Search

Risk management which assesses and mitigates risks such as suicide and violence is under scrutiny, particularly within psychiatric inpatient settings. Restrictive practices, which result from risk assessment, such as observations, physical restraint and ward seclusion can impact negatively on patient recovery, hindering abilities to develop a meaningful life that emphasizes purpose, hope and autonomy, despite experiencing mental distress. Yet, less is known about the impact from the patient's perspective when first admitted to hospital, a period which among other reasons may come with increasing risk management practices owing to the clinical uncertainties about patient risks. In this grounded theory study, we explore the impact on recovery, interviewing 15 adult participants with patient experiences of being in an acute hospital. The main theme of the study, termed a core category with a grounded theory, was identified as "ontological insecurity of inattentiveness". This highlighted a staff inattentiveness with involving patients with risk management and explaining the purposes of the practice, which raised insecurities about what was happening to the patients when admitted to hospital. Four subcategories support the core category; discounting the patients' experiences to gain a meaningful grasp of risk management, ambiguity about risk management rules, particularly the reasons around their use, forebodingness to the hospital environment and, management from afar, with patients feeling scrutinized from observations without a voice to offer different views. It is hoped these findings will add to the field of patient involvement in psychiatric inpatient settings, proposing attempts to raise understanding and inclusivity of risk management, starting when first admitted to hospital. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

People with mental ill health attend general emergency care more often than others for physical and psychiatric care needs. Staff in general emergency care report they lack knowledge and strategies to meet with and care for people with mental ill health. This study aimed to describe how people with mental ill health experience encounters with staff in general emergency care. We conducted individual semi‐structured interviews with 11 people with mental ill health about their experiences in general emergency care and subjected the interview data to qualitative content analysis. Our results show the importance to people with mental ill health of being acknowledged as capable persons, and how this relates to their experiences of being recognized, ignored, or dismissed by staff in general emergency care. Even small, ordinary aspects of staff/patient interactions can have major impacts on a person's recovery and well‐being. The study is reported according to the consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ) guidelines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Community treatment orders (CTOs) require individuals with a mental illness to accept treatment from mental health services. CTO legislation in South Australia states that treatment and care should be recovery‐focused, although justification for use is predominantly risk‐based, and care often coercive. Although CTOs are contested, individuals, families, and clinicians frequently engage in care planning within this context. This paper examines how the concepts of risk and risk management impact care planning from the perspectives of individuals on CTOs, their families, and clinicians. Ethnographic methods of observation and interview provided a detailed account of the perspectives of each group over an 18‐month period from two community mental health teams in South Australia. Findings show that care planning occurred within a culture of practice dominated by risk. Risk, however, was understood differently by each participant group, with the dominant narrative informed by biogenetic understandings of mental illness. This dominance impacted on the positioning of participant groups in care planning, focus of care contacts, and care options available. To improve care experiences and outcomes for individuals on CTOs, narrow conceptualizations of risk and recovery need to broaden to include an understanding of personal and social adversities individuals face. A broader understanding should reposition participants in the care planning context and rebalance care discussions, from a focus on clinical recovery to recovering citizenship. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent years, there has been a move away from the medical model of care for people with borderline personality disorder, as hospital admission comes with a number of risks and potential adverse consequences. Although long‐term outpatient‐based therapy is successful, this may not be an option for those whose condition is in need of stabilisation. Brief admission for crisis intervention has been successful and is now widely used; however, research that examines both the staff and clients' perceptions of a dedicated programme is lacking. Open Borders is a residential recovery‐oriented programme that provides brief admission, respite, and phone coaching for people with borderline personality disorder who are heavy users of the public mental health system. In this paper, the authors report the perspectives of clients and staff of the Open Borders programme obtained through semi‐structured interviews. Thematic analysis of client and staff perspectives identified four common themes: 'Benefits of the programme', 'Enhanced client outcomes', 'Impact of the physical environment', and 'Ways of enhancing service delivery'. In addition, analysis of the staff perspectives included the theme 'Emotional impact on staff'. Benefits of the programme included the small supportive team approach, flexibility of the staff to spend time with the clients to tailor care, and the relaxed, welcoming environment. Enhanced client outcomes included a reduction in self‐harming and hospitalization and an increase in self‐efficacy. These results support the move away from the medical model and the empowerment of clients to self‐manage their symptoms while fostering hope and self‐determination. