Search

Accessible Summary: What is known on the subject?: Psychiatric hospitals have input from a range of professionals, including Clinical Psychologists.Most evidence used to guide what Clinical Psychologists do is based on their work with individuals rather than staff teams.Some evidence shows working with staff teams is important, but most of this is based on interviews rather than measuring the impact using numbers and statistics.The current study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of staff‐level interventions provided by a Psychology team within a psychiatric inpatient setting. What the paper adds to existing knowledge?: Training sessions were effective at increasing staff levels of confidence and understanding in psychological approaches, and the perceived usefulness of the session to their practice.Case discussion sessions were effective at increasing staff levels of understanding a service user, compassion towards the service user, perceived opportunities for change with the service user, their perceived skills to work with the service user and their perception of the usefulness of the session to their practice.Reflective practice sessions were effective at providing a space for learning, sharing ideas and reflecting.Other interventions were highly valued by nursing staff. What are the implications for practice?: Staff‐level interventions are effective and valued by mental health nursing staff and should be considered in allocation of psychology resources.Interventions improved staff psychological thinking which could positively impact service user experience.There is potential for people with lived experience to participate in these interventions, which could facilitate the therapeutic relationship and reduce restrictive practices. Introduction: The role of Psychologists in psychiatric inpatient settings is well established and involves intervention at various levels; however, quantitative exploration of the effectiveness of staff‐level interventions is lacking. Aim: The aim of the study was to examine the effectiveness of a variety of staff‐level interventions provided by a Psychology team within a psychiatric inpatient setting. Methods: The evaluation used a mixed methods approach incorporating pre–post quantitative data and post‐intervention feedback. Additional data were collected via survey. Key Findings: Results indicated all staff‐level interventions were effective in achieving their aims and were highly valued by staff. Qualitative data supported the quantitative findings and showed tentative suggestion of a change to clinical practice. Discussion: Indirect psychology provision was found to significantly impact a range of staff attitudes and was highly valued by the staff team, supporting previous qualitative findings in psychiatric inpatient settings. Further quantitative evidence of the impact of staff‐level interventions should be sought. Implications: Staff‐level interventions are effective and valued by mental health nursing staff and should be considered in allocation of psychology resources. Furthermore, there is potential for people with lived experience to participate in these interventions, which could facilitate the therapeutic relationship and reduce restrictive practices, however this requires future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Accessible Summary: What is known on the subject?: Humanizing the world of health is a complex process that includes all the dimensions of the person. When a person has from a mental illness, the humanization of care becomes more important, as the disorder itself prevents the person to participate in their health process, even when showing self‐harm or aggressive behaviours.These situations jointly with other factors related with professionals (insufficient ratio, inadequate treatment or lack of training) may cause the patient admitted to the acute psychiatric hospitalization unit to require the use of restrictive measures (involuntary admissions, mechanical restraints or forced administration of medication). What the paper adds to existing knowledge?: We identify the relevance of the perception the patient and family have regarding the care received, as well as the relevance of factors related to the professionals, among which the attitude, the staff ratio, the nursing time of direct dedication, and the therapeutic environment and safety of the patient and the professionals. All patients must be treated with dignity, respect, regardless of the aggressive manifestations caused by their pathology. What are the implications for practice?: A greater understanding of the care offered to admitted people affected by a mental disorder, their families and professionals who care for them in acute mental health units, giving greater importance to "caring" and not exclusively to "curing." Introduction: Humanization in Mental Health refers to give the same relevance to the clinical needs and to the social, emotional and psychological needs. Aim: To identify the published knowledge on current care models related to the humanization of care in acute psychiatric units. Method: Scoping review based on the methodological model of Arksey and O'Malley, and PRISMA methodology. Database searches (Pubmed, Cinahl, Virtual Library, Cuiden, Academic Google and PsycInfo) with the terms: "Humanization," "Hospitals Psychiatric," "Emergency Psychiatric," "Psychiatric Service" and "Psychiatric intensive care units." Results: Twenty‐two articles met the inclusion criteria. Four thematic units were identified: aspects related to (i) patient perceptions; (ii) Government policies and hospitality organizational culture; (iii) external factors such as the environment, family or associations; and (iv) safety and security. Discussion: Only one of the articles mentions the concept analysed, although all of them contribute with key aspects of healthcare humanization, such as the empowerment of the patient, the care model, the staff ratio, the therapeutic relationship, the nursing time of direct dedication to the patient, the therapeutic environment, safety and patient and staff perception of feeling safe. Implications for Practice: The present study can help to improve the care offered in acute mental health units. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Accessible summary: What is known on the subject?: Established research from the United States and other Western countries has found that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) populations are at an elevated risk for suicide.Suicidality among LGBT individuals is understudied in Thailand and other Asian countries, warranting additional research to better understand risk factors and to create effective treatment and suicide prevention interventions. What the paper adds to existing knowledge?: The study examined rates and predictors of suicidality in Thai LGBT adults.Study findings suggest that general (e.g. stress and loneliness) and minority stressors (e.g. discrimination and victimization) played important roles in predicting lifetime and past‐year suicidal ideation, while socio‐demographic and health‐related factors (e.g. living in high poverty area and having chronic diseases) were associated with suicide attempts among LGBT individuals. What are the implications for practice?: Changes in the nursing curriculum and continuing education resources are needed to improve knowledge and core competencies in the mental health and treatment needs of LGBT individuals in Thailand.Among LGBT serving practitioners, routine assessment of suicidality is needed to increase the early identification and treatment of individual at risk for suicidal behaviours.Standardized measures of sexual orientation and gender identity should be included in all patient intake forms.In conducting research on strategies to improve mental health outcomes among LGBT populations, standardized measures of sexual orientation/gender identity and minority‐specific stressors should be used.Suicide prevention interventions aimed at reducing general and minority stress among LGBT populations should be a priority in mental health nursing. Introduction: A large and rigorous body of research in the United States has demonstrated that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) populations are at an elevated risk for suicide. However, scant research aimed at understanding the rates and predictors for suicidality among Thai LGBT individuals exists. Aim: To examine rates and predictors of suicidality among Thai LGBT adults (N = 411). Method: Data collection was conducted via online and in‐person surveys. Guided by the Minority Stress Model, standardized measures of demographics, health‐related factors, general and minority‐specific stressors and suicidality were completed. Results: Thirty‐nine per cent of participants reported lifetime suicidal ideation, 19.0% past 12‐month suicidal ideation and 13.1% lifetime suicide attempts. Lifetime suicidal ideation was associated with higher levels of social discrimination, stress, loneliness and chronic disease (OR = 1.12, 1.16, 2.75, and 1.46, p ≤.05, R2 = 0.327). Past‐year suicidal ideation was associated with victimization, stress, loneliness and being a former smoker (OR = 1.52, 1.20, 2.34, and 4.89, p <.05, R2 = 0.345). Suicide attempts were associated with internalized homophobia, poverty, chronic disease, alcohol use and physical health (OR = 1.44, 1.06, 1.59, 1.45 and 0.95, p ≤ 0.05, R2 = 0.187). Discussion: General and minority‐specific stressors negatively impacted suicidality among LGBT participants. Implication for practice: Study findings have implications for nursing education, practice and research. Nursing education should include information about the influence of sexual orientation and gender identity on mental health outcomes. Further, systematic screening for suicidality should be conducted by LGBT serving psychiatric and mental health nurses. Finally, research is needed to determine best practices for interventions aimed at reducing suicidality risk among LGBT individuals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]