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.

BackgroundSeclusion and restraint are interventions currently permitted for use in mental health services to control or manage a person’s behaviour. In Australia, serious concerns about the use of such seclusion and restraint have been raised at least since 1993. Consumers and their supporters have also expressed strong views about the harm of these practices. This paper presents the results of ten focus group discussions with people with lived experience of mental health issues and also carers, family members and support persons in relation to the use of seclusion and restraint.MethodsThe 30 consumers and 36 supporters participating in the focus groups convened in four Australian cities and one regional centre discussed their understandings of the use of seclusion and restraint and its impact on the people involved. Participants also presented their observations about poor practice and what contributes to it as well as providing ideas and recommendations regarding strategies to reduce or eliminate seclusion and restraint. Focus group discussions were recorded and transcribed, then analysed using the NVivo 10 qualitative data analysis software with a general inductive approach used to analyse data. This analysis enabled consideration of the responses to key questions in the focus groups as well as the identification of emerging themes.ResultsSix themes emerged from the analysis, these being: human rights, trauma, control, isolation, dehumanisation and ‘othering’, and anti-recovery. Examples of poor practice identified by focus groups included the use of excessive force, lack of empathy/paternalistic attitudes, lack of communication and interaction and a lack of alternative strategies to the use of seclusion and restraint. There was a confluence of factors identified by participants as contributing to poor practice, with the main factors being organisational culture, the physical environment, under-resourced mental health services and fear and stigma.ConclusionsFocus group participants in the main viewed seclusion and restraint practices in mental health settings as unnecessarily overused, exacerbating problems for individuals, carers, staff and the broader system of care. This study highlights that lived experience of both consumers and their supporters can make an important contribution to mental health services and its ongoing reform.

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.

There was strong agreement across participant groups that the use of seclusion and restraint is harmful, breaches human rights and compromises the therapeutic relationship and trust between mental health service providers and those who experience these restrictive practices. However, some benefits were also identified, particularly by professionals. Participants had mixed views regarding the feasibility and desirability of eliminating these practices.

No abstract

Background Recovery-oriented practice promotes the strengths and recovery potential of individuals. We aimed to establish whether individuals who access mental health services where staff have received the REFOCUS-PULSAR intervention, an adaptation of the UK's REFOCUS recovery-oriented staff intervention for use in Australia, show increased recovery compared with people using non-intervention services.Methods We did a pragmatic, two-step, stepped-wedge, randomised controlled trial at 18 sites grouped into 14 clusters across public mental health services and mental health community support services in Victoria, Australia. Eligible staff were working part-time or full-time in a direct service role at one of the 18 sites and had consumers being recruited for this study. Eligible consumers were receiving care from a participating cluster, with contact in the 3 months before data collection; aged 18-75 years; and not imprisoned. Clusters were randomly assigned with a webbased randomisation tool to receive the REFOCUS-PULSAR intervention in either the first year (step one) or second year (step two). Consumers, but not staff, were masked to treatment assignment. The primary outcome was the Questionnaire about the Process of Recovery (QPR), for which cross-sectional data were collected across three timepoints (baseline [T0], year 1 [T1], and year 2 [T2]). The primary analysis was done by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ANZCTR, number ACTRN12614000957695. Findings 190 staff (111 from public mental health services and 79 from mental health community support services) received the REFOCUS-PULSAR recovery-oriented training intervention. Between Sept 18, 2014, and May 19, 2017, 942 consumers were recruited across the three timepoints (T0: n=301; T1: n=334; T2: n=307). The mean QPR score was 53•6 (SD 16•3) in the control group and 54•4 (16•2) in the intervention group (adjusted difference 3•7, 95% CI 0•5-6•8; p=0•023). The Cohen's d value for the intervention effect was small (d=0•23).Interpretation The REFOCUS-PULSAR intervention had a small but significant effect on the QPRs of individuals using community mental health services and might be effective in promotion of recovery-oriented practice across sectors.Funding Victorian Government Mental Illness Research Fund.

National Health and Medical Research Council.