Restrictive practices are used in response to conflict and aggression in psychiatric inpatient settings. Reducing such practices is the focus internationally of policy and legislative change, many initiatives, and a growing body of research. Safewards is a model and a set of 10 interventions designed to reduce conflict and containment in inpatient services. In the current study, we aimed to assess the impact of implementing Safewards on seclusion in Victorian inpatient mental health services in Australia. The study used a before-and-after design, with a comparison group matched for service type. Thirteen wards opted into a 12-week trial to implement Safewards and 1-year follow up. The comparison group was all other wards (n = 31) with seclusion facilities in the jurisdiction, matched to service type. Mandatorily-reported seclusion event data for all 44 wards over a 15-month period were analysed using negative binomial regression. Adherence to Safewards was measured via fidelity checklists at four time points: twice during the trial, post-trial, and at 1-year follow up. Seclusion rates were reduced by 36% in Safewards trial wards by the 12-month follow-up period (incidence rate ratios (IRR) = 0.64,) but in the comparison wards seclusion rates did not differ from baseline to post-trial (IRR = 1.17) or to follow-up period (IRR = 1.35). Fidelity analysis revealed a trajectory of increased use of Safewards interventions after the trial phase to follow up. The findings suggest that Safewards is appropriate for practice change in Victorian inpatient mental health services more broadly than adult acute wards, and is effective in reducing the use of seclusion.

Background: Inpatient mental health wards are reported by many consumers to be custodial, unsafe, and lacking in therapeutic relationships. These consumer experiences are concerning, given international policy directives requiring recovery-oriented practice. Safewards is both a model and a suite of interventions designed to improve safety for consumers and staff. Positive results in reducing seclusion have been reported. However, the voice of consumers has been absent from the literature regarding Safewards in practice. Aim: To describe the impact of Safewards on consumer experiences of inpatient mental health services. Method: A postintervention survey was conducted with 72 consumers in 10 inpatient mental health wards 9–12 months after Safewards was implemented. Results: Quantitative data showed that participants felt more positive about their experience of an inpatient unit, safer, and more connected with nursing staff. Participants reported that the impact of verbal and physical aggression had reduced because of Safewards. Qualitatively, participants reported increased respect, hope, sense of community, and safety and reduced feelings of isolation. Some participants raised concerns about the language and intention of some interventions being condescending. Discussion: Consumers’ responses to Safewards were positive, highlighting numerous improvements of importance to consumers since its implementation across a range of ward types. The findings suggest that Safewards offers a pathway to reducing restrictive interventions and enables a move toward recovery-oriented practice.

Introduction: Mental health professionals working in acute inpatient mental health wards are involved in a complex interplay between an espoused commitment by government and organizational policy to be recovery-oriented and a persistent culture of risk management and tolerance of restrictive practices. This tension is overlain on their own professional drive to deliver person-centered care and the challenging environment of inpatient wards. Safewards is designed to reduce conflict and containment through the implementation of 10 interventions that serve to improve the relationship between staff and consumers. The aim of the current study was to understand the impact of Safewards from the perspectives of the staff. Methods: One hundred and three staff from 14 inpatient mental health wards completed a survey 12 months after the implementation of Safewards. Staff represented four service settings: adolescent, adult, and aged acute and secure extended care units. Results: Quantitative results from the survey indicate that staff believed there to be a reduction in physical and verbal aggression since the introduction of Safewards. Staff were more positive about being part of the ward and felt safer and more connected with consumers. Qualitative data highlight four key themes regarding the model and interventions: structured and relevant; conflict prevention and reducing restrictive practices; ward culture change; and promotes recovery principles. Discussion: This study found that from the perspective of staff, Safewards contributes to a reduction in conflict events and is an acceptable practice change intervention. Staff perspectives concur with those of consumers regarding an equalizing of staff consumer relationships and the promotion of more recovery-oriented care in acute inpatient mental health services.

