Locked external doors on inpatient mental health units: A scoping review.

The principles of least restrictive care and recovery-focused practice are promoted as contemporary practice in the care of individuals with mental ill health, underpinning legislation concerning mental health and illness in many jurisdictions worldwide. Inpatient mental health units with locked doors are incompatible with this style of care and throwback to a time where care for mental illness was primarily custodial. The aim of this scoping review is to determine whether evidence exists for locking mental health unit doors, whether this practice is compatible with recovery-focused care and to determine whether door locking has changed since a review conducted by Van Der Merwe et al. (Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, 16, 2009, 293) found that door locking was not the preferred practice in the management of acute mental health units. We used Arksey and O'Malley's (International Journal of Social Research Methodology: Theory and Practice, 8, 2005, 19) framework for scoping reviews, with our initial search locating 1377 studies, with screening narrowing final papers for inclusion to 20. Methodologies for papers included 12 using quantitative methodology, 5 qualitative and 3 that used mixed methods designs. Poor evidence was found for door locking to mitigate risks such as absconding, aggression or illicit substance importation. Furthermore, locked doors had a detrimental impact on the therapeutic relationship, nurse job satisfaction and intention to leave the profession. This scoping review indicates that research is urgently needed to address a mental healthcare culture where door locking is an entrenched practice. Studies of alternative approaches to risk management are required to ensure inpatient mental health units are truly least-restrictive, therapeutic environments.

Elimination of restrictive interventions: Is it achievable under the current mental healthcare landscape?

The 2021 release of the report from the Royal Commission into Victoria's Mental Health System suggested 65 recommendations to improve a mental healthcare system that was described as "broken". Several of these recommendations relate to the use of restrictive interventions, such as restraint (both physical and mechanical) and seclusion. These interventions continue to be used in Victorian inpatient mental health facilities today, often in response to aggression and violence towards staff, visitors, family and other consumers. Several health services have committed to the substantial reduction or elimination of the use of restrictive interventions. In this perspective paper, we argue that significant investment is required to achieve this goal. Pressure on mental health nursing staff to cease using restrictive interventions without viable alternatives to de-escalation, restrictions in the built environment, workforce constraints and a lack of education provided early in nursing careers need to be addressed before we can achieve the elimination of restrictive interventions. We recommend that substantial investment in mental health inpatient units, the mental health nursing workforce, and a systemic shift in the role of the mental health nurse are required to attain sustained reduction and potential elimination of restrictive interventions.

Aggression Management Training in Undergraduate Nursing Students: A Scoping Review.

Recent events and media coverage have put aggression and violence toward healthcare workers on the agenda of many governments and healthcare providers. Shown to cause poor job satisfaction, attrition and higher rates of turnover, aggression and violence toward healthcare workers is a substantial problem in the provision of quality care. We aim to determine the feasibility of providing aggression management training to undergraduate nursing students to better prepare them for the workforce. This review found seven studies utilizing various methods of providing aggression management training to students. Delivery was diverse in terms of format, content and duration, and the efficacy of training was typically determined in a pre- and post-test fashion. The findings in reviewed studies indicate significant improvements in competence and attitudes, however some methodological caveats exist. We conclude that aggression management training for undergraduate nursing students is indeed feasible within certain constraints: methodological approaches to demonstrating efficacy need to evolve beyond pre- and post-test designs and changes in content delivery incorporating new and novel methods, such as simulation, need to be considered and incorporated. Aggression management training should be considered as essential in the nursing curriculum in order to provide neophyte nurses with the skills and capabilities to manage aggression and violence in their future workplaces.