Search

Safeguarding, balancing the concept of risk with the need for public protection and its implication for the lives of individuals, is an important facet of contemporary mental health care. Integral to safeguarding is the protection of human rights; the right to live free from torture, inhuman, or degrading treatment, and having the right to liberty, security, respect, and privacy. Professionals are required to recognise all of these rights when delivering care to vulnerable people. In the United Kingdom (UK) there has been growing public concern regarding abusive practices in institutions, with a number of unacceptable methods of restraint being identified as a feature of care, particularly in mental health care. In keeping with the service user movement, and following a review of the literature, this paper discusses the evidence regarding restraint from the perspectives of service users and professionals within mental health services and considers the implications for future practice and research. In reviewing the literature, findings revealed that restraint can be a form of abuse, it's inappropriate use often being a consequence of fear, neglect, and lack of using de-escalation techniques. Using restraint in this way can have negative implications for the well-being of service users and mental health professionals alike. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: In 2009, two seminal documents were published by the United Kingdom (UK) government concerning healthcare services for offenders. The Bradley review into diversion for people with mental health problems and learning disabilities emphasised a need to improve offender health, not least because of the high economic costs to society as a whole resulting from unresolved mental illness, physical ill-health and substance abuse problems commonly experienced by offenders. The Bradley review made wide-reaching recommendations for change, requiring strong partnership between health and justice agencies at both central government and local levels. A framework for the delivery of Bradley''s recommendations has been set out in Improving health, supporting justice, the Department of Health''s offender health strategy which sets out the direction of travel for the next 10years. This paper discusses the reality of working toward improving health services for this marginalised group in the context of the influence of the current straitened financial climate on the allocation of resources to publically funded healthcare in the UK; it examines the historically based, and widely held, belief in the principle of “less eligibility” within our society, whereby there is much public and media resistance to allocating resources to improving care for offenders when other, more “deserving”, groups are perceived to be in continuing need. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]