No abstract

This is the accepted version of the paper.This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. to ascertain those factors most strongly associated with verbal aggression, aggression towards objects and physical aggression against others. High levels of aggression were associated with a high proportion of patients formally detained under mental health legislation, high patient turnover, alcohol use by patients, ward doors being locked, and higher staffing numbers (especially qualified nurses). The findings suggest that the imposition of restrictions on patients exacerbates the problem of violence, and that alcohol management strategies may be a productive intervention. Permanent repository linkInsufficient evidence is available to draw conclusions about the nature of the link between staffing numbers and violence.3

No abstract

Accessible summary • An extensive review of empirical literature (n = 39) on patient and staff perceptions of seclusion in psychiatric inpatient settings was undertaken. • Patients perceived seclusion negatively while staff perceived it to be therapeutic and vital for the running of inpatient units. • Better communication, more contact with patients and staff engaging with patients before during and after a seclusion episode were suggestions for improvements to care processes. Abstract This review explores patient and staff perceptions and improvement suggestions regarding seclusion in psychiatric inpatient settings. After an extensive literature search, 39 empirical papers were included in the review. According to the literature, patients perceived seclusion to be a distinct negative incident. Staff thought seclusion had a therapeutic effect and believed that units could not operate effectively without seclusion, but regretted that the situation was not resolved differently. Staff and patients had suggestions to improve the seclusion experience. Common themes in relation to the implications for practice are the need for better communication and more contact between patients and staff before, during and after the seclusion event.

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 ObjectiveThis review examines nature and effectiveness of interventions to reduce the use of mechanical restraint and seclusion among adult psychiatric inpatients. MethodElectronic searches were conducted to locate post-1960 empirical studies of restraint and seclusion reduction in English. A total of 36 studies were identified, mostly from the USA. Analysis was conducted using a structured data extraction tool. ResultsThe majority of studies reported reduced levels or mechanical restraint and/or seclusion, but the standard of evidence was poor. There were no randomised trials.Most were retrospective studies of official records before and after the intervention was introduced, with varying follow-up periods. The interventions were diverse, but tended to include one or more of the following: new restraint and/or seclusion policies, staffing changes, staff training, review procedures and crisis management initiatives. The research was unable to address which of these elements was most effective. There was also evidence that some improved outcomes were achieved by substituting restraint or seclusion for each other or for alternatives forms of containment (medication in particular). Nurses' attitudes, skills and approach to patient care were absent from the literature. Conclusions 3Interventions probably can reduce the use of restraint and seclusion, but better designed research is required to demonstrate their effectiveness conclusively. More attention should also be paid to understanding how interventions work, particularly from the perspective of nursing staff. This is essential to the successful implementation of restraint and seclusion interventions across different psychiatric settings and treatment populations.4

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

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