Search

Research on patient safety in mental health settings is limited compared to physical healthcare settings. Recent qualitative studies have highlighted that patient safety is more than just physical safety but includes psychological safety. Traditionally, psychological safety has been defined as the belief that it is safe to take interpersonal risks, such as speaking up, without a fear of negative consequences. However, to date, it is not clear what constitutes psychological safety for service users of inpatient mental health settings. To understand this, we conducted 12 interviews with former inpatient mental health service users. Interviews were analysed with Reflexive Thematic Analysis, and five themes were developed. All themes had subthemes. Overall, we found that participants were more readily able to draw on situations where they felt psychologically unsafe, rather than safe. Psychological safety in service users was influenced by (1) healthcare staff attitudes and behaviours towards them, (2) their relationships with other service users, (3) whether they felt they had any control over their environment and medical decision‐making regarding their care, (4) their experiences of physically safety, feeling listened to and believed and (5) access to meaningful occupation on the wards. These findings suggest that changes are needed to enhance inpatient mental health service users' general experiences of psychological safety. Further research will need to (1) further develop understanding of the concept of psychological safety for service users and (2) identify interventions, and such interventions should be co‐designed with service users. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Mechanical restraint is a commonly used restrictive practice worldwide, although reducing its use is an international priority. Interventions to reduce mechanical restraint are needed if reducing mechanical restraint is to succeed. Therefore, this systematic review aimed to examine evaluated evidence‐based interventions that seek to reduce the incidence of and/or time in mechanical restraint in adult mental health inpatient settings. The JBI framework was used to guide this systematic review. The search strategy included peer‐reviewed primary research literature published between 1999 and 2023. Two authors independently conducted the systematic search, selection process and data extraction process. Forty‐one studies were included in this review. Using content analysis, we grouped interventions into four categories: (I) calm‐down methods, (II) staff resources, (III) legal and policy changes and (IV) changing staff culture. Interventions to reduce mechanical restraint in adult mental health inpatient settings have shown some promise. Evidence suggests that a range of interventions can reduce the incidence of and/or time in mechanical restraint. However, controlled trials were lacking and consensus was lacking across studies. Furthermore, specific findings varied widely, and reporting was inconsistent, hampering the development of interventions for this issue. Further research is needed to strengthen the evidence base for reducing mechanical restraint in mental health inpatient settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rates of self‐harm amongst children appear to be increasing. This presents challenges for practitioners responsible for maintaining the safety of children admitted to mental health inpatient settings. Policy guidelines recommend that practitioners should aim to avoid the use of restrictive practices for children. It is currently unclear, however, what evidence‐based alternatives to restrictive practices are available. We aimed to identify what non‐restrictive interventions have been proposed to reduce self‐harm amongst children in mental health inpatient settings and to evaluate the evidence supporting their use in clinical practice. A systematic search of five databases (CINAHL, Embase, Ovid MEDLINE, APA Psycinfo, and Cochrane) was conducted to identify articles reporting on non‐restrictive interventions aimed at reducing self‐harm amongst children in mental health inpatient settings. Articles were quality assessed and relevant data were extracted and synthesized using narrative synthesis. Searches identified relatively few relevant articles (n = 7) and these were generally of low methodological quality. The underlying theoretical assumptions and putative mechanisms of change for the interventions described were often unclear. Despite concerns about the rates of self‐harm amongst children in mental health inpatient settings, there is a lack of high‐quality research to inform clinical practice. There is an urgent need to develop effective non‐restrictive interventions aimed at reducing self‐harm for children using inpatient mental health services. Intervention development should be theoretically informed and be conducted in collaboration with people who have lived experience of this issue. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

International efforts to minimize coercive practices include the US Six Core Strategies© (6CS). This innovative approach has limited evidence of its effectiveness, with few robustly designed studies, and has not been formally implemented or evaluated in the UK. An adapted version of the 6CS, which we called 'REsTRAIN Yourself' (RY), was devised to suit the UK context and evaluated using mixed methods. RY aimed to reduce the use of physical restraint in mental health inpatient ward settings through training and practice development with whole teams, directly in the ward settings where change was to be implemented and barriers to change overcome. In this paper, we present qualitative findings that report on staff perspectives of the impact and value of RY following its implementation. Thirty‐six staff participated in semi‐structured interviews with data subject to thematic analysis. Eight themes are reported that highlight perceived improvements in every domain of the 6CS after RY had been introduced. Staff reported more positively on their relationships with service users and felt their attitudes towards the use of coercive practices such as restraint were changed; the service as a whole shifted in terms of restraint awareness and reduction; and new policies, procedures, and language were introduced despite certain barriers. These findings need to be appreciated in a context wherein substantial reductions in the use of physical restraint were proven possible, largely due to building upon empathic and relational alternatives. However, yet more could be achieved with greater resourcing of inpatient care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]