Search results

This paper aims to explore the extent to which principles of recovery-oriented practice are evident in the published perspectives and experiences of health professionals and service users on seclusion in adult mental health services.

A systematic review informed by PRISMA guidelines was conducted, drawing from four databases, which were searched in August 2018 and August 2022. Only original empirical studies rated as having “major” relevance were included. Data were extracted from 31 studies and qualitatively synthesised through deductive analysis using recovery principles as themes.

There was limited evidence of perceptions of seclusion being being consistent with recovery principles, with greater evidence of perceptions that directly opposed them. Studies of service user perspectives highlighted this more often than staff perspectives. The findings highlight paradoxical relationships between care and control and conflicting rights and emphasise the need to openly acknowledge the complexity of seclusion and its interface with recovery.

This review was developed in line with international best practice and the protocol was registered. Using a search string with only three components maximised sensitivity during searches and minimised the risk of relevant literature being missed. Limitations include the focus on studies where the full text was published in English.

This review makes a unique contribution, highlighting that, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, no studies to date have explicitly explored the perspectives and experiences of staff and service users on the use of seclusion in the context of recovery-oriented practice. The findings are relevant to clinical practice, policy and future research, including amending procedures and practices to partially reconcile seclusion and recovery where the seclusion is deemed necessary.

Patients with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) present with specific assessment, specific difficulties, needs and therapeutic issues and therefore are a challenging group for forensic services. Given the challenge that individuals with ASD present to forensic services, the suggested increase in the number of this group within this setting and the relatively little amount of research which suggests they face a number of difficulties within the prison environment, the purpose of this paper is to identify and review all the studies which have been carried out investigating any aspect of ASD in relation to secure hospital settings.

Seven internet-based bibliographic databases were used for the present review. The review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.

A total of 12 studies were included in this review; 3 looked at the prevalence of ASD in secure psychiatric hospitals. One study evaluated the clinical utility of the AQ screening tool to assess self-reported autistic traits in secure psychiatric settings. Three explored any type of characteristics of patients with ASD detained in secure psychiatric hospitals. One study investigated the experiences or quality of life of patients with an ASD detained in secure psychiatric care. Two studies investigated awareness, knowledge and/or views regarding patients with ASD held by staff working within secure psychiatric hospitals. Lastly, three studies (one of which was also included in the prevalence category above) looked at the effectiveness of interventions or treatment of patients with ASD in secure psychiatric hospitals. Clinical recommendations and future research directions are discussed.

To the author’s knowledge, this is the first review to explore what research has been carried out looking specifically at patients with ASD in relation to secure forensic settings.

Inpatient violence is a substantial problem in psychiatric wards and de-escalation is difficult. When managing instances of violence through verbal techniques fail, mental health-care staff may use restrictive practices. The Six Core Strategies and debriefing exist for managing violence and restrictive practices in different mental health settings. Debriefing is used to get patients’ views on restrictive practices, ensure proper patient care and strengthen the role of patients as experts. This study aims to provide new information on debriefing implementation and how debriefing was used among different patient groups in a forensic hospital.

Quantitative seclusion time and debriefing reports (n = 524) were examined with Poisson regression analysis. Fisher’s exact test was used to determine the associations between debriefing and seclusion/restraint.

Debriefing (n = 524) was provided in 93% of violent episodes, which is an excellent result on an international level. There was significant variation in how often debriefing was used (p < 0.001) among different patient groups, i.e. dangerous, difficult-to-treat patients and criminal offenders whose sentences have been waived. Previous debriefing research has rarely specified what types of psychiatric patients have been subjected to seclusion or restraint.

The implementation of debriefing requires multiprofessional work within the organization and wards.

Debriefing seems to stimulate reflection at every level of a health-care organization, which fosters learning and can ultimately change clinical practices. The use of debriefing can strengthen the role of patients as well as professionals.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the operation of multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings within a forensic hospital in England, UK.

Mixed methods, including qualitative face to face interviews with professionals and service users, video observations of MDT meetings and documentary analysis. Data were collected from 142 staff and 30 service users who consented to take part in the research and analysed using the constant comparison technique of grounded theory and ethnography.

Decisions taken within MDT meetings are unequally shaped by the professional and personal values and assumptions of those involved, as well as by the power dynamics linked to the knowledge and responsibility of each member of the team. Service users’ involvement is marginalised. This is linked to a longstanding tradition of psychiatric paternalism in mental health care.

Future research should explore the nuances of interactions between MDT professionals and service users during the meetings, the language used and the approach taken by professionals to enable/empower service user to be actively involved.

Clear aims, responsibilities and implementation actions are a pre-requisite to effective MDT working. There is a need to give service users greater responsibility and power regarding their care.

While direct (video) observations were very difficult to achieve in secure settings, they enabled unmediated access to how people conducted themselves rather than having to rely only on their subjective accounts (from the interviews).