Search

Safewards reduces conflict and containment on adult inpatient wards but there is limited research exploring the model in Children and Young People (CYP) mental health services. We investigated whether Safewards can be successfully implemented on twenty CYP wards across England. A process and outcomes evaluation was employed, utilizing the Integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Sciences (i-PARiHS) framework. Existing knowledge and use of Safewards was recorded via a self-report benchmarking exercise, verified during visits. Implementation of the 10 Safewards components on each ward was recorded using the Safewards Organizational Fidelity measure. Data from 11 surveys and 17 interviews with ward staff and four interviews with project workers were subject to thematic analysis and mapped against the four i-PARiHS constructs. Twelve of the 20 wards implemented at least half of the Safewards interventions in 12 months, with two wards delivering all 10 interventions. Facilitators and barriers are described. Results demonstrated Safewards is acceptable to a range of CYP services. Whilst implementation was hindered by difficulties outlined, wards with capacity were able and willing to implement the interventions. Results support the commissioning of a study to evaluate the implementation and outcomes of Safewards in CYP units. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Body-worn cameras are increasingly being used as a violence prevention tool in inpatient mental health wards. However, there remains a limited understanding of this technology from an implementation perspective, such as protocols and best practice guidance if cameras are to be used in these settings. This study explores the perspectives of patients, mental health staff, and senior management to understand the practical and ethical issues related to the implementation of body-worn cameras. Semi-structured interviews (n = 64) with 24 patients, 25 staff from acute wards, six Mental Health Nursing Directors, and 9 community-based patients were conducted. Interviews were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Ethical approval was granted by the Health Research Authority. Findings from this study show that the implementation of BWC in healthcare settings requires careful consideration. The perspectives of patients and staff demonstrate the complex reality of implementation alongside the consideration of practical and ethical issues around implementation that are essential to ensures that wards recognise the need to assess their capacity to use the cameras in a way that is fair and consistent for all involved. The findings further highlight wider questions around power and autonomy in mental health care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Ensuring adequate representation and the active, meaningful and visible involvement of groups likely to be most impacted by research findings and/or the lack of research inquiry are increasingly acknowledged. This is particularly relevant for Black racially minoritised groups who are less visible as research participants and in patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) roles. Our viewpoint article sought to discuss reflections and insights on their involvement experience, with particular attention to perceived barriers and enablers to PPIE involvement. Methods: Qualitative data were collected as part of facilitated group discussions from nine Black racially minoritised experts‐by‐experience involved in a PPIE advisory group. Data were subjected to thematic analysis to identify key themes. Results: Five main themes were identified that reflected factors linked to practicalities: role unfamiliarity, benefits for the larger community, acknowledgement of previous harm and mental health stigma. Conclusion: Given the existence and importance of the direct links between research and service and treatment innovations in health and social care, ensuring that those from underrepresented Black racial communities are meaningfully and equitably supported to have roles in advising and influencing research programmes should be prioritised and an ongoing consideration for different stakeholders, including research funders, researchers, healthcare providers and community leaders/representatives. Patient or Public Contribution: This viewpoint article is a collaboration between lived experience stakeholders and researchers, comprising conceiving the original idea for the paper, its conceptualisation and data generation and the coproduction including editing of the manuscript. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]