Staff responses to interventions aiming to reduce mechanical restraint in adult mental health inpatient settings: a questionnaire-based survey.

PURPOSE: To explore mental health staff's responses towards interventions designed to reduce the use of mechanical restraint (MR) in adult mental health inpatient settings. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional, questionnaire-based survey. The questionnaire, made available online via REDCap, presented 20 interventions designed to reduce MR use. Participants were asked to rate and rank the interventions based on their viewpoints regarding the relevance and importance of each intervention. RESULTS: A total of 128 mental health staff members from general and forensic mental health inpatient units across the Mental Health Services in the Region of Southern Denmark completed the questionnaire (response rate = 21.3%). A total of 90.8% of the ratings scored either 'agree' (45.2%) or 'strongly agree' (45.6%) concerning the relevance of the interventions in reducing MR use. Overall and in the divided analysis, interventions labelled as 'building relationship' and 'patient-related knowledge' claimed high scores in the staff's rankings of the interventions' importance concerning implementation. Conversely, interventions like 'carers' and 'standardised assessments' received low scores. CONCLUSIONS: The staff generally considered that the interventions were relevant. Importance rankings were consistent across the divisions chosen, with a range of variance and dispersion being recorded among certain groups.

Variation in opinions on coercion use among mental healthcare professionals: a questionnaire study.

INTRODUCTION: Even if coercive measures are widely applied in psychiatry and have numerous well-known drawbacks, there is limited known on the agreement among mental healthcare professionals' opinions on their use. In a questionnaire study using standardized scenarios, we investigated variation in staff opinions on coercion. METHODS: In a web-based survey distributed to staff at three psychiatry hospitals, respondents were asked to consider if and what coercion to use by introducing two hypothetical scenarios involving involuntary psychiatric admission and in-hospital coercion. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-two out of 601 invited staff members responded to the survey (Response Rate = 22%). There was large variation in participating staff members' opinions on how to best manage critical situations and what coercive measures were warranted. In the first scenario, 57% of respondents (n = 76) believed that the patient should be involuntarily admitted to hospital while the remaining respondents believed that the situation should be managed otherwise. Regarding the second scenario, 62% of respondents responded that some in-hospital coercion should be used. The majority of respondents believed that colleagues would behave similarly (60%) or with a tendency towards more coercion use (34%). Male gender, being nursing staff and having less coercion experience predicted being less inclined to choose involuntary hospital admission. CONCLUSION: There is a high degree of variation in coercion use. This study suggests that this variation persists despite staff members being confronted with the same standardized situations. There is a need for evidence-based further guidance to minimize coercion in critical mental healthcare situations.

Ethnic disparities in the use of restrictive practices in adult mental health inpatient settings: a scoping review.

PURPOSE: To identify and summarise extant knowledge about patient ethnicity and the use of various types of restrictive practices in adult mental health inpatient settings. METHODS: A scoping review methodological framework recommended by the JBI was used. A systematic search was conducted in APA PsycINFO, CINAHL with Full Text, Embase, PubMed and Scopus. Additionally, grey literature searches were conducted in Google, OpenGrey and selected websites, and the reference lists of included studies were explored. RESULTS: Altogether, 38 studies were included: 34 were primary studies; 4, reviews. The geographical settings were as follows: Europe (n = 26), Western Pacific (n = 8), Americas (n = 3) and South-East Asia (n = 1). In primary studies, ethnicity was reported according to migrant/national status (n = 16), mixed categories (n = 12), indigenous vs. non-indigenous (n = 5), region of origin (n = 1), sub-categories of indigenous people (n = 1) and religion (n = 1). In reviews, ethnicity was not comparable. The categories of restrictive practices included seclusion, which was widely reported across the studies (n = 20), multiple restrictive practices studied concurrently (n = 17), mechanical restraint (n = 8), rapid tranquillisation (n = 7) and manual restraint (n = 1). CONCLUSIONS: Ethnic disparities in restrictive practice use in adult mental health inpatient settings has received some scholarly attention. Evidence suggests that certain ethnic minorities were more likely to experience restrictive practices than other groups. However, extant research was characterised by a lack of consensus and continuity. Furthermore, widely different definitions of ethnicity and restrictive practices were used, which hampers researchers' and clinicians' understanding of the issue. Further research in this field may improve mental health practice.

