Search

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 is to be implemented and barriers to change overcome. In this paper we present qualitative findings that report on staff perspectives on 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 was proven possible, largely due to building upon empathic and relational alternatives. However, yet more could be achieved with greater resourcing of inpatient care.

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 is to be implemented and barriers to change overcome. In this paper we present qualitative findings that report on staff perspectives on 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 was proven possible, largely due to building upon empathic and relational alternatives. However, yet more could be achieved with greater resourcing of inpatient care.

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 is to be implemented and barriers to change overcome. In this paper we present qualitative findings that report on staff perspectives on 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 was proven possible, largely due to building upon empathic and relational alternatives. However, yet more could be achieved with greater resourcing of inpatient care.

In Western society, policy and legislation seeks to minimize restrictive interventions, including physical restraint; yet research suggests the use of such practices continues to raise concerns. Whilst international agreement has sought to define physical restraint, diversity in the way in which countries use restraint remains disparate. Research to date has reported on statistics regarding restraint, how and why it is used, and staff and service user perspectives about its use. However, there is limited evidence directly exploring the physical and psychological harm restraint may cause to people being cared for within mental health inpatient settings. This study reports on an integrative review of the literature exploring available evidence regarding the physical and psychological impact of restraint. The review included both experimental and nonexperimental research papers, using Cooper's (1998) five-stage approach to synthesize the findings. Eight themes emerged: Trauma/retraumatization; Distress; Fear; Feeling ignored; Control; Power; Calm; and Dehumanizing conditions. In conclusion, whilst further research is required regarding the physical and psychological implications of physical restraint in mental health settings, mental health nurses are in a prime position to use their skills and knowledge to address the issues identified to eradicate the use of restraint and better meet the needs of those experiencing mental illness.

In Western society, policy and legislation seeks to minimize restrictive interventions, including physical restraint; yet research suggests the use of such practices continues to raise concerns. Whilst international agreement has sought to define physical restraint, diversity in the way in which countries use restraint remains disparate. Research to date has reported on statistics regarding restraint, how and why it is used, and staff and service user perspectives about its use. However, there is limited evidence directly exploring the physical and psychological harm restraint may cause to people being cared for within mental health inpatient settings. This study reports on an integrative review of the literature exploring available evidence regarding the physical and psychological impact of restraint. The review included both experimental and nonexperimental research papers, using Cooper's (1998) five-stage approach to synthesize the findings. Eight themes emerged: Trauma/retraumatization; Distress; Fear; Feeling ignored; Control; Power; Calm; and Dehumanizing conditions. In conclusion, whilst further research is required regarding the physical and psychological implications of physical restraint in mental health settings, mental health nurses are in a prime position to use their skills and knowledge to address the issues identified to eradicate the use of restraint and better meet the needs of those experiencing mental illness.

In Western society, policy and legislation seeks to minimize restrictive interventions, including physical restraint; yet research suggests the use of such practices continues to raise concerns. Whilst international agreement has sought to define physical restraint, diversity in the way in which countries use restraint remains disparate. Research to date has reported on statistics regarding restraint, how and why it is used, and staff and service user perspectives about its use. However, there is limited evidence directly exploring the physical and psychological harm restraint may cause to people being cared for within mental health inpatient settings. This study reports on an integrative review of the literature exploring available evidence regarding the physical and psychological impact of restraint. The review included both experimental and nonexperimental research papers, using Cooper's (1998) five-stage approach to synthesize the findings. Eight themes emerged: Trauma/retraumatization; Distress; Fear; Feeling ignored; Control; Power; Calm; and Dehumanizing conditions. In conclusion, whilst further research is required regarding the physical and psychological implications of physical restraint in mental health settings, mental health nurses are in a prime position to use their skills and knowledge to address the issues identified to eradicate the use of restraint and better meet the needs of those experiencing mental illness.

