use and ensure they are applied cautiously, with greater emphasis on minimising patient trauma and promoting safer, person-centred care.

BACKGROUND: In mental health services what is commonplace across international frontiers is that to prevent aggressive patients from harming themselves, other patients or staff, coercive measures and foremost, violence management strategies are required. There is no agreement, recommendations or direction from the EU on which measures of coercion should be practiced across EU countries, and there is no overall one best practice approach. METHODS: The project was conceived through an expert group, the European Violence in Psychiatry Research Group (EViPRG). The study aimed to incorporate an EU and multidisciplinary response in the determination of violence management practices and related research and education priorities across 17 European countries. From the EVIPRG members, one member from each country agreed to act as the national project coordinator for their country. Given the international spread of respondents, an eDelphi survey approach was selected for the study design and data collection. A survey instrument was developed, agreed and validated through members of EVIPRG. RESULTS: The results included a total of 2809 respondents from 17 countries with 999 respondents who self-selected for round 2 eDelphi. The majority of respondents worked in acute psychiatry, 54% (n = 1511); outpatient departments, 10.5% (n = 295); and Forensic, 9.3% (n = 262). Other work areas of respondents include Rehabilitation, Primary Care and Emergency. It is of concern that 19.5% of respondents had not received training on violence management. The most commonly used interventions in the management of violent patients were physical restraint, seclusion and medications. The top priorities for education and research included: preventing violence; the influence of environment and staff on levels of violence; best practice in managing violence; risk assessment and the aetiology and triggers for violence and aggression. CONCLUSION: In many European countries there is an alarming lack of clarity on matters of procedure and policy pertaining to violence management in mental health services. Violence management practices in Europe appear to be fragmented with no identified ideological position or collaborative education and research. In Europe, language differences are a reality and may have contributed to insular thinking, however, it must not be seen as a barrier to sharing best practice.

INTRODUCTION: History of trauma and PTSD are both common among individuals with substance use disorder (SUD) and associated with poorer SUD treatment retention and outcomes. Recommended trauma-informed care (TIC) approaches in SUD treatment have been underutilized in residential substance use treatment services. METHODS: This study conducted a single-armed, phase 1 feasibility and outcomes trial for a novel TIC model developed and delivered in a young adult (18-35 years) residential substance use treatment service in Australia. Measures of client acceptability, staff acceptability, and treatment fidelity assessed feasibility. The study collected client substance use (global substance use and alcohol, methamphetamine, and cannabis use involvement) and mental health outcomes (depression, anxiety, and PTSD symptoms) at service entry, and 3, 6, and 12 months later. Staff professional quality of life, and perceptions and confidence in delivering TIC were collected at baseline (prior to staff training in TIC), and at 3, 6, 12 and 18 months following training in the model. RESULTS: The program was delivered as per the TIC model approximately 88 % of the time, where 48 % of clients completed the full 6-week treatment program. Mixed effect models showed significant reductions in substance involvement, particularly for substance use at 3 months (d = 0.67). Improvements in depression, anxiety, and PTSD were also found (ps < .01). Staff levels of support and self-efficacy to implement TIC remained high over the duration of the evaluation, and trauma knowledge scores were higher at follow-up time points. Staff professional quality of life also remained high across the study. CONCLUSION: The novel TIC model was acceptable for residential clients and staff and was associated with improved mental and substance use outcomes. These findings support TIC as feasible in residential service, with likely benefits for staff and clients. ETHICS: The study received ethical approval by the University of Queensland (Approval number: 2020000949). TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12621000492853.

BACKGROUND: Sexual violence is a global public health issue. It is a form of gender-based violence commonly experienced by women accessing mental health services. The biomedical model has been the dominant model of care in acute psychiatric units, however, there has been a global movement towards more gender-sensitive and trauma-informed models. To date, only a small amount of research has focused on evaluating these models of care and health professionals' experiences of providing this care. The aim of this study is to gain an in-depth understanding of healthcare professionals' perceptions of how Gender Sensitive Care (GSC) is enacted across acute psychiatric inpatient units for women who are survivors of sexual violence. METHODS: This study used case study methodology and the Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) conceptual framework. NPT is a practical framework that can be used to evaluate the implementation of complex models of care in health settings. It included semi-structured interviews with 40 health professionals, document and policy reviews, and observations from four psychiatric inpatient units within a large Australian public mental health organisation. Data were examined using thematic and content analysis. RESULTS: Themes were developed under the four NPT core constructs; 1) Understanding GSC in acute psychiatric units: "Without the corridors there's not a lot we can do", 2) Engagement and Commitment to GSC in acute psychiatric units: "There are a few of us who have that gender sensitive lens", 3) Organising, relating and involvement in GSC: "It's band aid stuff", 4) Monitoring and Evaluation of GSC in acute psychiatric units: "We are not perfect, we have to receive that feedback". DISCUSSION: Many health professionals held a simplistic understanding of GSC and avoided the responsibility of implementing it. Additionally, the competing demands of the biomedical model and a lack of appraisal has resulted in an inconsistent enactment of GSC. CONCLUSIONS: Health professionals in this study enacted GSC to varying levels. Our findings suggest the need to address each NPT construct comprehensively to adequately implement GSC.

