Protected engagement time on older adult mental health wards: A thematic analysis of the views of patients, carers, and staff.

During protected engagement time (PET), ward routines are adjusted so that staff can spend time together with patients without interruption. The aim of PET is to increase staff and patient interaction on wards, and ultimately patient well-being. Although PET has been implemented on inpatient wards within the UK, including older adult wards, there is no systematic evidence as to how PET is carried out or how it is experienced by staff, patients, and families. Semistructured interviews were conducted with 28 participants (8 patients, 10 family members, and 10 ward staff) from three different wards with PET, and transcriptions were analysed using thematic analysis. Three themes were identified: (i) the patient is at the heart of care; (ii) PET depends on staff; and (iii) tensions in how PET operates. There was support in our sample for the principles of PET and its potential for a positive impact on patient well-being. However, the implementation of PET was identified as challenging, highlighting an existing tension between an individual's needs and the wider needs of patients on the ward as a whole. The impact of PET was generally described as being dependent on how PET was organized and the level of staff commitment to PET. Participants emphasized that if PET is to be successful, then it should be a fluid process that fits in with the local context.

Feasibility study suggests no impact from protected engagement time on adverse events in mental health wards for older adults.

Hospital adverse events, such as falls, violence and aggression, security, self-harm, and suicide, are difficult to manage in older people with dementia. The purpose of the present study was to determine whether protected engagement time (PET) resulted in lower adverse events and incidents compared to comparable non-PET wards for people admitted to inpatient older people's mental health wards. Ten inpatient wards for older people were included. Five followed a PET-management pathway, while five continued usual care. All adverse events and incidents were recorded in routine hospital records over 72 weeks. Data were gathered from these records and analysed as rate per person per week to assess differences in frequency and type of adverse events between wards. A total of 4130 adverse events were recorded. In the PET wards, a mean of 0.38 adverse events occurred per person per week compared to 0.40 in non-PET wards. No statistically-significant differences were found between PET and non-PET wards for adverse events (P = 0.93), or for adverse events of any particular type (P ≥ 0.15). Therefore, there is no evidence to suggest that PET has any impact on adverse events in older people's mental health wards. Further investigation with a larger cohort is warranted, using a definitive, phase 3, clinical trial.