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Family members often provide significant support and care to their relative who has a mental illness. Nonetheless, how family members might be part of an individual's mental health recovery journey is rarely considered. The aim of this study was to investigate how those with a mental illness define 'family' and the role of family (if any) in their recovery journey. A qualitative approach was used. Purposive sampling and snowballing were used to recruit and conduct semi‐structured interviews with 12 people who have been diagnosed with a severe mental illness. Participants defined family in various ways with some being very inclusive and others more selective. There was acknowledgement that family contributed to the individual's recovery in a myriad of ways, although the need for boundaries was stressed. While no participants suggested that their family might become active treatment facilitators, they did want clinicians to support them in talking to their family about their mental illness. A multifaceted approach is needed to promote family‐focused recovery practice. The needs of different family members and the needs of the family as a group should be considered concurrently alongside the individual's needs in their recovery plan. Individual and relational components of recovery should be embedded in policy and clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recovery‐oriented mental health care requires active involvement of service users in the evaluation of care. While experience of care surveys is routinely given out upon discharge, capturing the depth and detail of service users' experiences in such a way to meaningfully improve services may require more in‐depth and targeted approaches. This study aimed to gather voluntary and involuntary service users' experiences of care during hospitalization in two acute adult mental health inpatient units, through the collaborative completion of a purpose designed tool. The purpose of the study was to examine broad experiences of care and to identify the utility of proactive approaches to ongoing service evaluation. Overall, 67 participants were interviewed. Findings highlight the complexity of experiences of care including how an admission can seemingly facilitate clinical recovery while not being recovery‐oriented. The findings also detail areas for improvement in the way that care is delivered and evaluated. The implications are particularly pertinent for mental health nurses to consider how, within the existing constraints of their roles, they can provide therapeutic care to all service users. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: In Western nations, the Recovery approach has become a widely accepted philosophy and treatment concept in mental health. Yet, community understanding of the Recovery approach remains largely unexplored. This study aimed to investigate (i) people's awareness of the principles underpinning the Recovery approach in mental health, and (ii) the treatment approaches people consider most important, and whether these align with the Recovery approach. To achieve these aims, a random sample of 1217 Australian adults participated in the National Social Survey (QSS) via telephone interview. People's experience with mental health services, the importance they place on various treatment approaches, and their awareness of principles underpinning the Recovery approach were assessed. Analyses were conducted using descriptive statistics. Most participants (94%) agreed that ‘regardless of the severity of symptoms experienced and/or the mental illness diagnosis, being diagnosed with a mental illness means there is always hope for a meaningful life’. Moreover, most participants considered treatments in line with the Recovery approach as important. However, few participants (35%) agreed with the principle that ‘after diagnosis, the person themselves should direct the long‐term management of their mental illness, rather than a medical professional’. Australian people were to some extent aware of the principles underpinning the Recovery Approach, particularly with regard to hope, ability to live a meaningful life, and the importance of support from family, friends, and others living with mental illness. Nonetheless, autonomy was not highly prioritized, with the prevailing view that management of mental illness should be directed by the medical profession. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: The involvement of consumers in handover with nurses has been identified as reducing miscommunication and a reduction in adverse events in generalist nursing settings. Mental health (MH) care is complex, and handover practices need to fit with the philosophy of recovery‐focussed practice. Recovery‐focussed practice recognizes the person at the centre of care as an expert in their own treatment and decision‐making. The aim of the present study was to explore the views of consumers with a mental illness, without prior involvement in nursing handover, about their need to be involved in nursing handover on an acute mental health inpatient unit. Using an exploratory descriptive, qualitative design (n = 11), participants who were receiving care in an acute inpatient unit were recruited using purposive convenience sampling. Data were collected using semistructured interviews and analysed using thematic analysis. Participants' diagnoses were schizophrenia (n = 6), bipolar affective disorder (n = 4), and depression (n = 1). Two themes emerged from the interviews: (i) behind closed doors; and (ii) being involved. Several subthemes were also identified. The first theme, behind closed doors, had two subthemes: (i) it is about us; and (ii) knowing their thoughts. The second theme had three subthemes: (i) clarifying issues; (ii) setting expectations; and (iii) when and how. Nursing handover on the acute inpatient unit offers a good opportunity for consumers to take an active role in the delivery of nursing care. There is a need to rethink the way nursing handover occurs to include consumers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]