Search

Accessible Summary: What is known on the subject?: Aggression towards caregivers is a global phenomenon in mental health care.Although attempts have been made to define aggression, there is no globally accepted definition. Discrepancies in defining aggression can lead to differences in judgement and a sub‐par management of aggression. The fact that different disciplines work together in mental health care makes it an even more pressing matter as no research was found regarding a multidisciplinary definition of aggression.Currently, coercive measures, such as isolation, sedation or restraints, are the most common ways of managing aggression. What this paper adds to existing knowledge?: Mental healthcare nurses and psychologists defined aggression by previous experiences, and they also agree that there are no alternatives in managing aggression when non‐coercive techniques do not work.Several opportunities and examples of best practice were given by the participants, but the consensus was that caregivers are in need of alternatives when they are face to face with acute aggression. What are the implications for practice?: It is vital for residential units to agree on a definition of aggression and acute aggression. It is our belief that this can aid them in preventing and de‐escalating aggression as well as diminishing the use of coercive measures.Further primary research exploring the opportunities of non‐coercive techniques, a multidisciplinary approach and the relationship between a workplace culture normalizing aggression and the mental well‐being of healthcare workers is also needed. Introduction: Aggression by patients against healthcare workers is a global recurring phenomenon in mental health care. Discrepancies in defining aggression can lead to differences in judgement, which in turn causes difficulties in managing aggression. The multidisciplinary nature of mental healthcare makes a standardized definition an even more pressing matter. No studies, however, were found exploring the way different disciplines approach the definition of aggression. Although traditional methods of managing aggression rely on coercive methods, current research favours the use of non‐coercive measures. Aim: The aim of this study was to explore the different ways mental healthcare nurses and psychologists define and manage aggression in a residential unit. Method: A qualitative research design was used, consisting of interviews and focus groups. Transcripts were analysed using a reflexive thematic approach. Results: Three major themes were found: (1) approaches towards defining aggression, (2) experiencing aggression and (3) managing aggression: the need for alternatives. Discussion: In this study, aggression is defined by how aggression has been experienced, both mental health nurses and psychologists agree that there are no alternatives in managing aggression when non‐coercive techniques do not work. Aggression is considered an integral part of the job indicating an "aggression‐tolerating" workplace. Implications for Practice: Three implications for practice were identified: (1) It is vital for residential units to agree on a broad‐based definition of aggression, (2) further primary research exploring the opportunities of non‐coercive techniques and a multidisciplinary approach is crucial and (3) the relationship between a workplace culture normalizing aggression and the mental well‐being of healthcare workers also needs further study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims To report a systematic review of the psychometric properties of self-report instruments to identify the symptoms of anxiety in pregnancy to help clinicians and researchers select the most suitable instrument. Background Excessive anxiety in pregnancy is associated with adverse birth outcomes, developmental and behavioural problems in infants and postnatal depression. Despite recommendations for routine psychological assessment in pregnancy, the optimal methods to identify anxiety in pregnancy have not been confirmed. Design Psychometric systematic review. Data sources A systematic literature search of the multiple databases (1990-September 2014). Review methods Identification of self-report instruments to measure anxiety in pregnancy using COSMIN guidelines to assess studies reporting a psychometric evaluation of validity and reliability. Results Thirty-two studies were included. Studies took place in the UK, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Germany, Italy, Scandinavia, Spain and the Netherlands. Seventeen different instruments were identified. Measures of validity were reported in 19 papers and reliability in 16. The overall quality of the papers was rated as fair to excellent using the COSMIN checklist. Only one paper scored excellent in more than one category. Conclusion Many instruments have been adapted for use in different populations to those for which they were designed. The State Trait Anxiety Inventory, Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale have been tested more frequently than other instruments, yet require further assessment to confirm their value for use in pregnancy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Accessible summary: What is known about the subject?: Euthanasia because of unbearable mental suffering (UMS euthanasia) has been legal in Belgium since 2002 under strict conditions of careful practice. UMS euthanasia occurs fairly rarely in Belgium, but the frequency has increased substantially over the past few years. Although most mental health nurses play an important role and are supportive of euthanasia in general, their role, attitude and knowledge when it comes to UMS euthanasia were unknown until now. What this paper adds to existing knowledge?: Most mental health nurses in Belgium appear to be supportive towards UMS euthanasia and where UMS euthanasia is carried out, mental health nurses are often involved in the preceding decision‐making process. Mental health nurses critically reflect on the interpretation and application of the legal euthanasia criteria as experienced in their daily work with their patients, and identify several problems. After a rather quiet period in Belgium, the public ethical debate regarding UMS euthanasia has recently been reopened and intensified. What are the implications for practice?: Sufficient attention must be paid to how mental health nurses can be involved in the process of UMS euthanasia. This applies at several levels: legal, healthcare policy, bedside care and education. Specific attention must be paid within the UMS euthanasia process to ensure adequate cooperation between physicians, nurses and patients. There is a need for proper training in: knowledge of psychiatric pathologies and remaining treatment options; communication skills; the legal framework and all its difficulties; transdisciplinary and multicultural approaches; ethical reflection and how nurses handle their own emotions. Abstract: Introduction: Euthanasia because of unbearable mental suffering (UMS euthanasia) has been legal in Belgium since 2002, under certain circumstances that govern careful practice. Despite the legal framework, there are specific difficulties and concerns regarding UMS euthanasia. Mental health nurses are often involved in the process, but little is known about their attitudes towards UMS euthanasia, their role and their knowledge. Aim: To determine the attitudes, role and knowledge of mental health nurses regarding UMS euthanasia. Methods: A cross‐sectional survey was performed at a convenience sample of four psychiatric hospitals in Belgium (n = 133) as a pilot study. Self‐administered questionnaires were provided to mental health nurses. Results: Half the nurses in our sample had been involved at least once in the process of UMS euthanasia. A large majority of mental health nurses were supportive of UMS euthanasia. Nurses show differences in attitudes related to the different psychiatric pathologies of the patients, and in whether or not minors are involved. In some cases, they believed that the mental suffering of psychiatric patients can be unbearable and irreversible and that psychiatric patients can be competent to voluntarily request UMS euthanasia. Nurses stated that they have an important role in the UMS euthanasia process, but also demanded more knowledge and clear guidelines to implement the procedure. Discussion: Nurses have a key role regarding UMS euthanasia but face several challenges: the recent process, resistance to a multidisciplinary approach by psychiatrists and an unclear role defined by the legal framework. Nurses do not appear to have a common voice on the topic and the development of clear guidelines appears to be essential. Social recovery can offer a way out of an UMS euthanasia request, but it will not always offer a solution. Implications for Practice: Sufficient attention must be paid to how mental health nurses can be involved in the process of UMS euthanasia at various levels: bedside practice, healthcare management, education and policy. A form of systematic cooperation between nurses, physicians and patients can contribute to the utmost careful decision‐making process needed in these cases. There is a need for proper training in: knowledge of psychiatric pathologies and remaining treatment options; communication skills; the legal framework and all its difficulties; transdisciplinary and multicultural approaches; ethical reflection and how nurses handle their own emotions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]