Mental health patients' preferences regarding restrictive interventions: An integrative review.

WHAT IS KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT?: The use of restrictive interventions is described as a violation of patients' rights and autonomy. It must only be used as a last resort to manage dangerous behaviour, to prevent or reduce the risk of mental health patients harming themselves or others. International mental health policy and legislation agree that when restrictive interventions are applied, the least restrictive alternative should be chosen. WHAT THE PAPER ADDS TO EXISTING KNOWLEDGE?: The results are ambiguous, as to which restrictive intervention is preferred over others, but there are tendencies towards the majority preferring observation, with mechanical restraint being the least preferred. To make the experience less intrusive and restrictive, certain factors are preferred, such as a more pleasant and humane seclusion room environment, staff communicating during the application and staff of same gender applying the intervention. WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE?: When applying restrictive interventions, mental health professionals should consider environment, communication and duration factors that influence patient preferences, such as the opportunity to keep some personal items in the seclusion room, or, when using restraint, to communicate the reason and explain what is going to happen. More research is needed to clarify patients' preferences regarding restrictive interventions and their views on which are the least restrictive. Preferably, agreement is needed on standard measures, and global use of the same definition of restrictive interventions. ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION: The use of restrictive interventions is a violation of patients' rights that causes physical and psychological harm and which is a well-known challenge globally. Mental health law and legislative principles and experts agree that when restrictive interventions are applied, the least restrictive alternative should be used. However, there is no consensus on what is the least restrictive alternative, especially from the patient perspective. AIM: To investigate the literature on mental health patients' preferences regarding restrictive interventions applied during admission to a psychiatric hospital. METHOD: An integrative review informed by the PRISMA statement and thematic analysis were undertaken. RESULTS: There were tendencies towards patients preferring observation and, for the majority, mechanical restraint was the least preferred restrictive intervention. Factors such as environment, communication and duration were found to influence patients' preferences. DISCUSSION: There is a lack of agreement on how best to measure patients' preferences and this complicates the choice of the least restrictive alternative. Nonetheless, our findings show that staff should consider environment, communication and duration when applying restrictive interventions. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: More research on restrictive interventions and the least restrictive alternative is warranted, but agreement is needed on standard measures, and a standard global definition of restrictive interventions.

A systematic review of interventions to reduce mechanical restraint in adult mental health inpatient settings.

Mechanical restraint is a commonly used restrictive practice worldwide, although reducing its use is an international priority. Interventions to reduce mechanical restraint are needed if reducing mechanical restraint is to succeed. Therefore, this systematic review aimed to examine evaluated evidence-based interventions that seek to reduce the incidence of and/or time in mechanical restraint in adult mental health inpatient settings. The JBI framework was used to guide this systematic review. The search strategy included peer-reviewed primary research literature published between 1999 and 2023. Two authors independently conducted the systematic search, selection process and data extraction process. Forty-one studies were included in this review. Using content analysis, we grouped interventions into four categories: (I) calm-down methods, (II) staff resources, (III) legal and policy changes and (IV) changing staff culture. Interventions to reduce mechanical restraint in adult mental health inpatient settings have shown some promise. Evidence suggests that a range of interventions can reduce the incidence of and/or time in mechanical restraint. However, controlled trials were lacking and consensus was lacking across studies. Furthermore, specific findings varied widely, and reporting was inconsistent, hampering the development of interventions for this issue. Further research is needed to strengthen the evidence base for reducing mechanical restraint in mental health inpatient settings.

Nurses' clinical decision-making in the use of rapid tranquillization in adult mental health inpatient settings: An integrative review.

Rapid tranquillization is a restrictive practice that remains widely used in mental health inpatient settings worldwide. Nurses are the professionals most likely to administer rapid tranquillization in mental health settings. To improve mental health practices, an enhanced understanding of their clinical decision-making when using rapid tranquillization is, therefore, important. The aim was to synthesize and analyse the research literature on nurses' clinical decision-making in the use of rapid tranquillization in adult mental health inpatient settings. An integrative review was conducted using the methodological framework described by Whittemore and Knafl. A systematic search was conducted independently by two authors in APA PsycINFO, CINAHL Complete, Embase, PubMed and Scopus. Additional searches for grey literature were conducted in Google, OpenGrey and selected websites, and in the reference lists of included studies. Papers were critically appraised using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool, and the analysis was guided by manifest content analysis. Eleven studies were included in this review, of which nine were qualitative and two were quantitative. Based on the analysis, four categories were generated: (I) becoming aware of situational changes and considering alternatives, (II) negotiating voluntary medication, (III) administering rapid tranquillization and (IV) being on the other side. Evidence suggests that nurses' clinical decision-making in the use of rapid tranquillization involved a complex timeline with various impact points and embedded factors that continuously influenced and/or were associated with nurses' clinical decision-making. However, the topic has received scant scholarly attention, and further research may help to characterize the complexities involved and improve mental health practice.