WHAT IS KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT?: Open Dialogue was developed in Finland in the 1980s by clinical psychologist, Jaakko Seikkula. It is a development of family therapy, recognises previous trauma and has proven to be very effective in situations of acute mental illness, and in particular psychosis. Trauma Informed Care is a practice based on the understanding of and responsiveness to the impact of trauma. When people have experienced trauma, they may have difficulties in their everyday life and experience negative physical health outcomes as well as the risk of developing mental ill health. Open Dialogue is aligned to mental health care which aims to be trauma-informed, person-centred and rights-based. Examples exist of the use of both approaches for service delivery with limited evaluation. WHAT THE PAPER ADDS TO EXISTING KNOWLEDGE?: To our knowledge, no formal evaluation has been made of the use of open dialogue as a Trauma Informed therapy approach to support individuals and their family networks. Although both approaches recognise the impact of trauma on individuals, no study has explored the effectiveness of this treatment combination for use by mental health nurses. This review is timely as it provides insights into contemporary services that are trauma informed and have used Open Dialogue to extend therapy work with individuals and their family/networks. This scoping review was able to determine whether recommendations for clinical practice and training in Open Dialogue with Trauma Informed Care approaches could be identified. WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE?: This review provided a broad overview on the current types of trauma-informed care services incorporating Open Dialogue approaches into their practice. The literature, though sparce, identifies that Trauma Informed Care recognises multiple origins for mental ill health. Open dialogue has an affinity with the common values of mental health nurses. As combined therapies, they are demonstrating usefulness in engaging families and people in their journey towards recovery. Rigid adherence to Open Dialogue focus and delivery as well as training practices could be revised to make them more open to what people and their families wish to discuss. The person with mental ill health and previous trauma should be able to direct the narrative. Trauma Informed Practice principles could be adapted to improve consumer satisfaction with Open Dialogue approaches. ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION: A large proportion of people who access mental health services have a lived experienced of trauma and are more likely to have a history of complex trauma. Open Dialogue and Trauma Informed Care practices identify previous trauma as a factor related to later psychosis. This scoping review has identified similarities and contrasts in how an Open Dialogue and Trauma Informed Care approach have been combined to complement one another for clinical work with people presenting with psychosis and previous trauma. AIM: We aimed to answer the following research question in this scoping review: What is known of the combined use of Open Dialogue and Trauma Informed Care practice when working with consumers and their family networks? As such, the purpose of this paper was to explore the application to practice and identify if any training existed and been evaluated. METHOD: This scoping review was based on the Arksey and O'Malley's framework. A comprehensive search was performed across five electronic databases. Grey literature was also searched through Psyche Info and Google Scholar for books, Dissertation and Theses, alongside hand searching of the reference of the studies. Articles searched was from January 2013 to January 2023. RESULTS: Five distinct themes were identified from the literature: (1) Linking open dialogue with trauma, (2) Response to treatment, (3) Empowerment and information sharing, (4) Interpretation by clinical services, (5) Staff training outcomes. DISCUSSION: Some tentative recommendations for practice recognised the individuals' unique story and perspective, suggested that trauma is an important concept to assess. Services practising as Trauma Informed Services that have incorporated an Open Dialogue approach have mixed experiences. The use of Open Dialogue may have some benefits for family work and exploring consumer narratives while building a network of support. However, consumers identified similar frustrations with service delivery as with the family therapy literature. For example, it was difficult to bring family members together and difficult to discuss previous traumatic events in front of family. People experiencing training in Open Dialogue reported it taking a slow pace and not what they were familiar with. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Open Dialogue can facilitate engagement of consumers and their family networks and greater recognition of the peer workforce to promote collaboration in therapy is needed. Future research should also focus on evaluating the effectiveness of such services and comparing their outcomes across regions.