A key role of nursing staff in high secure hospitals is responding to patients' aggressive behaviour. Attitudes of staff in high secure hospitals may influence how they respond to patient aggression. Patients will have their own attitudes towards aggression and how it should be managed. In our study, the views of staff and patients regarding aggression were overall similar, with both groups espousing controlling means of aggression management (medication, restraint, seclusion) in addition to interpersonal strategies. Responding to aggressive behaviour is a key activity for nurses and other care staff in high secure hospitals. The attitudes and beliefs of staff regarding patient aggression will influence the management strategies they adopt. Patients will also hold attitudes regarding the causes of and best ways to respond to aggressive behaviour. This study measured the attitudes towards aggression of staff (n= 109) and patients (n= 27) in a high secure hospital in the UK using the Management of Aggression and Violence Attitude Scale (MAVAS). There was considerable concordance of views, staff and patients disagreeing on only two items on the MAVAS. Aggression was felt to have a range of causes, embracing factors internal to the person, factors in the external environment and situational or interactional factors. Interpersonal means of managing aggression were supported, but both staff and patients also advocated the use of controlling management strategies such as medication, seclusion and restraint. The implications of these findings for aggression management in high secure settings are discussed in the light of best practice guidelines that promote interpersonal approaches over controlling strategies.

Staff and relative perspectives on patient aggression in dementia care units are seriously under researched in the UK. We interviewed a number of nursing staff and relatives in four UK care homes in the North West of England. Using a combined approach of one-to-one interviews (for staff) and focus groups (for relatives) we explored their views as to the reasons for and ways of responding to aggressive behaviour. Using thematic analysis we found similar results from both staff and relatives and as such their views were categorized into two broad areas: causation and management. The results indicated that staff in the participating units embraced a person-centred approach to aggression management. They predominantly respond to aggressive incidents with interpersonal strategies, such as distraction as opposed to medication or restraint. Relatives were clear in their perceptions of aggression as an interpersonal challenge, which is compounded or mediated by the illness of dementia. Consequently they were positive in their views of staff using non-coercive interventions. Staff and relative perspectives on patient aggression in dementia care units are seriously under researched in the UK. Any work that has been conducted has relied upon quantitative studies. Qualitative research on aggression management in older peoples services are rare. In-depth views that can offer insights into causation and management strategies are therefore under represented in the literature. In order to investigate this issue further we interviewed a number of nursing staff and relatives in four UK care homes in the North West of England. Using a combined approach of one-to-one interviews (for staff) and focus groups (for relatives) we explored their views as to the reasons for and ways of responding to aggressive behaviour. This was part of a larger study reported upon elsewhere. Using thematic analysis we found similar results from both staff and relatives and as such their views were categoriz

Staff and relative perspectives on patient aggression in dementia care units are seriously under researched in the UK. We interviewed a number of nursing staff and relatives in four UK care homes in the North West of England. Using a combined approach of one-to-one interviews (for staff) and focus groups (for relatives) we explored their views as to the reasons for and ways of responding to aggressive behaviour. Using thematic analysis we found similar results from both staff and relatives and as such their views were categorized into two broad areas: causation and management. The results indicated that staff in the participating units embraced a person-centred approach to aggression management. They predominantly respond to aggressive incidents with interpersonal strategies, such as distraction as opposed to medication or restraint. Relatives were clear in their perceptions of aggression as an interpersonal challenge, which is compounded or mediated by the illness of dementia. Consequently they were positive in their views of staff using non-coercive interventions. Staff and relative perspectives on patient aggression in dementia care units are seriously under researched in the UK. Any work that has been conducted has relied upon quantitative studies. Qualitative research on aggression management in older peoples services are rare. In-depth views that can offer insights into causation and management strategies are therefore under represented in the literature. In order to investigate this issue further we interviewed a number of nursing staff and relatives in four UK care homes in the North West of England. Using a combined approach of one-to-one interviews (for staff) and focus groups (for relatives) we explored their views as to the reasons for and ways of responding to aggressive behaviour. This was part of a larger study reported upon elsewhere. Using thematic analysis we found similar results from both staff and relatives and as such their views were categoriz

