The British Association for Psychopharmacology and the National Association of Psychiatric Intensive Care and Low Secure Units developed this joint evidence-based consensus guideline for the clinical management of acute disturbance. It includes recommendations for clinical practice and an algorithm to guide treatment by healthcare professionals with various options outlined according to their route of administration and category of evidence. Fundamental overarching principles are included and highlight the importance of treating the underlying disorder. There is a focus on three key interventions: de-escalation, pharmacological interventions pre-rapid tranquillisation and rapid tranquillisation (intramuscular and intravenous). Most of the evidence reviewed relates to emergency psychiatric care or acute psychiatric adult inpatient care, although we also sought evidence relevant to other common clinical settings including the general acute hospital and forensic psychiatry. We conclude that the variety of options available for the management of acute disturbance goes beyond the standard choices of lorazepam, haloperidol and promethazine and includes oral-inhaled loxapine, buccal midazolam, as well as a number of oral antipsychotics in addition to parenteral options of intramuscular aripiprazole, intramuscular droperidol and intramuscular olanzapine. Intravenous options, for settings where resuscitation equipment and trained staff are available to manage medical emergencies, are also included.

No abstract

Purpose There are high levels of psychiatric morbidity amongst people in prisons. In England and Wales, prisoners who present with the most acute mental health needs can be transferred to hospital urgently under part III of the Mental Health Act 1983. This project reviewed all such transfers within one region of England, with an emphasis on differences across levels of security. Design/methodology/approach Over a six-year period (2010–2016) within one region of England, 930 psychiatric referrals were received from seven male prisons. From these referrals, 173 (18.5%) secure hospital transfers were required. Diagnostic and basic demographic information were analysed, along with hospital security categorisation (high secure, medium secure, low secure, psychiatric intensive care unit and other) and total time to transfer in days. Findings There were substantial delays to urgent hospital transfer across all levels of hospital security. Prisoners were transferred to the following units: medium security (n = 98, 56.9%); psychiatric intensive care units (PICUs) (n = 34, 19.7%); low secure conditions (n = 20, 11.6%); high secure conditions (n = 12, 6.9%); other (n = 9, 5.2%). Mean transfer times were as follows: high secure = 159.6 days; other = 68.8 days; medium secure = 58.6 days; low secure = 54.8 days; and psychiatric intensive care = 16.1 days. Research limitations/implications In keeping with the wider literature in this area, transfers of prisoners to hospital were very delayed across all levels of secure psychiatric hospital care. Mean transfer times were in breach of the national 14-day timescale, although transfers to PICUs were quicker than to other units. National work, including research and service pilots, is required to understand whether and how these transfer times might be improved. Originality/value This paper extends the available literature on the topic of transferring prisoners with mental illness who require compulsory treatment. There is a small but developing literature in this area, and this paper largely confirms that delays to hospital transfer remain a serious problem in England and Wales. National work, including research and service pilots, is required to understand whether and how these transfer times might be improved. This could include different referral and transfer models as a component of service-based and pathways research or combining referral pathways across units to improve their efficacy.

No abstract

This article presents an extended literature review, undertaken to understand the significance of self-compassion for health professionals' wellbeing and its relevance for the health visiting workforce. The review showed that self-compassion reduces compassion fatigue, burnout, anxiety, stress and depression. Further, self-compassionate employees are more compassionate towards colleagues and patients, and compassionate practice enhances staff wellbeing. Organisational support for wellbeing increases staff members' sense of worth, resulting in improved ownership of their own wellbeing, and group interventions in particular foster self-compassionate work cultures. The review concludes that self-compassion enhances staff wellbeing and recommends that all NHS staff should be provided with the tools to prevent compassion fatigue and burnout.