BackgroundGood morale among staff on inpatient psychiatric wards is an important requirement for the maintenance of strong therapeutic alliances and positive patient experiences, and for the successful implementation of initiatives to improve care. More understanding is needed of mechanisms underlying good and poor morale.MethodWe conducted individual and group interviews with staff of a full range of disciplines and levels of seniority on seven NHS in-patient wards of varying types in England.ResultsInpatient staff feel sustained in their potentially stressful roles by mutual loyalty and trust within cohesive ward teams. Clear roles, supportive ward managers and well designed organisational procedures and structures maintain good morale. Perceived threats to good morale include staffing levels that are insufficient for staff to feel safe and able to spend time with patients, the high risk of violence, and lack of voice in the wider organisation.ConclusionsIncreasing employee voice, designing jobs so as to maximise autonomy within clear and well-structured operational protocols, promoting greater staff-patient contact and improving responses to violence may contribute more to inpatient staff morale than formal support mechanisms.
BackgroundReducing treatment delay and coercive pathways to care are accepted aims for Early Intervention Services (EIS) for people experiencing first episode psychosis but how to achieve this is unclear. A one-year community awareness programme was implemented in a London EIS team, targeting staff in non-health service community organisations. The programme comprised psycho-educational workshops and EIS link workers, and offering direct referral routes to EIS. Its feasibility and its impact on duration of untreated psychosis and pathways to EIS were evaluated.MethodsEvaluation comprised: pre and post questionnaires with workshop participants assessing knowledge and attitudes to psychosis and mental health services; and a comparison of new service users’ “service DUP”(time from first psychotic symptom to first contact with EIS) and pathways to care in the intervention year and preceding year. Focus groups sought stakeholders’ views regarding the benefits and limitations of the programme and what else might promote help-seeking.Results41 workshops at 36 community organisations were attended by 367 staff. 19 follow up workshops were conducted and 16 services were allocated an EIS link worker. Participants’ knowledge and attitudes to psychosis and attitudes to mental health services improved significantly following workshops. In the year of the intervention, only 6 of 110 new service users reached EIS directly via community organisations. For all new referrals accepted by EIS, in the intervention year compared to the previous year, there was no difference in mean or median service DUP. A clear impact on pathways to care could not be discerned. Stakeholders suggested that barriers to referral remained. These included: uncertainty about the signs of early psychosis, disengagement by young people when becoming unwell, and worries about stigma or coercive treatment from mental health services. More general, youth focused, mental health services were proposed.ConclusionsThe community awareness programme did not reduce treatment delays for people experiencing first episode psychosis. Further research is needed regarding effective means to reduce duration of untreated psychosis. Although EIS services are guided to promote access through community engagement, this may not be an effective use of their limited resources.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trial ISRCTN98260910 Registered 19th May 2010.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12888-015-0485-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
A note on versions:The version presented here may differ from the published version or, version of record, if you wish to cite this item you are advised to consult the publisher's version. Please see the 'permanent WRAP url' above for details on accessing the published version and note that access may require a subscription.
Locating psychiatric wards in general hospitals has long been seen in many countries as a key element in the reform of services to promote community integration of the mentally ill. In the UK, however, this is no longer a policy priority, and the recent trend has been towards small freestanding inpatient units, located either within the communities they serve, or on general hospital sites, but separate from the main building. Whether locating the psychiatric wards in the general hospital is essential to psychiatric reform has been little discussed, and we can find no relevant evidence.Perceived strengths of general hospital psychiatric wards are in normalisation of mental health problems, accessibility to local communities, better availability of physical health care resources, and integration of psychiatry with the rest of the medical profession, which may faclilitate recruitment. However, difficulties seem to have been encountered in establishing well-designed psychiatric wards with access to open space in general hospitals. Also, physical proximity may not be enough to achieve the desired reduction in stigma, and complaints from the general hospital may sometimes result in undue restrictions on psychiatric ward patients. There are strong arguments both for and against locating psychiatric wards in general hospitals: an empirical evidence base would be helpful to inform important decisions about the best setting for wards.Declaration of Interest: None.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.