Understanding the Factors That Contribute to Creating a Collaborative Psychological Formulation: A Qualitative Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: Creating a formulation is one of the key competencies of a clinical psychologist and is understood to be important for guiding therapeutic input and understanding client distress. However, client experience of formulations can vary, with some reporting it is unhelpful and distressing. This novel review explores the experiences of clinicians and clients when creating a formulation, specifically the barriers and facilitators to collaborating on a formulation. This ultimately aims to improve client experience and engagement in formulation. METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed, Web of Science, PsycINFO and EMBASE was conducted using PRISMA guidelines. The protocol was registered on PROSPERO. This search was conducted using terms related to 'psychological formulation' and 'experience'. Nineteen qualitative papers met inclusion criteria and were appraised using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. Findings that pertained to formulation were thematically synthesised. RESULTS: Three analytical themes were identified: toleration of the formulation process-'a necessary evil', which highlights the potential emotional impact of formulation on the client and indicates the importance of responding to client readiness and expectations of formulation; development of the therapeutic relationship-'it's like a two way thing, isn't it?', which suggests that client empowerment, adapting to client needs and clinicians creating a safe and containing environment facilitated the formulation process; systemic factors-'walking a tightrope', which highlights the constraints of resources and team dynamics in therapists' ability to engage in collaborative formulation. CONCLUSION: Facilitators to a collaborative formulation include the following: simple formulations, thorough assessment and preparation for formulation, 'doing with' activities such as timelines and diagrams and working environments that include supportive colleagues and time for reflection and training.

Evaluation of a novel co-designed and co-delivered training package to de-escalate violence and aggression in UK acute inpatient, PICU and forensic mental health settings.

WHAT IS KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT?: Clinical guidelines and staff training recommend using de-escalation over restrictive practices, such as restraint and seclusion Evidence suggests that restrictive practices continue to be used frequently despite training This suggests a lack of impact of existing staff de-escalation training. WHAT DOES THIS PAPER ADD TO EXISTING KNOWLEDGE?: The features of de-escalation training that are acceptable to staff and perceived to be impactful A co-designed and co-delivered training session on a trauma-informed approach to de-escalation on mental health wards was acceptable and perceived to be impactful Those attending training particularly valued how lived experience was incorporated into the training content and co-delivery The organizational and team context may need more consideration in adapting the training. WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE?: De-escalation training that adopts a trauma-informed approach and considers the context of ward environments is acceptable to staff Co-delivery models of training to tackle restrictive practice can be acceptable and impactful Further research will show how clinically effective this training is in improving outcomes for service users in ward contexts. ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests a discrepancy between recommended and routine practice in de-escalation in mental health settings, suggesting a lack of impact of existing training. AIM: To investigate the acceptability and perceived impact of a co-designed/delivered training intervention on a trauma-informed approach to de-escalation on mental health wards. METHODS: Trainees were invited to complete the Training Acceptability Rating Scale (TARS) post-training. Responses to the quantitative items were summarized using descriptive statistics, and open-text responses were coded using content analysis. RESULTS: Of 214 trainees, 211 completed the TARS. The trainees rated the training favourably (median overall TARS = 55/63), as acceptable (median 33/36) and impactful (median 23/27). There were five qualitative themes: modules of interest; multiple perspectives; modes of delivery; moulding to context; and modifying other elements. DISCUSSION: The EDITION training was found to be acceptable and impactful, with trainees particularly valuing the co-delivery model. Trainees suggested several ways in which the training could be improved, particularly around the need for further moulding of the intervention to the specific ward contexts/teams. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: We recommend co-designing and co-delivering staff training to mental health professionals that tackles restrictive practices. RELEVANCE STATEMENT: This research is relevant to lived experience practitioners who want to be involved in training mental health professionals around restrictive practices, demonstrating the value and importance of their voice. It is relevant to current providers of de-escalation training, and to staff receiving training, outlining a novel, but acceptable and impactful, form of training on a key area of mental health practice. It is relevant to anyone with an interest in reducing restrictive practice via co-delivered training.

Development and evaluation of a de-escalation training intervention in adult acute and forensic units: the EDITION systematic review and feasibility trial.