A key role of nursing staff in high secure hospitals is responding to patients' aggressive behaviour. Attitudes of staff in high secure hospitals may influence how they respond to patient aggression. Patients will have their own attitudes towards aggression and how it should be managed. In our study, the views of staff and patients regarding aggression were overall similar, with both groups espousing controlling means of aggression management (medication, restraint, seclusion) in addition to interpersonal strategies. Responding to aggressive behaviour is a key activity for nurses and other care staff in high secure hospitals. The attitudes and beliefs of staff regarding patient aggression will influence the management strategies they adopt. Patients will also hold attitudes regarding the causes of and best ways to respond to aggressive behaviour. This study measured the attitudes towards aggression of staff (n= 109) and patients (n= 27) in a high secure hospital in the UK using the Management of Aggression and Violence Attitude Scale (MAVAS). There was considerable concordance of views, staff and patients disagreeing on only two items on the MAVAS. Aggression was felt to have a range of causes, embracing factors internal to the person, factors in the external environment and situational or interactional factors. Interpersonal means of managing aggression were supported, but both staff and patients also advocated the use of controlling management strategies such as medication, seclusion and restraint. The implications of these findings for aggression management in high secure settings are discussed in the light of best practice guidelines that promote interpersonal approaches over controlling strategies.

A key role of nursing staff in high secure hospitals is responding to patients' aggressive behaviour. Attitudes of staff in high secure hospitals may influence how they respond to patient aggression. Patients will have their own attitudes towards aggression and how it should be managed. In our study, the views of staff and patients regarding aggression were overall similar, with both groups espousing controlling means of aggression management (medication, restraint, seclusion) in addition to interpersonal strategies. Responding to aggressive behaviour is a key activity for nurses and other care staff in high secure hospitals. The attitudes and beliefs of staff regarding patient aggression will influence the management strategies they adopt. Patients will also hold attitudes regarding the causes of and best ways to respond to aggressive behaviour. This study measured the attitudes towards aggression of staff (n= 109) and patients (n= 27) in a high secure hospital in the UK using the Management of Aggression and Violence Attitude Scale (MAVAS). There was considerable concordance of views, staff and patients disagreeing on only two items on the MAVAS. Aggression was felt to have a range of causes, embracing factors internal to the person, factors in the external environment and situational or interactional factors. Interpersonal means of managing aggression were supported, but both staff and patients also advocated the use of controlling management strategies such as medication, seclusion and restraint. The implications of these findings for aggression management in high secure settings are discussed in the light of best practice guidelines that promote interpersonal approaches over controlling strategies.

Staff and relative perspectives on patient aggression in dementia care units are seriously under researched in the UK. We interviewed a number of nursing staff and relatives in four UK care homes in the North West of England. Using a combined approach of one-to-one interviews (for staff) and focus groups (for relatives) we explored their views as to the reasons for and ways of responding to aggressive behaviour. Using thematic analysis we found similar results from both staff and relatives and as such their views were categorized into two broad areas: causation and management. The results indicated that staff in the participating units embraced a person-centred approach to aggression management. They predominantly respond to aggressive incidents with interpersonal strategies, such as distraction as opposed to medication or restraint. Relatives were clear in their perceptions of aggression as an interpersonal challenge, which is compounded or mediated by the illness of dementia. Consequently they were positive in their views of staff using non-coercive interventions. Staff and relative perspectives on patient aggression in dementia care units are seriously under researched in the UK. Any work that has been conducted has relied upon quantitative studies. Qualitative research on aggression management in older peoples services are rare. In-depth views that can offer insights into causation and management strategies are therefore under represented in the literature. In order to investigate this issue further we interviewed a number of nursing staff and relatives in four UK care homes in the North West of England. Using a combined approach of one-to-one interviews (for staff) and focus groups (for relatives) we explored their views as to the reasons for and ways of responding to aggressive behaviour. This was part of a larger study reported upon elsewhere. Using thematic analysis we found similar results from both staff and relatives and as such their views were categoriz

