Accessible summaryIn the previous paper we described a model explaining differences in rates of conflict and containment between wards, grouping causal factors into six domains: the staff team, the physical environment, outside hospital, the patient community, patient characteristics and the regulatory framework.This paper reviews and evaluates the evidence for the model from previously published research.The model is supported, but the evidence is not very strong. More research using more rigorous methods is required in order to confirm or improve this model.AbstractIn a previous paper, we described a proposed model explaining differences in rates of conflict (aggression, absconding, self-harm, etc.) and containment (seclusion, special observation, manual restraint, etc.). The Safewards Model identified six originating domains as sources of conflict and containment: the patient community, patient characteristics, the regulatory framework, the staff team, the physical environment, and outside hospital. In this paper, we assemble the evidence underpinning the inclusion of these six domains, drawing upon a wide ranging review of the literature across all conflict and containment items; our own programme of research; and reasoned thinking. There is good evidence that the six domains are important in conflict and containment generation. Specific claims about single items within those domains are more difficult to support with convincing evidence, although the weight of evidence does vary between items and between different types of conflict behaviour or containment method. The Safewards Model is supported by the evidence, but that evidence is not particularly strong. There is a dearth of rigorous outcome studies and trials in this area, and an excess of descriptive studies. The model allows the generation of a number of different interventions in order to reduce rates of conflict and containment, and properly conducted trials are now needed to test its validity.

No abstract

This is the accepted version of the paper.This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. Permanent repository link

No abstract

This study compared two acute psychiatric ward nursing regimes, focusing on ward rules as a means of investigating the relationship between the flexibility/inflexibility of the regimes and patient outcomes. Previous studies identified an association between ward rules and patient aggression. A link between absconding and nurses' attitudes towards rule enforcement has also been explored. However, an in-depth exploration of ward rules from the perspective of nurses and patients had not been undertaken previously. The study aimed to discover the content of rules within acute psychiatric wards; to explore patients' responses to the rules; to evaluate the impact of rules and rule enforcement on nurse-patient relationships and on ward events; and to investigate the relationship between ward rules, ward atmosphere and ward design. The relevance of sociological theory emerged from the data analysis. During this process, the results were moved up to another conceptual level to represent the meaning of lived experience at the level of theory. For example, nurses' descriptions of their feelings in relation to rule enforcement were merged as role ambivalence. This concept was supported by examples from the transcripts. Other possible explanations for the data and the connections between them were checked by returning to each text unit in the cluster and ensuring that it fitted with the emergent theory. The design centred on a comparative interview study of 30 patients and 30 nurses within two acute psychiatric wards in different hospitals. Non-participant observations provided a context for the interview data. Measures of the Ward Atmosphere Scale, the Hospital-Hostel Practices Profile, ward incidents and levels of as required (PRN) medication were obtained. The analysis of the quantitative data was assisted by spss, and the qualitative analysis by QSR *NUDIST. Thematic and interpretative phenomenological methods were used in the analysis of the qualitative data. A series of 11 interrelated concepts emerged from an analysis of the data, and a synthesis of the main themes. This paper focuses on the results and recommendations that emerged from the quantitative and qualitative patient data. A further paper will focus on nurses' perceptions of the same topics.

This is the accepted version of the paper.This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. Permanent

Absconding from acute psychiatric wards is a significant clinical problem that can place patients and others at risk, as well as being burdensome and anxiety provoking for staff. Previous studies have not convincingly demonstrated the best way to minimize the frequency of absconding. The aim of this trial was to evaluate the impact of an intervention to reduce absconding by patients from partially locked acute psychiatric wards. Five acute psychiatric wards in one hospital were entered into a stepped, before-and-after controlled trial. Following 3 months at baseline, nursing staff on the wards were trained in the intervention and monitored in its execution for the next 3 months. Absconding and violent incidents were recorded by nursing staff through shift reports and validated against officially collected forms. Absconding reduced by 25% overall during the intervention period, a fall which was statistically significant. Three out of the five wards implemented the intervention effectively and two of these achieved decreases in their absconding. The other two wards were not able to consistently implement the intervention, and their absconding rates remained unchanged. The findings support the efficacy of the intervention in reducing absconding. Further research is now required to replicate these findings, and to confirm that any reductions are maintained over time.

Very little research evidence is available regarding current safety and security procedures on acute psychiatric wards. This includes controversial areas such as the temporary removal of personal property, the searching of patients and visitors, the use of alarms and modern technology, and locking of entrances to regulate those entering and leaving. This is also despite widening dismay over increasing violence within a variety of hospital settings, the comparatively high risk of physical assault faced by mental health professionals and an abundance of literature and training in regards to violence management and prevention. To gain an understanding of current safety and security measures, a London-wide survey of acute admission wards was undertaken revealing a wide variety of measures and policies in operation. Over 100 NHS and private wards were sent questionnaires; there was a response rate of 70%. Results show that a significant proportion of acute admission wards are now locked at all times and a small proportion of units have 24-hour security/reception staff on-site and a low level of modern technology usage such as CCTV and electronic access systems. There is wide variation in items banned, restrictions placed on inpatients, and the searching of patients and visitors. Two independently varying emphases of ward security policies were identifiable, the first aimed at preventing harm to patients using door security, banning of item and restrictions on inpatients. The other is aimed at reducing risks to staff via searching of patients, use of security guards and sophisticated alarm systems. There is some preliminary evidence that these security policies are differentially associated with levels of absconding and violent incidents. Further research to guide practice is urgently required.