Background: Containment (e.g. physical restraint and seclusion) is used frequently in mental health inpatient settings. Containment is associated with serious psychological and physical harms. De-escalation (psychosocial techniques to manage distress without containment) is recommended to manage aggression and other unsafe behaviours, for example self-harm. All National Health Service staff are trained in de-escalation but there is little to no evidence supporting training's effectiveness. Objectives: Objectives were to: (1) qualitatively investigate de-escalation and identify barriers and facilitators to use across the range of adult acute and forensic mental health inpatient settings; (2) co-produce with relevant stakeholders an intervention to enhance de-escalation across these settings; (3) evaluate the intervention's preliminary effect on rates of conflict (e.g. violence, self-harm) and containment (e.g. seclusion and physical restraint) and understand barriers and facilitators to intervention effects. Design: Intervention development informed by Experience-based Co-design and uncontrolled pre and post feasibility evaluation. Systematic reviews and qualitative interviews investigated contextual variation in use and effects of de-escalation. Synthesis of this evidence informed co-design of an intervention to enhance de-escalation. An uncontrolled feasibility trial of the intervention followed. Clinical outcome data were collected over 24 weeks including an 8-week pre-intervention phase, an 8-week embedding and an 8-week post-intervention phase. Setting: Ten inpatient wards (including acute, psychiatric intensive care, low, medium and high secure forensic) in two United Kingdom mental health trusts. Participants: In-patients, clinical staff, managers, carers/relatives and training staff in the target settings. Interventions: Enhancing de-escalation techniques in adult acute and forensic units: Development and evaluation of an evidence-based training intervention (EDITION) interventions included de-escalation training, two novel models of reflective practice, post-incident debriefing and feedback on clinical practice, collaborative prescribing and ward rounds, practice changes around admission, shift handovers and the social and physical environment, and sensory modulation and support planning to reduce patient distress. Main outcome measures: Outcomes measured related to feasibility (recruitment and retention, completion of outcome measures), training outcomes and clinical and safety outcomes. Conflict and containment rates were measured via the Patient-Staff Conflict Checklist. Clinical outcomes were measured using the Attitudes to Containment Measures Questionnaire, Attitudes to Personality Disorder Questionnaire, Violence Prevention Climate Scale, Capabilities, Opportunities, and Motivation Scale, Coercion Experience Scale and Perceived Expressed Emotion in Staff Scale. Results: Completion rates of the proposed primary outcome were very good at 68% overall (excluding remote data collection), which increased to 76% (excluding remote data collection) in the post-intervention period. Secondary outcomes had high completion rates for both staff and patient respondents. Regression analyses indicated that reductions in conflict and containment were both predicted by study phase (pre, embedding, post intervention). There were no adverse events or serious adverse events related to the intervention. Conclusions: Intervention and data-collection procedures were feasible, and there was a signal of an effect on the proposed primary outcome. Limitations: Uncontrolled design and self-selecting sample. Future work: Definitive trial determining intervention effects. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN12826685 (closed to recruitment). Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 16/101/02) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 3. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information. Context: Conflict (a term used to describe a range of potentially unsafe events including violence, self-harm, rule-breaking, medication refusal, illicit drug and alcohol use and absconding) in mental health settings causes serious physical and psychological harm. Containment interventions which are intended to minimise harm from violence (and other conflict behaviours) such as restraint, seclusion and rapid tranquilisation can result in serious injuries to patients and, occasionally, death. Involvement in physical restraint is the most common cause of serious physical injury to National Health Service mental health staff in the United Kingdom. Violence to staff results in substantial costs to the health service in sickness and litigation payments. Containment interventions are also expensive (e.g. physical restraint costs mental health services £6.1 million and enhanced observations £88 million per annum). Despite these harms, recent findings indicate containment interventions such as seclusion and physical restraint continue to be used frequently in mental health settings. Clinical trials have demonstrated that interventions can reduce containment without increasing violence and other conflict behaviours (e.g. verbal aggression, self-harm). Substantial cost-savings result from reducing containment use. De-escalation, as an intervention to manage aggression and potential violence without restrictive practices, is a core intervention. 'De-escalation' is a collective term for a range of psychosocial techniques designed to reduce distress and anger without the need to use 'containment' interventions (measures to prevent harm through restricting a person's ability to act independently, such as physical restraint and seclusion). Evidence indicates that de-escalation involves ensuring conditions for safe intervention and effective communication are established, clarifying and attempting to resolve the patient's concern, conveyance of respect and empathy and regulating unhelpful emotions such as anxiety and anger. Despite featuring prominently in clinical guidelines and training policy domestically and internationally and being a component of mandatory National Health Service training, there is no evidence-based model on which to base training. A systematic review of de-escalation training effectiveness and acceptability conducted in 2015 concluded: (1) no model of training has demonstrated effectiveness in a sufficiently rigorous evaluation, (2) the theoretical underpinning of evaluated models was often unclear and (3) there has been inadequate investigation of the characteristics of training likely to enhance acceptability and uptake. Despite all National Health Service staff being trained in de-escalation there have been no high-quality trials evaluating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of training. Feasibility studies are needed to establish whether it is possible to conduct a definitive trial that can determine the clinical, safety and cost-effectiveness of this intervention.