Staff and relative perspectives on patient aggression in dementia care units are seriously under researched in the UK. We interviewed a number of nursing staff and relatives in four UK care homes in the North West of England. Using a combined approach of one-to-one interviews (for staff) and focus groups (for relatives) we explored their views as to the reasons for and ways of responding to aggressive behaviour. Using thematic analysis we found similar results from both staff and relatives and as such their views were categorized into two broad areas: causation and management. The results indicated that staff in the participating units embraced a person-centred approach to aggression management. They predominantly respond to aggressive incidents with interpersonal strategies, such as distraction as opposed to medication or restraint. Relatives were clear in their perceptions of aggression as an interpersonal challenge, which is compounded or mediated by the illness of dementia. Consequently they were positive in their views of staff using non-coercive interventions. Staff and relative perspectives on patient aggression in dementia care units are seriously under researched in the UK. Any work that has been conducted has relied upon quantitative studies. Qualitative research on aggression management in older peoples services are rare. In-depth views that can offer insights into causation and management strategies are therefore under represented in the literature. In order to investigate this issue further we interviewed a number of nursing staff and relatives in four UK care homes in the North West of England. Using a combined approach of one-to-one interviews (for staff) and focus groups (for relatives) we explored their views as to the reasons for and ways of responding to aggressive behaviour. This was part of a larger study reported upon elsewhere. Using thematic analysis we found similar results from both staff and relatives and as such their views were categoriz

A key role of nursing staff in high secure hospitals is responding to patients' aggressive behaviour. Attitudes of staff in high secure hospitals may influence how they respond to patient aggression. Patients will have their own attitudes towards aggression and how it should be managed. In our study, the views of staff and patients regarding aggression were overall similar, with both groups espousing controlling means of aggression management (medication, restraint, seclusion) in addition to interpersonal strategies. Responding to aggressive behaviour is a key activity for nurses and other care staff in high secure hospitals. The attitudes and beliefs of staff regarding patient aggression will influence the management strategies they adopt. Patients will also hold attitudes regarding the causes of and best ways to respond to aggressive behaviour. This study measured the attitudes towards aggression of staff (n= 109) and patients (n= 27) in a high secure hospital in the UK using the Management of Aggression and Violence Attitude Scale (MAVAS). There was considerable concordance of views, staff and patients disagreeing on only two items on the MAVAS. Aggression was felt to have a range of causes, embracing factors internal to the person, factors in the external environment and situational or interactional factors. Interpersonal means of managing aggression were supported, but both staff and patients also advocated the use of controlling management strategies such as medication, seclusion and restraint. The implications of these findings for aggression management in high secure settings are discussed in the light of best practice guidelines that promote interpersonal approaches over controlling strategies.

ggression is reportedly common among older people with dementia in residential care. The attitudes of staff in care homes and strategies they use are under researched. Theoretical models that may be used to both understand and respond to such behaviour exist. They are the standard and person-centred paradigms. The aim of this study was to explore the views of nursing staff about aggressive behaviour in people with dementia and strategies used in practice. A survey of the attitudes of staff in six dementia care units using the Management of Aggression in People with Dementia Attitude Questionnaire was conducted including an audit of aggressive incidents using the Staff Observation Aggression Scale – Revised over a 3-month period. Staff expressed views reflective of a person-centred as opposed to standard paradigm. They viewed aggressive behaviour by people with dementia as deriving from the environment, situation or interactions with others. Participants strongly supported interpersonal means of responding to aggression, the moderate use of medication, and were largely opposed to physical restraint. Aggressive incidents were managed using less intrusive strategies such as distraction and de-escalation. Responses to aggressive behaviour, while pragmatic, were largely underpinned by a person-centred ethic as reflected in the attitudes expressed by staff.

ggression is reportedly common among older people with dementia in residential care. The attitudes of staff in care homes and strategies they use are under researched. Theoretical models that may be used to both understand and respond to such behaviour exist. They are the standard and person-centred paradigms. The aim of this study was to explore the views of nursing staff about aggressive behaviour in people with dementia and strategies used in practice. A survey of the attitudes of staff in six dementia care units using the Management of Aggression in People with Dementia Attitude Questionnaire was conducted including an audit of aggressive incidents using the Staff Observation Aggression Scale – Revised over a 3-month period. Staff expressed views reflective of a person-centred as opposed to standard paradigm. They viewed aggressive behaviour by people with dementia as deriving from the environment, situation or interactions with others. Participants strongly supported interpersonal means of responding to aggression, the moderate use of medication, and were largely opposed to physical restraint. Aggressive incidents were managed using less intrusive strategies such as distraction and de-escalation. Responses to aggressive behaviour, while pragmatic, were largely underpinned by a person-centred ethic as reflected in the attitudes expressed by staff.

