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.

This paper critiques the Safewards model through the lens of lived experiences of psychiatric hospitalization, diagnosis of mental illness, and distress. Special focus is given to the model's tested 10 interventions and to five lesser known interventions, identifying the impact they can have on hospitalized consumers. We highlight the role and prevalence of trauma, as well as the need to prevent harm in hospital settings. We draw upon notions of hospital as a sanctuary for people and the importance of providing a safe ward. ‘Sanctuary harm’ and ‘Sanctuary trauma’ are thus defined, with emphasis placed on the Safewards interventions as means by which sanctuary can be achieved. Finally, the consumer‐perspective authors propose expansions to the model, critiquing the defining literature and moving towards a consumer experience of safety that is beyond the model’s original intention: to reduce seclusion and restraint practices. Throughout the paper, the term ‘consumer’ is used in this context to mean people who have experienced or are experiencing psychiatric inpatient care.

No abstract

As part of a larger multi‐site translational research project this study explored patient and staff experiences, perspectives, and recommendations in relation to a mental health liaison nursing (MHLN) team established in the emergency department (ED) of a metropolitan hospital in New South Wales, Australia. Semi‐structured interviews were conducted with a sample of ED patients (n = 26), ED nurses (n = 10), ED consultants (n = 9), and members of the consultation–liaison psychiatry team (n = 5). Data were analysed thematically. Patients emphasized the numerous therapeutic qualities of the MHLN role, the promptness with which they were seen and the value of follow‐up. Privacy was identified as important, and some negative experiences were reported. Staff identified that the MHLN team are able to respond to a variety of ED presentations in a timely manner. There was recognition that the MHLN team needs to be integrated within the ED as a specialist resource that builds ED capacity. Consistent staffing of the MHLN team with designated clinicians was also considered essential. Integrating a nurse practitioner‐led MHLN team within the ED has demonstrated multiple benefits for patients, ED staff, and overall service provision. Incorporating a specialist mental health nursing service within the ED builds confidence in ED clinicians. Members of the psychiatry team also acknowledge the value of aligning the clinical governance of the MHLN team within the ED and the reduced workload this model of care has on their service provision to ED, freeing them up to concentrate on their broader general hospital role.

Conducting and documenting a mental health assessment is considered a central activity from a clinical and organizational perspective. In recent years, thinking and practice in mental health service delivery has changed considerably to embrace principles of recovery, trauma‐informed care, and strengths‐based approaches. The aim of the present study was to determine the degree to which these concepts are reflected in the content of assessment formats across mental health services in Australia and New Zealand. Copies of mental health assessments used in each state and territory in Australia, and three District Health Boards in New Zealand were obtained. Assessment formats were compared for similarities and differences, and to determine whether concepts of recovery, trauma‐informed care, and strengths‐based approaches were incorporated. The assessment formats analysed (n = 11) contained many traditional features targeted at identifying harms, problems, risks, and pathology. Some attempts to redress this discrepancy were evident. Overall, assessment formats did not adequately voice the individual’s perspective or promote a truly comprehensive assessment through an exploration of individual strengths, skills and abilities, past successes, and future hopes. Assessment formats across Australia and New Zealand are not currently aligned with contemporary thinking and practice in mental health care. Given the heavy influence that mental health assessment has on clinical decision making in particular, a reappraisal of the focus and content of formats used is urgently required.