There is an increased interest in exploring the use of sensory rooms in psychiatric inpatient care. Sensory rooms can provide stimulation via sight, smell, hearing, touch and taste in a demand-free environment that is controlled by the patient. The rooms may reduce patients' distress and agitation, as well as rates of seclusion and restraint. Successful implementation of sensory rooms is influenced by the attitudes and approach of staff. This paper presents a study of the experiences of 126 staff members who worked with sensory rooms in a Swedish inpatient psychiatry setting. A cross-sectional descriptive survey design was used. Data were collected by a web based self-report 12-item questionnaire that included both open- and closed-ended questions. Our findings strengthen the results of previous research in this area in many ways. Content analyses revealed three main categories: hopes and concerns, focusing on patients' self-care, and the room as a sanctuary. Although staff initially described both negative and positive expectations of sensory rooms, after working with the rooms, there was a strong emphasis on more positive experiences, such as letting go of control and observing an increase in patients' self-confidence, emotional self-care and well-being. Our findings support the important principals of person-centred nursing and recovery-oriented mental health and the ability of staff to implement these principles by working with sensory rooms.

The use of sensory rooms and similar sensory approaches in psychiatric inpatient settings is becoming increasingly common. In sensory rooms, patients can choose different sensory stimulating items that may help regulate distress and enhance well-being. Outcomes are often measured as effects on patients' self-rated distress and rates of seclusion and restraint. The subjective experiences of patients using sensory rooms have been less explored. This paper presents a qualitative study of the experiences of 28 patients who chose to use sensory rooms on seven different types of psychiatric inpatient wards. Data were collected by individual patient interviews and by texts written by patients. A qualitative content analysis resulted in four categories: emotional calm, bodily calm, empowerment, and unexpected effects. A majority of the participants described several positive experiences, such as enhanced well-being, reduced anxiety, increased self-management, and enhanced self-esteem. Our findings align with previous research that has shown similar positive patient experiences, and support the use of sensory rooms as part of person-centred care.

BackgroundThe study aimed to investigate the meaning patients assign to two measures of quality of life: the Schedule for Evaluation of Individual Quality of Life Direct Weighting (SEIQoL-DW) and the SEIQoL-DW Disease Related (DR) version, in a clinical oncology setting. Even though the use of quality of life assessments has increased during the past decades, uncertainty regarding how to choose the most suitable measure remains. SEIQoL-DW versions assesses the individual’s perception of his or her present quality of life by allowing the individual to nominate the domains to be evaluated followed by a weighting procedure resulting in qualitative (domains) as well as quantitative outcomes (index score).MethodsThe study applied a cross-sectional design with a qualitative approach and collected data from a purposeful sample of 40 patients with gastrointestinal cancer. Patients were asked to complete two measures, SEIQoL-DW and the SEIQoL-DR, to assess quality of life. This included nomination of the areas in life considered most important and rating of these areas; after completion patients participated in cognitive interviews around their selections of areas. Interviews were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim which was followed by analysis using a phenomenographic approach.ResultsThe analyses of nominated areas of the two measures resulted in 11 domains reflecting what patients perceived had greatest impact on their quality of life. Analysis of the cognitive interviews resulted in 16 thematic categories explaining the nominated domains. How patients reflected around their quality of life appeared to differ by version (DW vs. DR). The DW version more often related to positive aspects in life while the DR version more often related to negative changes in life due to having cancer.ConclusionsThe two SEIQoL versions tap into different concepts; health-related quality of life, addressing losses and problems related to having cancer and, quality of life, more associated with aspects perceived as positive in life. The SEIQoL-DR and the SEIQoL-DW are recommended in clinical practice to take both negative and positive aspects into account and acting on the problems of greatest importance to the patient.

No abstract