ggression is reportedly common among older people with dementia in residential care. The attitudes of staff in care homes and strategies they use are under researched. Theoretical models that may be used to both understand and respond to such behaviour exist. They are the standard and person-centred paradigms. The aim of this study was to explore the views of nursing staff about aggressive behaviour in people with dementia and strategies used in practice. A survey of the attitudes of staff in six dementia care units using the Management of Aggression in People with Dementia Attitude Questionnaire was conducted including an audit of aggressive incidents using the Staff Observation Aggression Scale – Revised over a 3-month period. Staff expressed views reflective of a person-centred as opposed to standard paradigm. They viewed aggressive behaviour by people with dementia as deriving from the environment, situation or interactions with others. Participants strongly supported interpersonal means of responding to aggression, the moderate use of medication, and were largely opposed to physical restraint. Aggressive incidents were managed using less intrusive strategies such as distraction and de-escalation. Responses to aggressive behaviour, while pragmatic, were largely underpinned by a person-centred ethic as reflected in the attitudes expressed by staff.

ggression is reportedly common among older people with dementia in residential care. The attitudes of staff in care homes and strategies they use are under researched. Theoretical models that may be used to both understand and respond to such behaviour exist. They are the standard and person-centred paradigms. The aim of this study was to explore the views of nursing staff about aggressive behaviour in people with dementia and strategies used in practice. A survey of the attitudes of staff in six dementia care units using the Management of Aggression in People with Dementia Attitude Questionnaire was conducted including an audit of aggressive incidents using the Staff Observation Aggression Scale – Revised over a 3-month period. Staff expressed views reflective of a person-centred as opposed to standard paradigm. They viewed aggressive behaviour by people with dementia as deriving from the environment, situation or interactions with others. Participants strongly supported interpersonal means of responding to aggression, the moderate use of medication, and were largely opposed to physical restraint. Aggressive incidents were managed using less intrusive strategies such as distraction and de-escalation. Responses to aggressive behaviour, while pragmatic, were largely underpinned by a person-centred ethic as reflected in the attitudes expressed by staff.

Aims. This aims of this study are to describe current practice in the administration of medication in an acute psychiatric unit and explore factors that influence nurses’ decisions regarding the administration of medication during ‘rounds’. Background. Medication ‘rounds’ form part of the ward routine in many inpatient mental health settings. Nurses make several clinical decisions about administrating medication; yet, concerns have been raised about the poor assessment of patients’ needs and the quality of the information exchanged. Design. A structured non-participant observational design was used for this research. Method. This study involved the observation of 20 medication ‘rounds’ over three months. The Ward Administration of Medication Schedule was used to report on the interactions between nurses and patients and aspects of their communication during each round. Results. From the rounds observed nurses appeared adept at communicating a positive interpersonal style but less so in demonstrating skills portraying collaboration and information giving. For example whilst nurses communicated warmth in 97% of cases, using non-verbal behaviours such as good eye contact, the provision of information was only initiated in 46% of cases. Enquiries regarding the patient’s general health and medication taking (35% and 17% respectively) were less commonly observed. Verbal consent was sought in only 25% of cases. Procedural matters were adhered to overall. Conclusions. Findings suggest limited collaboration between nurses and patients and the poor monitoring of health status and medication effects. Information exchange could be improved; however, this may be related to medication procedures that make it difficult to explore sensitive information with patients, rather than nursing skills and behaviour. Relevance to clinical practice. The Ward Administration of Medication Schedule can be used as a clinical or educational tool in the administration of medication. In both

Aims. This aims of this study are to describe current practice in the administration of medication in an acute psychiatric unit and explore factors that influence nurses’ decisions regarding the administration of medication during ‘rounds’. Background. Medication ‘rounds’ form part of the ward routine in many inpatient mental health settings. Nurses make several clinical decisions about administrating medication; yet, concerns have been raised about the poor assessment of patients’ needs and the quality of the information exchanged. Design. A structured non-participant observational design was used for this research. Method. This study involved the observation of 20 medication ‘rounds’ over three months. The Ward Administration of Medication Schedule was used to report on the interactions between nurses and patients and aspects of their communication during each round. Results. From the rounds observed nurses appeared adept at communicating a positive interpersonal style but less so in demonstrating skills portraying collaboration and information giving. For example whilst nurses communicated warmth in 97% of cases, using non-verbal behaviours such as good eye contact, the provision of information was only initiated in 46% of cases. Enquiries regarding the patient’s general health and medication taking (35% and 17% respectively) were less commonly observed. Verbal consent was sought in only 25% of cases. Procedural matters were adhered to overall. Conclusions. Findings suggest limited collaboration between nurses and patients and the poor monitoring of health status and medication effects. Information exchange could be improved; however, this may be related to medication procedures that make it difficult to explore sensitive information with patients, rather than nursing skills and behaviour. Relevance to clinical practice. The Ward Administration of Medication Schedule can be used as a clinical or educational tool in the administration of medication. In both