WHAT IS KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT?: Little is known about adolescent inpatient units, key features which define them, and how these essential services operate and deliver care. WHAT THE PAPER ADDS TO EXISTING KNOWLEDGE?: Adolescent inpatient unit studies are limited in their descriptions of settings in terms of how they operate and key features. The proposed preliminary checklist is a practical tool to assist clinicians, policy makers, and researchers when reporting to ensure comprehensive descriptions of adolescent inpatient settings. WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE?: This could be used to inform service design processes for inpatient and other mental health service models which is of critical importance in the context of reforms and implementation of these in Australia currently. Greater attention to operational models, services, and philosophies of practice will improve reporting and allow for the advancement of knowledge, comparison of study results, and a clearer direction for mental health nursing clinicians and researchers. ABSTRACT: Introduction Adolescent inpatient units care for vulnerable population groups; however, little is known about how these essential services operate and deliver care. Aims To examine the descriptions of adolescent mental health inpatient units in Australian and international research publications and to identify key features which were used to define them. A secondary aim was to develop a checklist to improve consistency when reporting on the operations and services delivered within adolescent mental health inpatient units (both public and private). Methods Five electronic databases (CINAHL, MEDLINE, ERIC, EMBASE, and PsycINFO) were systematically searched. We included studies that provided descriptions of operations and services within adolescent inpatient units where participants had a mean age between 12 and 25. Narrative synthesis was used to explore the similarities and differences between descriptions of settings. Results Twenty-eight studies were identified, which varied in their descriptions of adolescent inpatient units, providing inconsistent information to inform best practice. Discussion Studies lack consistency and comprehensive detail when describing the operational models within inpatient units, making interpretation challenging. Consequently, a preliminary checklist is proposed to improve reporting of adolescent inpatient units.

BACKGROUND: Despite improvements in psychiatric inpatient care, patient restrictions in psychiatric hospitals are still in use. Studying perceptions among patients who have been secluded or physically restrained during their hospital stay is challenging. We sought to review the methodological and ethical challenges in qualitative and quantitative studies aiming to describe patients' perceptions of coercive measures, especially seclusion and physical restraints during their hospital stay. METHODS: Systematic mixed studies review was the study method. Studies reporting patients' perceptions of coercive measures, especially seclusion and physical restraints during hospital stay were included. Methodological issues such as study design, data collection and recruitment process, participants, sampling, patient refusal or non-participation, and ethical issues such as informed consent process, and approval were synthesized systematically. Electronic searches of CINALH, MEDLINE, PsychINFO and The Cochrane Library (1976-2012) were carried out. RESULTS: Out of 846 initial citations, 32 studies were included, 14 qualitative and 18 quantitative studies. A variety of methodological approaches were used, although descriptive and explorative designs were used in most cases. Data were mainly collected in qualitative studies by interviews (n = 13) or in quantitative studies by self-report questionnaires (n = 12). The recruitment process was explained in 59% (n = 19) of the studies. In most cases convenience sampling was used, yet five studies used randomization. Patient's refusal or non-participation was reported in 37% (n = 11) of studies. Of all studies, 56% (n = 18) had reported undergone an ethical review process in an official board or committee. Respondents were informed and consent was requested in 69% studies (n = 22). CONCLUSIONS: The use of different study designs made comparison methodologically challenging. The timing of data collection (considering bias and confounding factors) and the reasons for non-participation of eligible participants are likewise methodological challenges, e.g. recommended flow charts could aid the information. Other challenges identified were the recruitment of large and representative samples. Ethical challenges included requesting participants' informed consent and respecting ethical procedures.

Few studies have explored how forensic mental health nurses can rebuild the therapeutic relationship following an episode of physical restraint in the acute forensic setting. In this study, we aimed to redress this gap in the literature by exploring with forensic mental health nurses the factors that enable or hinder the rebuilding of the therapeutic relationship following an episode of physical restraint. A qualitative study design was used to capture participants' experiences, views and perceptions of the therapeutic relationship following an episode of physical restraint in the acute forensic setting. Data were collected through individual interviews with forensic mental health nurses (n = 10) working in an acute forensic setting. Interviews were audio recorded, and transcribed verbatim and accounts were analysed using thematic analysis. Four themes were identified: 'Building a Recovery Focused Therapeutic Relationship'; 'Authoritarian Role'; 'Inevitable Imbalance'; 'Rebuilding the Therapeutic Relationship'; plus two sub-themes 'Facilitators to rebuilding' and 'Barriers to rebuilding'. Findings suggest that an inevitable imbalance exists in building a recovery-focused therapeutic relationship and at times, is hindered by the authoritarian role of the forensic mental health nurse. Recommendations for changes in clinical practice and in upcoming policies should incorporate a dedicated debrief room and protected time for staff to debrief effectively following restraint. Routine post-restraint-focused clinical supervision would also be beneficial to mental health nursing staff.