RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Body worn cameras (BWC) are mobile audio and video capture devices that can be secured to clothing allowing the wearer to record some of what they see and hear. This technology is being introduced in a range of healthcare settings as part of larger violence reduction strategies aimed at reducing incidents of aggression and violence on inpatient wards, however limited evidence exists to understand if this technology achieves such goals. AIM: This study aimed to evaluate the implementation of BWCs on two inpatient mental health wards, including the impact on incidents, the acceptability to staff and patients, the sustainability of the resource use and ability to manage the use of BWCs on these wards. METHODS: The study used a mixed-methods design comparing quantitative measures including ward activity and routinely collected incident data at three time-points before during and after the pilot implementation of BWCs on one acute ward and one psychiatric intensive care unit, alongside pre and post pilot qualitative interviews with patients and staff, analysed using a framework based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. RESULTS: Results showed no clear relationship between the use of BWCs and rates or severity of incidents on either ward, with limited impact of using BWCs on levels of incidents. Qualitative findings noted mixed perceptions about the use of BWCs and highlighted the complexity of implementing such technology as a violence reduction method within a busy healthcare setting Furthermore, the qualitative data collected during this pilot period highlighted the potential systemic and contextual factors such as low staffing that may impact on the incident data presented. CONCLUSION: This study sheds light on the complexities of using such BWCs as a tool for 'maximising safety' on mental health settings. The findings suggest that BWCs have a limited impact on levels of incidents on wards, something that is likely to be largely influenced by the process of implementation as well as a range of contextual factors. As a result, it is likely that while BWCs may see successes in one hospital site this is not guaranteed for another site as such factors will have a considerable impact on efficacy, acceptability, and feasibility.
Assuntos
Unidade Hospitalar de Psiquiatria , Humanos , Projetos Piloto , Masculino , Feminino , Adulto , Violência/prevenção & controle , Gravação em Vídeo , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Pesquisa Qualitativa , Dispositivos Eletrônicos VestíveisRESUMO
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.
Assuntos
Avaliação de Processos e Resultados em Cuidados de Saúde , Humanos , Criança , Adolescente , Inglaterra , Masculino , Feminino , Unidade Hospitalar de Psiquiatria/organização & administraçãoRESUMO
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.
Assuntos
Atenção à Saúde , Violência , Humanos , Saúde Mental , Pacientes Internados , Pesquisa QualitativaRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Body-worn cameras are increasingly being used as a violence prevention tool in inpatient mental health wards. However, there is a dearth of research on their use in these settings, particularly when it comes to patient perspectives. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore the perspectives of patients, mental health staff, and senior management on body-worn cameras to identify the possible impacts of this technology in inpatient mental health settings. DESIGN: This was an exploratory qualitative study. SETTING: We undertook interviews online and in-person on a number of acute inpatient wards across five mental health hospitals in England. Participants were recruited in-person, online via social media, and through professional networks. PARTICIPANTS: This study recruited 24 patients from acute wards, 25 staff from acute wards, six Mental Health Nursing Directors, and nine community-based patients. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted online and in-person. Interviews were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Ethical approval was granted by the Health Research Authority. RESULTS: The subjective nature of how violence and aggression is defined shapes how staff and patients view the prospect of using body-worn cameras. Both staff and patients cited issues resulting from an underlying culture of mistrust in inpatient settings that leave staff and patients feeling unsafe. Body worn cameras may intensify power dynamics and undermine therapeutic relationships. Participants felt that engaging existing interventions and addressing systemic causes of violence and aggression should take priority over introducing body-worn cameras. CONCLUSIONS: There is no indication that staff or patients believe body-worn cameras will deter violence and aggression on inpatient mental health wards. They may serve as a tool for safeguarding and staff training, but there are still unexplored ethical concerns about their use and a lack of evidence to support use of this technology to deter violence in NHS mental health settings. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Mental health patients & staff have complex perspectives on controversial body-worn camera technology @thekeiranwilson @unafoye @maddych4dwick @gbrennancafc @cityalan.
Assuntos
Agressão , Saúde Mental , Humanos , Violência/prevenção & controle , Inglaterra , Pesquisa QualitativaRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Understanding intervention fidelity is an essential part of the evaluation of complex interventions because fidelity not only affects the validity of trial findings, but also because studies of fidelity can be used to identify barriers and facilitators to successful implementation, and so provide important information about factors likely to impact the uptake of the intervention into clinical practice. Participant observation methods have been identified as being particularly valuable in studies of fidelity, yet are rarely used. This study aimed to use these methods to explore the quality of implementation of a complex intervention (Safewards) on mental health wards during a cluster randomised controlled trial. Specific aims were firstly to describe the different ways in which the intervention was implemented, and secondly to explore the contextual factors moderating the quality of intervention delivery, in order to inform 'real world' implementation of the intervention. METHODS: Safewards was implemented on 16 mental health wards in England. We used Research Assistants (RAs) trained in participant observation to record qualitative observational data on the quality of intervention delivery (n = 565 observations). At the end of the trial, two focus groups were conducted with RAs, which were used to develop the coding framework. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: There was substantial variation in intervention delivery between wards. We observed modifications to the intervention which were both fidelity consistent and inconsistent, and could enhance or dilute the intervention effects. We used these data to develop a typology which describes the different ways in which the intervention was delivered. This typology could be used as a tool to collect qualitative observational data about fidelity during trials. Moderators of Safewards implementation included systemic, interpersonal, and individual factors and patient responses to the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates how, with appropriate training in participant observation, RAs can collect high-quality observational data about the quality of intervention delivery during a trial, giving a more complete picture of 'fidelity' than measurements of adherence alone. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry; IRSCTN38001825 . Registered 29 August 2012.