Aims. This aims of this study are to describe current practice in the administration of medication in an acute psychiatric unit and explore factors that influence nurses’ decisions regarding the administration of medication during ‘rounds’. Background. Medication ‘rounds’ form part of the ward routine in many inpatient mental health settings. Nurses make several clinical decisions about administrating medication; yet, concerns have been raised about the poor assessment of patients’ needs and the quality of the information exchanged. Design. A structured non-participant observational design was used for this research. Method. This study involved the observation of 20 medication ‘rounds’ over three months. The Ward Administration of Medication Schedule was used to report on the interactions between nurses and patients and aspects of their communication during each round. Results. From the rounds observed nurses appeared adept at communicating a positive interpersonal style but less so in demonstrating skills portraying collaboration and information giving. For example whilst nurses communicated warmth in 97% of cases, using non-verbal behaviours such as good eye contact, the provision of information was only initiated in 46% of cases. Enquiries regarding the patient’s general health and medication taking (35% and 17% respectively) were less commonly observed. Verbal consent was sought in only 25% of cases. Procedural matters were adhered to overall. Conclusions. Findings suggest limited collaboration between nurses and patients and the poor monitoring of health status and medication effects. Information exchange could be improved; however, this may be related to medication procedures that make it difficult to explore sensitive information with patients, rather than nursing skills and behaviour. Relevance to clinical practice. The Ward Administration of Medication Schedule can be used as a clinical or educational tool in the administration of medication. In both

Aims. This aims of this study are to describe current practice in the administration of medication in an acute psychiatric unit and explore factors that influence nurses’ decisions regarding the administration of medication during ‘rounds’. Background. Medication ‘rounds’ form part of the ward routine in many inpatient mental health settings. Nurses make several clinical decisions about administrating medication; yet, concerns have been raised about the poor assessment of patients’ needs and the quality of the information exchanged. Design. A structured non-participant observational design was used for this research. Method. This study involved the observation of 20 medication ‘rounds’ over three months. The Ward Administration of Medication Schedule was used to report on the interactions between nurses and patients and aspects of their communication during each round. Results. From the rounds observed nurses appeared adept at communicating a positive interpersonal style but less so in demonstrating skills portraying collaboration and information giving. For example whilst nurses communicated warmth in 97% of cases, using non-verbal behaviours such as good eye contact, the provision of information was only initiated in 46% of cases. Enquiries regarding the patient’s general health and medication taking (35% and 17% respectively) were less commonly observed. Verbal consent was sought in only 25% of cases. Procedural matters were adhered to overall. Conclusions. Findings suggest limited collaboration between nurses and patients and the poor monitoring of health status and medication effects. Information exchange could be improved; however, this may be related to medication procedures that make it difficult to explore sensitive information with patients, rather than nursing skills and behaviour. Relevance to clinical practice. The Ward Administration of Medication Schedule can be used as a clinical or educational tool in the administration of medication. In both

