Purpose: The Joint Crisis Plan (JCP) has received growing interest in clinical and research settings. JCP is a type of psychiatric advance statement that describes how to recognize early signs of crisis and how to manage crises. The purpose of the present study, to our knowledge the first to be conducted on this topic in the French-speaking context and to include inpatients, was to describe the content of JCPs and how they are perceived by patients and the providers.Methods: The study used an exploratory, mixed, sequential method. Existing JCPs were retrospectively collected in several clinical contexts (hospital, community settings, and sheltered accommodation). Based on their analyses, we conducted semi-structured interviews including some rating scales on the perception of the JCPs among patients and providers in these settings. For the qualitative analyses, content analyses were conducted with a hybrid approach using NVivo 12 software. Data were double-coded and discussed with a third researcher until agreement was reached.Results: One hundred eighty-four JCPs were collected retrospectively and 24 semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 patients and 12 providers. No relatives could be included in the research process. The content of the studied JCPs was relevant and indicated that patients had good knowledge of themselves and their illness. Improvements in the quality of the therapeutic relationship, respect for patients' choices and wishes, and a greater sense of control of their illness were reported. The JCP was perceived as a very useful tool by patients and providers. Concerning JCP limitations, lack of staff training, difficulties with the shared decision-making process, and the poor availability of the JCPs when needed were reported.Conclusion: The study highlights that JCPs may be used with patients suffering from a large variety of psychiatric disorders in different care settings. The JCP is perceived as very useful by both patients and providers. The promising results of this study support the promotion of the wide use of JCPs with patients who have experienced crises. It is important to continue to research JCPs through impact studies that include family members.

Background In reaction to weaknesses in feasibility studies reporting, the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement published an extension for feasibility studies in 2016. Aim The aim of this study was to systematically review and appraise the reporting of feasibility studies in the nursing intervention research literature based on the CONSORT statement extension for feasibility studies. Method Papers published prior to January 2018 that described feasibility studies of nursing interventions were retrieved. Components of feasibility studies were coded, and code frequencies were analysed. Results The review included 186 papers. Although most papers ( n = 142, 76.3%) included the label ‘pilot’ or ‘feasibility’ in their title, reporting for other components generally did not adhere to one or several CONSORT recommendations. Most papers reported objectives ( n = 116, 62.4%), designs ( n = 95, 51%), or rationales for sample size ( n = 165, 88.7%) that were incongruent with the purpose of feasibility studies. Discussion This review results in two main implications for nursing research. First, we noted that the reporting of feasibility studies is weak. While all papers described feasibility studies, almost half focused exclusively on testing the effectiveness of an intervention. Second, we identified rationales for sample size along with key references that could offer guidance in reporting feasibility studies while being coherent with the CONSORT recommendations.

Accessible Summary What is known about the subject? The evaluation of nurse care practices poses many challenges, including the identification of all the aspects of the care given. Few studies have looked at the scope of nursing practice in psychiatry. However, the evaluation of care practices in the mental health field poses many challenges, including the identification of all aspects of care. What the document adds to existing knowledge? Findings demonstrated that mental health nurses do not invest in all domains of their scope of practice in the same way and the time spent with patients is low. Several factors contributed to this, including the increasing complexity of care, stagnant staffing levels, and a culture of care that continues to be influenced by the medical model. Current models of care still retain the stigma of this past, prioritizing medically delegated tasks rather than promoting a holistic approach to care. Although the professional identity of nurses is evolving and asserting itself, the paradigm shift in practice is still incomplete. What are the implications for practice? It is essential to describe concretely what is actually expected of nurses, to help them allocate their time effectively and to identify opportunities for improvement. The field of practice of nurses is put under stress by a demanding work environment subject to many pressures and constraints. Changing practices so that nurses can use the full scope of nursing practice requires strong nursing leadership and action on education and the organization of care, particularly on clinical assessment. Abstract IntroductionThe evaluation of nursing care practices poses many challenges, including identifying all the aspects of the care given. However, few studies have examined the scope of nursing practice in psychiatry. AimThe aim of this study was to describe the intensity of nursing activities on a psychiatric unit based on the adaptation of Déry and D'Amour's (2017, Perspect Infirm Rev Off Ordre Infirm Qué, 14, 51) Scope of Nursing Practice Model. MethodThis 56‐day descriptive observational study used the time and motion method to follow eight nurses. Results500 h of observations were carried out. The greatest lengths of time were allocated to communication and coordination of care activities and to “non‐healthcare” domains. Less time was devoted to activities related to clinical evaluation and therapeutic education. DiscussionFindings demonstrated that MHNs do not perform all the possible functions in the domains of their scope of practice in the same way, and time spent with patients was short. Several factors contributed to this, including the fact that nurses are working in increasingly demanding care settings that keep them under constant pressure.

Deinstitutionalization in psychiatry led to a decrease in hospital beds, short hospital admissions focussed on symptoms reduction, and the development of ambulatory care. However, the needs of patients who despite symptoms reduction do not display the minimal competencies to live alone or in a sheltered accommodation, are not met in such a context. They usually go through long admissions and fail to improve. In 2016, we implemented a new inpatient program focused on fostering the development of the competencies needed to adapt to living outside the hospital; the aim of this study was to evaluate if it lead to the resolution of these situations or in contrary if it turned into a long stay unit. 116 patients admitted to the program between 2016 and 2018 were included in the study. They were psychiatric inpatients who had no home, did not find a place in a sheltered accommodation and couldn't be discharged. In the majority of cases, the situation was resolved within 180 days and the majority of patients was referred to a sheltered accommodation. Functional and symptom levels improved significantly over time. A specific focus on restoring competencies to live outside of hospital allows complex patients to improve their functional level and to find a place to live in the community within a relatively short time. While deinstitutionalization has been beneficial to the vast majority of patients, denying the specific needs of a minority of patients leads to unnecessary long and inefficient hospital admissions.

No abstract