Search results

The purpose of this paper is to describe the nature and impact of a restraint reduction strategy implemented within a secure learning disability service in response to the national Positive and Safe programme.

The strategy was comprised of three primary interventions – Safewards, positive behavioural support and data-informed practice – and utilised a programme management approach to ensure effective delivery. Baseline measures were collected from 12 months of data prior to implementation of the programme and the frequency of each category of restrictive intervention was then measured prospectively on a monthly basis throughout the duration of the programme.

Upon completion of the programme the following results were achieved: elimination of prone restraint – elimination of mechanical restraint – 42 per cent reduction in general use of restraint – 42 per cent reduction in use of seclusion – 52 per cent reduction in rapid tranquilisation.

The paper adds to the growing body of evidence that carefully designed interventions can reduce the frequency of seclusion and restraint. In this case, Safewards and PBS have combined to exert their effect. Data-led practice and senior leadership were also found to be of critical importance. Finally, the need for a stable workforce is considered.

The purpose of this paper is to examine empirical, epistemological and conceptual challenges and clinical narratives in the application of risk assessment and management in mental health.

The authors used a narrative review of empirical, conceptual and clinical literature.

The worldwide prevalence of violence in mental health settings remains high. Risk assessment and management approaches, while well intentioned as an attempt to reduce harm and increase people’s safety, have negligible effect on both. They are invariably individual centric, ignore wider environmental, societal and behavioural influences that foment violence and have a stigmatising effect on people using mental health services. They also reinforce the myth that people who are mentally unwell threaten society and that through current risk assessment and management approaches, we can minimise this threat.

There is a need to reconsider the study and application of violence risk assessment in mental health.

The practice of risk assessment and management in mental health is marred by an overuse of risk assessment measures that are limited in their predictive efficacy. As a result, they have little value in preventing, reducing and/or managing harm. The language of risk punishes and stigmatises service users and reinforces the image of menace. An alternative language of safety may nourish and protect. A collaborative approach to safety assessment based upon recovery-focussed principles and practices may fuse professionals and service users’ horizons. Combining service users’ self-perception, professionals’ sound clinical judgement, assisted by electronically derived risk algorithms and followed by evidence-based risk management interventions, may lessen the threat to service users, reduce harm and transform the practice of violence risk assessment and management.

Risk appraisals discriminate against the small number of people who have a mental illness and are risky, an example of preventive detention that is ethically questionable. On the basis of the limitations of the predictive efficacy of actuarial measures, it is ethically dubious to subject people to interventions with limited benefits. Risk assessment processes tend to reinforce stigma by classifying individuals as risky, sanctioning society’s prejudices and fear through scientific authority.

The increasing focus on risk assessment and management to tackle violence in mental health is fraught with empirical, conceptual and practical concerns; the authors have suggested ways in which these concerns can be addressed without compromising people’s safety.

Institutional abuse is a worldwide phenomenon with the UK also subject to several high-profile abuse scandals perpetuated on people with learning disabilities and/or mental health conditions living within institutional settings. This study aims to provide a broad perspective of safeguarding practices within institutional care to inform practice and service development in this area.

A narrative overview was undertaken of a range of empirical evidence, discussion papers, enquiry reports, reports from regulatory bodies and professional guidance to explore safeguarding practices within institutional care for individuals with learning disabilities and/or mental health conditions.

A range of literature was identified that exposed and explored abuse in this context. Three key themes were identified: failings within institutional care; safeguarding issues and concerns; and good practice within institutional care. Whilst guidance is available, standards are explicit and protocols facilitate improvement potential in this area, a consistent message was that statutory recommendations for reform have not been effective.

This paper provides an important resource for practitioners and service providers involved in institutional care. An accessible overview of both the empirical evidence and grey literature on adult safeguarding within institutional settings is provided, along with a range of standards and resources that specify practice in these settings.

The SECURE STAIRS framework for integrated care is a trauma-informed approach to supporting staff and young people within the Children and Young People’s Secure Estate (CYPSE) in the UK. Within secure settings, therapeutic climate is a concept that encapsulates an individual’s perception of safety, connectedness with others and level of support within the environment. To support evaluation of the SECURE STAIRS framework, a Secure Children’s Home (SCH) within the North East of England examined therapeutic climate for staff and young people annually using the Essen Climate Evaluation Schema (EssenCES) over a three-year period. This paper aims to present the findings.

Over the three years, a total of 71 young people and 214 staff EssenCES questionnaires were administered. Between 2020 and 2021, the setting also experienced significant changes resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. Numbers of young people also decreased within the setting over the three-year period.

Results indicated a positive trend for therapeutic climate sub-scores. For example, Experienced Safety for young people significantly increased from 2020 to 2021. Additionally, therapeutic hold for staff was significantly higher in 2020 and 2021 in comparison to 2018.

Findings are discussed in relation to implementation of the SECURE STAIRS framework and providing trauma-informed care for vulnerable young people within secure settings. Implications for practice are explored.

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.

The purpose of this paper is to describe and explain trauma-informed approaches (TIAs) to mental health. It outlines evidence on the link between trauma and mental health, explains the principles of TIAs and their application in mental health and explores the extent to which TIAs are impacting in the UK.

The approach is a conceptual account of TIAs including a consideration of why they are important, what they are and how they can become more prevalent in the UK. This is supported by a narrative overview of literature on effectiveness and a scoping of the spread of TIAs in the UK.

There is strong and growing evidence of a link between trauma and mental health, as well as evidence that the current mental health system can retraumatise trauma survivors. There is also emerging evidence that trauma-informed systems are effective and can benefit staff and trauma survivors. Whilst TIAs are spreading beyond the USA where they developed, they have made little impact in the UK. The reasons for this are explored and ways of overcoming barriers to implementation discussed.

This paper – authored by trauma survivors and staff – describes an innovative approach to mental health service provision that, it is argued, could have immense benefits for staff and service users alike.

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 to contribute to discussions on improvements to acute mental health services by increasing the awareness of the experience of being compulsorily detained.

A thematic analysis of a literature review was undertaken, exploring patients’ experiences of compulsory detention, and is presented here alongside a lived-experience commentary. This leads into a discussion of the implications for practice.

There are three key themes identified: people’s views on the justification of their compulsory detention; the power imbalance between patients and staff; and the lack of information or choice. The lived-experience commentary adds weight to these findings by citing personal examples and making suggestions for improving services. The discussion centres on the potential of co-production between people who access services, their supporters, and professionals to improve treatment for people who may need compulsory detention. The paper also raises questions on whether current legislation and service provision can effectively deliver recovery-orientated practice.

Through bringing together research evidence and personal perspectives this paper contributes to the discussion on how services for people in crisis can be improved and raises important questions about current service provision and the legislation that underpins it.

The purpose of this paper is to outline the work of a service provider, service user and carer group created to develop a strategy for service user and carer co-production.

A reflective narrative account is given of the process through which the group formed and began to develop a working model aimed at shaping a cultural shift towards more co-produced services. The paper has been co-produced and includes the collaborative voices of service users, carers, multi-disciplinary staff, third-sector representatives, managers and colleagues from associated services.

The model developed outlines three stages for services to work through in order to achieve meaningful and sustainable co-produced services. The importance of developing associated policies related to such areas as recruitment, payment, support and training is also outlined. Challenges to co-production are noted along with suggested approaches to overcoming these.

The ethos of co-production is relatively new in the UK and so knowledge of the process and model may help guide others undertaking similar work.