Aim. This paper is a report of a study to determine the transferability of the Management of Aggression and Violence Attitude Scale to European mental health inpatient settings. Background. Incidents of patient aggression and violence are common in psychiatric in-patient facilities, and nurses’ attitudes may play a part in how they are managed. Methods. Nursing staff from acute psychiatric in-patient units in Switzerland and the United Kingdom completed the Management of Aggression and Violence Attitude Scale. Data were collected in the UK in 2001 and Switzerland in 2003. The Swiss sample comprised 75 respondents: 45 female, mean age 36·24, mean experience 7·35 years, 60 Registered Nurses. The United Kingdom sample was 75 respondents: 58 female, mean age 32, mean experience 5·25 years, 48 Registered Nurses. T-tests identified differences between the groups in their responses to each Management of Aggression and Violence Attitude Scale statement. Results. There was 66% concordance of views between the groups. Swiss nurses were, however, more likely to regard factors internal to the patient as contributory to aggression while United Kingdom nurses perceived environmental factors to be more important. Both groups endorsed physical means of aggression management, Swiss nurses more so. Conclusion. There are both commonalities and differences between the attitudes of Swiss and United Kingdom nursing staff regarding patient aggression. Differences may relate to rates of aggression, variations in management approaches, training and policy. The Management of Aggression and Violence Attitude Scale is a potentially effective tool for making comparisons about perspectives on patient aggression.

Aim. This paper is a report of a study to determine the transferability of the Management of Aggression and Violence Attitude Scale to European mental health inpatient settings. Background. Incidents of patient aggression and violence are common in psychiatric in-patient facilities, and nurses’ attitudes may play a part in how they are managed. Methods. Nursing staff from acute psychiatric in-patient units in Switzerland and the United Kingdom completed the Management of Aggression and Violence Attitude Scale. Data were collected in the UK in 2001 and Switzerland in 2003. The Swiss sample comprised 75 respondents: 45 female, mean age 36·24, mean experience 7·35 years, 60 Registered Nurses. The United Kingdom sample was 75 respondents: 58 female, mean age 32, mean experience 5·25 years, 48 Registered Nurses. T-tests identified differences between the groups in their responses to each Management of Aggression and Violence Attitude Scale statement. Results. There was 66% concordance of views between the groups. Swiss nurses were, however, more likely to regard factors internal to the patient as contributory to aggression while United Kingdom nurses perceived environmental factors to be more important. Both groups endorsed physical means of aggression management, Swiss nurses more so. Conclusion. There are both commonalities and differences between the attitudes of Swiss and United Kingdom nursing staff regarding patient aggression. Differences may relate to rates of aggression, variations in management approaches, training and policy. The Management of Aggression and Violence Attitude Scale is a potentially effective tool for making comparisons about perspectives on patient aggression.

Aim. This paper is a report of a study to determine the transferability of the Management of Aggression and Violence Attitude Scale to European mental health inpatient settings. Background. Incidents of patient aggression and violence are common in psychiatric in-patient facilities, and nurses’ attitudes may play a part in how they are managed. Methods. Nursing staff from acute psychiatric in-patient units in Switzerland and the United Kingdom completed the Management of Aggression and Violence Attitude Scale. Data were collected in the UK in 2001 and Switzerland in 2003. The Swiss sample comprised 75 respondents: 45 female, mean age 36·24, mean experience 7·35 years, 60 Registered Nurses. The United Kingdom sample was 75 respondents: 58 female, mean age 32, mean experience 5·25 years, 48 Registered Nurses. T-tests identified differences between the groups in their responses to each Management of Aggression and Violence Attitude Scale statement. Results. There was 66% concordance of views between the groups. Swiss nurses were, however, more likely to regard factors internal to the patient as contributory to aggression while United Kingdom nurses perceived environmental factors to be more important. Both groups endorsed physical means of aggression management, Swiss nurses more so. Conclusion. There are both commonalities and differences between the attitudes of Swiss and United Kingdom nursing staff regarding patient aggression. Differences may relate to rates of aggression, variations in management approaches, training and policy. The Management of Aggression and Violence Attitude Scale is a potentially effective tool for making comparisons about perspectives on patient aggression.

Aim. This paper is a report of a study to determine the transferability of the Management of Aggression and Violence Attitude Scale to European mental health inpatient settings. Background. Incidents of patient aggression and violence are common in psychiatric in-patient facilities, and nurses’ attitudes may play a part in how they are managed. Methods. Nursing staff from acute psychiatric in-patient units in Switzerland and the United Kingdom completed the Management of Aggression and Violence Attitude Scale. Data were collected in the UK in 2001 and Switzerland in 2003. The Swiss sample comprised 75 respondents: 45 female, mean age 36·24, mean experience 7·35 years, 60 Registered Nurses. The United Kingdom sample was 75 respondents: 58 female, mean age 32, mean experience 5·25 years, 48 Registered Nurses. T-tests identified differences between the groups in their responses to each Management of Aggression and Violence Attitude Scale statement. Results. There was 66% concordance of views between the groups. Swiss nurses were, however, more likely to regard factors internal to the patient as contributory to aggression while United Kingdom nurses perceived environmental factors to be more important. Both groups endorsed physical means of aggression management, Swiss nurses more so. Conclusion. There are both commonalities and differences between the attitudes of Swiss and United Kingdom nursing staff regarding patient aggression. Differences may relate to rates of aggression, variations in management approaches, training and policy. The Management of Aggression and Violence Attitude Scale is a potentially effective tool for making comparisons about perspectives on patient aggression.

