Acceptability and use of coercive methods across differing service configurations with and without seclusion and/or psychiatric intensive care units

Pettit, Sophie; Bowers, Len; Tulloch, Alexander; Cullen, Alexis E.; Moylan, Lois Biggin; Sethi, Faisil; McCrone, Paul; Baker, John; Quirk, Alan; Stewart, Duncan

doi:10.1111/jan.13197

Cited by 24 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The containment methods to which the managers had the most positive attitudes were PRN medication, intermittent observation and psychiatric intensive care. This is consistent with previous reports (Table S1; Bowers et al, 2007; Pettit et al, 2017). Managers had the most negative attitudes towards net bed, which is also coherent with earlier studies (Bowers et al, 2007; Hottinen et al, 2012; Pettit et al, 2017; Reisch et al, 2018), and can be explained by the fact that this method is not used in Finland or any previously studied country (Bowers et al, 2004).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 94%

“…The possible ratings range from strongly agree (1) to strongly disagree (5). Some previous studies used a different rating system in which scores of 1 and 5 indicate strong disagreement and strong agreement, respectively (Hottinen et al, 2012; Jalil, Huber, Sixsmith, & Dickens, 2017; Pettit et al, 2017). The system adopted in this work was chosen for the sake of consistency with the most recent study on attitudes towards the 11 methods examined in the ACMQ, which was conducted by Reisch et al (2018).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There is considerable variation in the attitudes of nursing staff towards containment methods (Laukkanen et al, 2019). Several studies have found net bed, a bed enclosed by lockable nets (Bowers et al, 2004), to be the measure with the lowest acceptance (Hottinen et al, 2012; Pettit et al, 2017; Reisch et al, 2018). Earlier research has also shown that gender and age are related to attitudes towards containment methods (Hottinen et al, 2012; Whittington, Bowers, Nolan, Simpson, & Neil, 2009).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Psychiatric nursing managers' attitudes towards containment methods in psychiatric inpatient care

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims This research was conducted to examine psychiatric nursing managers' attitudes towards containment methods. Background Nursing management is regarded as a key issue in the reduction of coercion and containment. However, there has been little research on managers' attitudes towards containment methods. Methods This descriptive, cross‐sectional study utilized a survey design. Finnish inpatient psychiatric nursing managers (n = 90) completed the Attitudes to Containment Measures Questionnaire (ACMQ). The results were described with statistics, and the associations between attitudes and background variables were analysed using parametric tests. Results Psychiatric nursing managers had the most negative attitude towards net bed and mechanical restraint, and the most positive attitudes towards as necessary medication and intermittent observation. A few associations were discovered between attitudes and background variables such as gender and number of employees. Conclusions In general, Finnish psychiatric nursing managers' attitudes towards containment methods seem to be quite negative, but more research is needed. Implications for Nursing Management This study provides fresh and unique data on the attitudes of psychiatric nursing managers towards containment methods. Managers' attitudes are important because of their ability to encourage investment in coercion reduction by nursing staff.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 94%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Psychiatric nursing managers' attitudes towards containment methods in psychiatric inpatient care

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Chapter 5 Availability and escalation pathways T his chapter has been based on data from Pettit et al 60 under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Seclusion and Psychiatric Intensive Care Evaluation Study (SPICES): combined qualitative and quantitative approaches to the uses and outcomes of coercive practices in mental health services

Bowers

Cullen

Achilla

et al. 2017

Health Serv Deliv Res

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Health Services and Delivery ResearchISSN 2050-4349 (Print) ISSN 2050-4357 (Online) This journal is a member of and subscribes to the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (www.publicationethics.org/).Editorial contact: journals.library@nihr.ac.ukThe full HS&DR archive is freely available to view online at www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/hsdr. Print-on-demand copies can be purchased from the report pages of the NIHR Journals Library website: www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk Criteria for inclusion in the Health Services and Delivery Research journalReports are published in Health Services and Delivery Research (HS&DR) if (1) they have resulted from work for the HS&DR programme or programmes which preceded the HS&DR programme, and (2) they are of a sufficiently high scientific quality as assessed by the reviewers and editors. HS&DR programmeThe Health Services and Delivery Research (HS&DR) programme, part of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), was established to fund a broad range of research. It combines the strengths and contributions of two previous NIHR research programmes: the Health Services Research (HSR) programme and the Service Delivery and Organisation (SDO) programme, which were merged in January 2012.The HS&DR programme aims to produce rigorous and relevant evidence on the quality, access and organisation of health services including costs and outcomes, as well as research on implementation. The programme will enhance the strategic focus on research that matters to the NHS and is keen to support ambitious evaluative research to improve health services.For more information about the HS&DR programme please visit the website: http://www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/programmes/hsdr This reportThe research reported in this issue of the journal was funded by the HS&DR programme or one of its preceding programmes as project number 11/1024/02. The contractual start date was in March 2013. The final report began editorial review in January 2016 and was accepted for publication in December 2016. The authors have been wholly responsible for all data collection, analysis and interpretation, and for writing up their work. The HS&DR editors and production house have tried to ensure the accuracy of the authors' report and would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive comments on the final report document. However, they do not accept liability for damages or losses arising from material published in this report.This report presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). The views and opinions expressed by authors in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NHS, the NIHR, NETSCC, the HS&DR programme or the Department of Health. If there are verbatim quotations included in this publication the views and opinions expressed by the interviewees are those of the interviewees and do not necessarily reflect those of the authors, those of the NHS, the NIHR, NETSCC, the HS&DR programme or the Department of He...

show abstract

“…Despite professionals rating seclusion as the least acceptable coercive measure (Pettit et al . ), many believe it is necessary for maintaining safety (Happell et al . ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What factors influence the decisions of mental health professionals to release service users from seclusion?

Jackson

Baker

Berzins

2018

Int J Mental Health Nurs

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mental health policy stipulates seclusion should only be used as an intervention of last resort and for the minimum possible duration. Current evidence details which service users are more likely to be secluded, why they are secluded, and what influences the decision to seclude them. However, very little is known about the decision to release service users from seclusion. An integrative review was undertaken to explore the decision-making processes of mental health professionals which guide the ending of seclusion. The review used a systematic approach to gather and thematically analyse evidence within a framework approach. The twelve articles identified generated one overriding theme, maintaining safety. In addition, several subthemes emerged including the process of risk assessing which was dependent upon interaction and control, mediated by factors external to the service user such as the attitude and experience of staff and the acuity of the environment. Service users were expected to demonstrate compliance with the process ultimately ending in release and reflection. Little evidence exists regarding factors influencing mental health professionals in decisions to release service users from seclusion. There is no evidence-based risk assessment tool, and service users are not routinely involved in the decision to release them. Support from experienced professionals is vital to ensure timely release from seclusion. Greater insight into influences upon decisions to discontinue episodes may support initiatives aimed at reducing durations and use of seclusion.

show abstract

Acceptability and use of coercive methods across differing service configurations with and without seclusion and/or psychiatric intensive care units

Cited by 24 publications

References 31 publications

Psychiatric nursing managers' attitudes towards containment methods in psychiatric inpatient care

Psychiatric nursing managers' attitudes towards containment methods in psychiatric inpatient care

Seclusion and Psychiatric Intensive Care Evaluation Study (SPICES): combined qualitative and quantitative approaches to the uses and outcomes of coercive practices in mental health services

What factors influence the decisions of mental health professionals to release service users from seclusion?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About