Mental health hospitals are stressful places for patients and staff. Patients are often detained against their will, in places that are noisy, unfamiliar and frightening. Violence and self-injury happen quite frequently. Sometimes staff physically restrain patients or isolate patients in locked rooms (called seclusion). While these measures might sometimes be necessary to maintain safety, they are psychologically and physically harmful. To help reduce the use of these unsafe measures, staff are trained in communication skills designed to reduce anger and distress without using physical force. Professionals call these skills 'de-escalation'. Although training in de-escalation is mandatory, there is no good evidence to say whether it works or not, or what specific techniques staff should be trained in. The Enhancing de-escalation techniques in adult acute and forensic units: Development and evaluation of an evidence-based training intervention (EDITION) project aimed to develop and evaluate a de-escalation training programme informed by research evidence. We interviewed over one hundred people who either worked in or received treatment in a mental health hospital. These people were clear that the training should target key sources of interpersonal and environmental stress that prevent de-escalation from working. We also reviewed all the scientific studies on de-escalation and training, aiming to identify the elements of training that are most likely to increase use of de-escalation. Then, in partnership with current mental health service users and clinical staff, we developed the training programme. Training was delivered to more than 270 staff working in 10 different wards in mental health hospitals. We measured rates of violence, self-injury and use of physical restraint and seclusion 8 weeks before staff received training and 16 weeks after they received training (24 weeks of data collection in total). Analysis of these data showed that these unsafe events were occurring significantly less frequently after training than they were before training, which raised the possibility that the training was helping to reduce harm.

De-escalation of conflict in forensic mental health inpatient settings: a Theoretical Domains Framework-informed qualitative investigation of staff and patient perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Violence and other harms that result from conflict in forensic inpatient mental health settings are an international problem. De-escalation approaches for reducing conflict are recommended, yet the evidence-base for their use is limited. For the first time, the present study uses implementation science and behaviour change approaches to identify the specific organisational and individual behaviour change targets for enhanced de-escalation in low and medium secure forensic inpatient settings. The primary objective of this study was to identify and describe individual professional, cultural and system-level barriers and enablers to the implementation of de-escalation in forensic mental health inpatient settings. The secondary objective was to identify the changes in capabilities, opportunities and motivations required to enhance de-escalation behaviours in these settings. METHODS: Qualitative design with data collection and analysis informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Two medium secure forensic mental health inpatient wards and one low secure mental health inpatient ward participated. 12 inpatients and 18 staff participated across five focus groups and one individual interview (at participant preference) guided by a semi-structured interview schedule informed by the TDF domains. Data were analysed via Framework Analysis, organised into the 14 TDF domains then coded inductively within each domain. RESULTS: The capabilities required to enhance de-escalation comprised relationship-building, emotional regulation and improved understanding of patients. Staff opportunities for de-escalation are limited by shared beliefs within nursing teams stigmatising therapeutic intimacy in nurse-patient relationships and emotional vulnerability in staff. These beliefs may be modified by ward manager role-modelling. Increased opportunity for de-escalation may be created by increasing service user involvement in antipsychotic prescribing and modifications to the physical environment (sensory rooms and limiting restrictions on patient access to ward spaces). Staff motivation to engage in de-escalation may be increased through reducing perceptions of patient dangerousness via post-incident debriefing and advanced de-escalation planning. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions to enhance de-escalation in forensic mental health settings should enhance ward staff's understanding of patients and modify beliefs about therapeutic boundaries which limit the quality of staff-patient relationships. The complex interactions within the capabilities-opportunities-motivation configuration our novel analysis generated, indicates that de-escalation behaviour is unlikely to be changed through knowledge and skills-based training alone. De-escalation training should be implemented with adjunct interventions targeting: collaborative antipsychotic prescribing; debriefing and de-escalation planning; modifications to the physical environment; and ward manager role-modelling of emotional vulnerability and therapeutic intimacy in nurse-patient relationships.