Background: Safewards is a complex psychosocial intervention designed to reduce conflict and containment on inpatient mental health units. There is mounting international evidence of the effectiveness and acceptability of Safewards. However, a significant challenge exists in promising interventions, such as Safewards, being translated into routine practice. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) provides a framework through which to understand implementation in complex health service environments. The aim was to inform more effective implementation of Safewards using the CFIR domains and constructs, capitalizing on developing an understanding of variations across wards.Method: Seven Safewards Leads completed the Training and Implementation Diary for 18 wards that opted in to a trial of Safewards. Fidelity Checklist scores were used to categorize low, medium and high implementers of Safewards at the end of the 12-week implementation period.Results: Qualitative data from the diaries were analyzed thematically and coded according to the five CFIR domains which included 39 constructs. Twenty-six constructs across the five domains were highlighted within the data to have acted as a barrier or enabler. Further analysis revealed that six constructs distinguished between low, medium, and high implementing wards.Discussion: Our findings suggest that for implementation of Safewards to succeed, particular attention needs to be paid to engagement of key staff including managers, making training a priority for all ward staff, adequate planning of the process of implementation and creating an environment on each inpatient unit that prioritize and enables Safewards interventions to be undertaken by staff regularly.

This paper critiques the Safewards model through the lens of lived experiences of psychiatric hospitalization, diagnosis of mental illness, and distress. Special focus is given to the model's tested 10 interventions and to five lesser known interventions, identifying the impact they can have on hospitalized consumers. We highlight the role and prevalence of trauma, as well as the need to prevent harm in hospital settings. We draw upon notions of hospital as a sanctuary for people and the importance of providing a safe ward. ‘Sanctuary harm’ and ‘Sanctuary trauma’ are thus defined, with emphasis placed on the Safewards interventions as means by which sanctuary can be achieved. Finally, the consumer‐perspective authors propose expansions to the model, critiquing the defining literature and moving towards a consumer experience of safety that is beyond the model’s original intention: to reduce seclusion and restraint practices. Throughout the paper, the term ‘consumer’ is used in this context to mean people who have experienced or are experiencing psychiatric inpatient care.

Patients who receive care through the ATAPS projects are making considerable clinical gains. A range of socio-demographic, clinical and treatment-based variables are associated with the levels of outcomes achieved, but improvements are still substantial even for those in the relatively disadvantaged groups.

People living with severe mental illness (SMI) are one of the most marginalized groups in society. Interventions which aim to improve their social and economic participation are of crucial importance to clinicians, policy‐makers and people with SMI themselves. We conducted a systematic review of the literature on social interventions for people with SMI published since 2016 and collated our findings through narrative synthesis. We found an encouragingly large amount of research in this field, and 72 papers met our inclusion criteria. Over half reported on the effectiveness of interventions delivered at the service level (supported accommodation, education or employment), while the remainder targeted individuals directly (community participation, family interventions, peer‐led/supported interventions, social skills training). We identified good evidence for the Housing First model of supported accommodation, for the Individual Placement and Support model of supported employment, and for family psychoeducation, with the caveat that a range of models are nonetheless required to meet the varied housing, employment and family‐related needs of individuals. Our findings also highlighted the importance of contextual factors and the need to make local adaptations when “importing” interventions from elsewhere. We found that augmentation strategies to enhance the effectiveness of social interventions (particularly supported employment and social skills training) by addressing cognitive impairments did not lead to transferable “real life” skills despite improvements in cognitive function. We also identified an emerging evidence base for peer‐led/supported interventions, recovery colleges and other interventions to support community participation. We concluded that social interventions have considerable benefits but are arguably the most complex in the mental health field, and require multi‐level stakeholder commitment and investment for successful implementation.

There has been a shift towards provision of mental health care in community‐based settings in Australia. However, hospitals continue to care for people in acute mental health wards. An increasing proportion of the people in wards are admitted involuntarily, subject to restrictions of movement to minimize risk of harm to self and others. In response to concerns about the safety of people absconding from care, Queensland Health introduced a policy requiring all acute mental health wards in the State to be locked. In response, the Queensland Mental Health Commission funded a project to understand the impact of this policy and develop evidence‐based recommendations regarding provision of least restrictive, recovery‐oriented practices in acute wards. Facilitated forums were conducted with 35 purposively selected participants who identified as consumers, carers, or staff of acute mental health hospital wards, to test the acceptability, feasibility, and face validity of a set of evidence‐informed recommendations for providing least restrictive, recovery‐oriented practices. Participant responses were recorded, and data were analysed through an inductive, thematic approach. A recovery‐oriented approach was supported by all stakeholders. Reducing boredom and increasing availability of peer support workers were considered key to achieving this. Focusing less on risk aversion was reported as central to enabling true Recovery Orientation. This project enabled recognition of the perspectives of consumers, carers, and staff in the consideration of evidence‐informed recommendations that could be implemented to provide least restrictive care in the context of locked doors.