Mental health reported in adult invasive home mechanical ventilation through a tracheostomy: A scoping review.

Background: Although people receiving invasive home mechanical ventilation through a tracheostomy are facing both physical and mental health challenges, healthcare services often focus mainly on physical symptoms. To ensure well-functioning treatment and care for people receiving tracheostomy ventilation in a home setting, their mental health needs to be promoted and seen as an integral part of their health in general. Objective: This scoping review aimed to provide a summary of the current knowledge on the mental health of people receiving invasive home mechanical ventilation through a tracheostomy. Design: A scoping review of published and gray literature based on the framework developed by Arksey and O'Malley and refined by the JBI was performed. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews checklist was used for reporting the findings. Methods: A literature search was conducted by two researchers independently in the PubMed, CINAHL and PsycINFO databases. Additional searches for gray literature were conducted in Google, Google Scholar, websites of selected organisations, and the reference lists of included studies. The software system Covidence was used in the study selection process. For critical appraisal, the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used. Results: Thirteen studies were included in this review, of which six used qualitative, six quantitative, and one mixed methods. The majority of studies were authored in Europe (n = 10), followed by the Americas (n = 2) and the Western Pacific (n = 1). Mental health was investigated both directly and indirectly (61.5% vs. 38.5%). Categorizing the reported mental health outcomes, we found that emotional well-being was reported widely across the studies (n = 13), while psychological well-being (n = 5) and social well-being (n = 4) were less widely reported. Conclusions: The mental health of people receiving home tracheostomy ventilation has received some scholarly attention. A heterogeneity of mental health outcomes was reported in the literature with emotional well-being being an important mental health area both in relation to the sub-components positive affect and quality of life appraisal. Mental health outcomes in relation to psychological well-being and social well-being were fragmented and only sparsely investigated.

Validation of ratings on the six-item Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale obtained via the Simplified Negative and Positive Symptoms Interview among outpatients with schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: The six-item Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS-6) is a measure of the severity of core symptoms of schizophrenia, which can be administered via the brief Simplified Negative and Positive Symptoms Interview (SNAPSI). A recent study has confirmed the validity of PANSS-6 ratings as derived by SNAPSI (PANSS-6SNAPSI) among inpatients with schizophrenia. AIMS: We aimed to test the validity of PANSS-6SNAPSI among outpatients with schizophrenia using PANSS-6 ratings extracted from the 30-item PANSS-30 as derived by the Structured Clinical Interview for the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS-6SCI-PANSS) as a gold standard reference. METHODS: PANSS-6SNAPSI and PANSS-6SCI-PANSS ratings were obtained at two time points by independent raters with established inter-rater reliability. Agreement between PANSS-6SNAPSI and PANSS-6SCI-PANSS ratings was estimated via intra-class coefficients (ICCs) and responsiveness over time was quantified using Spearman's rank correlation coefficients. Post hoc "leave-one-out" analyses were carried out, in which each rater in turn was excluded from the ICC calculations. RESULTS: Seventy-three outpatients with schizophrenia participated in the study (mean age: 38.3 years; 56% males). The ICC for PANSS-6SNAPSI versus PANSS-6SCI-PANSS was 0.67 [95%CI = 0.56-0.76] and the Spearman's rank correlation coefficient for responsiveness was 0.40 (p = 0.004). When data from a specific outlying rater were excluded, the ICC for PANSS-6SNAPSI versus PANSS-6SCI-PANSS was 0.75 [95% CI = 0.63-0.83] and the Spearman's rank correlation coefficient for responsiveness was 0.55 (p = 0.018). CONCLUSIONS: We found PANSS-6SNAPSI ratings to have acceptable clinical validity, suggesting that PANSS-6SNAPSI can be used for both inpatients and outpatients with schizophrenia.