Very little research evidence is available regarding current safety and security procedures on acute psychiatric wards. This includes controversial areas such as the temporary removal of personal property, the searching of patients and visitors, the use of alarms and modern technology, and locking of entrances to regulate those entering and leaving. This is also despite widening dismay over increasing violence within a variety of hospital settings, the comparatively high risk of physical assault faced by mental health professionals and an abundance of literature and training in regards to violence management and prevention. To gain an understanding of current safety and security measures, a London-wide survey of acute admission wards was undertaken revealing a wide variety of measures and policies in operation. Over 100 NHS and private wards were sent questionnaires; there was a response rate of 70%. Results show that a significant proportion of acute admission wards are now locked at all times and a small proportion of units have 24-hour security/reception staff on-site and a low level of modern technology usage such as CCTV and electronic access systems. There is wide variation in items banned, restrictions placed on inpatients, and the searching of patients and visitors. Two independently varying emphases of ward security policies were identifiable, the first aimed at preventing harm to patients using door security, banning of item and restrictions on inpatients. The other is aimed at reducing risks to staff via searching of patients, use of security guards and sophisticated alarm systems. There is some preliminary evidence that these security policies are differentially associated with levels of absconding and violent incidents. Further research to guide practice is urgently required.

Psychiatric intensive care units (PICUs) were first developed in the UK in the early 1970s and have become an integral part of inpatient services. This paper reviews all aspects of PICU provision from its origins to the most recent studies of intensive care treatment and philosophy. A search of CINAHL, MEDLINE and British Nursing Index databases revealed ample research and discussion papers from the past 30 years to permit a thorough review of the available literature. This divides roughly into discussion and descriptive research on topics related to: (a) the infrastructure of PICUs, including bed numbers, staffing levels, admission criteria and aspects of the physical environment; and (b) the treatment provided to patients on the PICU, both pharmacological and psychosocial, plus a limited amount of evaluative research on the efficacy of PICU care. This paper provides a summary and overview of these issues based upon currently available literature. It concludes that there is strong evidence for wide variation in the provision and nature of PICU care, reflecting idiosyncratic and localized development of services. Moreover, there is an almost complete lack of evidence on the efficacy of PICU care for particular types of patients and problems, leaving a paucity of research upon which PICU infrastructure, policy and therapeutic approach can be based.

Aim: To explore and investigate differences between the views of qualified nurses working in psychiatric intensive care units (PICUs) and acute care wards on which patients are appropriate for PICU care.Background: Previous research on the area of psychiatric intensive care highlights the great differences that exist in all aspects of service provision, from unit size and staffing levels to treatment approaches and physical environment. One of the most common areas of controversy is the type of client behaviour that warrants admission to the PICU. Method: Structured interviews of 100 qualified nursing staff (in the London area, England) working on either acute or PICU wards were used to gather data on appropriate and inappropriate referral to PICUs. Comments made during the course of the interviews were also collected and subjected to content analysis.Findings: There was evidence to support the hypothesis that acute ward staff considered patients suitable for PICU care at a lower level of risk than PICU staff thought appropriate. In comparison to acute ward nurses, those working in PICUs attended to a broader range of factors when considering suitability for admission to PICU. Appropriate reasons for transfer fell into five groups: risk to others; risk of intentional harm to self; risk of unintentional harm to self; therapeutic benefit from the PICU environment; and legitimate acute ward care problem. Inappropriate reasons for transfer fell into four groups: low risk to others and/or self; illegitimate acute admission care problems; patient belongs elsewhere; policy issues. Conclusion:The study opens up a range of issues not previously studied in relation to the use of PICUs and the intricate relationship of this use with the available acute care wards and other services. These findings and their implications for the care of acute and disturbed psychiatric patients are discussed.

Objective:  To review the strengths and weaknesses of existing violent incident measures, and introduce a new scale, the ‘attacks’. The new scale provides an objective measure of incident severity and focuses on interpersonal physical violence in isolation from other behaviours. Method:  The new scale was piloted on six psychiatric wards in the East End of London over a period of 16 weeks. Descriptive data were obtained and validated against official violent incident records. Results:  There were 40 incidents by 21 aggressive patients, most of which occurred on the psychiatric intensive care unit. Striking assaults predominated. Continuous holding of the patient by nurses occurred after 17% of incidents. Special observation was also used as a subsequent management method in more than half of the incidents. Conclusion:  The scale is acceptable to nurses and valid. Interesting questions are raised about the content of training for staff in the prevention and management of violent incidents.

No abstract