Aim. This paper reports a study of staff and patient perspectives on the causes of patient aggression and the way it is managed. Background. The incidence of aggression in healthcare is reportedly on the increase, and concerns about the management of this problem are growing. Method. A convenience sample of 80 patients and 82 nurses from three inpatient mental healthcare wards were surveyed using The Management of Aggression and Violence Attitude Scale. A further five patients and five nurses from the same sample participated in a number of follow-up interviews. Results. Patients perceived environmental conditions and poor communication to be a significant precursor of aggressive behaviour. Nurses, in comparison, viewed the patients’ mental illnesses to be the main reason for aggression, although the negative impact of the inpatient environment was recognized. From interview responses, it was evident that both sets of respondents were dissatisfied with a restrictive and under-resourced provision that leads to interpersonal tensions. Conclusion. There are differences between the views of staff and patients about reasons for aggression and its management. Future approaches therefore need to be developed that address these opposing views. For example, training in the use of fundamental therapeutic communication skills was advocated by patients, whilst the need for greater attention to organizational deficits was advocated by nurses. A move away from reliance on the use of medication was also felt to be necessary. Evaluation of local needs and practices must be an integral part of this process.

Aim. This paper reports a study of staff and patient perspectives on the causes of patient aggression and the way it is managed. Background. The incidence of aggression in healthcare is reportedly on the increase, and concerns about the management of this problem are growing. Method. A convenience sample of 80 patients and 82 nurses from three inpatient mental healthcare wards were surveyed using The Management of Aggression and Violence Attitude Scale. A further five patients and five nurses from the same sample participated in a number of follow-up interviews. Results. Patients perceived environmental conditions and poor communication to be a significant precursor of aggressive behaviour. Nurses, in comparison, viewed the patients’ mental illnesses to be the main reason for aggression, although the negative impact of the inpatient environment was recognized. From interview responses, it was evident that both sets of respondents were dissatisfied with a restrictive and under-resourced provision that leads to interpersonal tensions. Conclusion. There are differences between the views of staff and patients about reasons for aggression and its management. Future approaches therefore need to be developed that address these opposing views. For example, training in the use of fundamental therapeutic communication skills was advocated by patients, whilst the need for greater attention to organizational deficits was advocated by nurses. A move away from reliance on the use of medication was also felt to be necessary. Evaluation of local needs and practices must be an integral part of this process.

Aim. This paper reports a study of staff and patient perspectives on the causes of patient aggression and the way it is managed. Background. The incidence of aggression in healthcare is reportedly on the increase, and concerns about the management of this problem are growing. Method. A convenience sample of 80 patients and 82 nurses from three inpatient mental healthcare wards were surveyed using The Management of Aggression and Violence Attitude Scale. A further five patients and five nurses from the same sample participated in a number of follow-up interviews. Results. Patients perceived environmental conditions and poor communication to be a significant precursor of aggressive behaviour. Nurses, in comparison, viewed the patients’ mental illnesses to be the main reason for aggression, although the negative impact of the inpatient environment was recognized. From interview responses, it was evident that both sets of respondents were dissatisfied with a restrictive and under-resourced provision that leads to interpersonal tensions. Conclusion. There are differences between the views of staff and patients about reasons for aggression and its management. Future approaches therefore need to be developed that address these opposing views. For example, training in the use of fundamental therapeutic communication skills was advocated by patients, whilst the need for greater attention to organizational deficits was advocated by nurses. A move away from reliance on the use of medication was also felt to be necessary. Evaluation of local needs and practices must be an integral part of this process.