Search

WHAT IS KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT?: One-to-one observation uses continuous staff observation to safeguard patients judged likely to harm themselves or others. Policies increasingly mandate that staff engage therapeutically with patients during one-to-one observation. Yet not enough is known about factors facilitating or impeding such therapeutic engagement. WHAT DOES THIS PAPER ADD TO EXISTING KNOWLEDGE?: This study enriches existing literature on one-to-one observation through integrating the perspectives of staff of different levels of qualification, and patients of different diagnostic and risk profiles. Whilst previous research has highlighted the occurrence of counter-therapeutic staff-patient interactions, integration of patient and staff perspectives in the current study has demonstrated that patient and staff often attribute the causes differently, with each apportioning blame to the other, leading both parties to feel misunderstood, and staff lack confidence to overcome these challenges. A novel finding was that rapport-building via simple demonstrations of compassion and conversations about everyday things, was viewed as an essential prerequisite to encouraging patients to open up about their experiences of emotional distress, whilst implementation of techniques drawn from psychological interventions was viewed as less important than staff's core relational skills. WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE?: Therapeutic engagement during observation can enhance its risk management aims, providing thought is given to understanding and negotiating complex dynamics between staff and patients. Supervision for staff conducting observations should focus on building rapport in preference to emphasizing psychological intervention (e.g. DBT), and should enable staff to reflect on better understanding and managing their own emotions towards "hard-to-engage" patients. ABSTRACT: Introduction Policies increasingly focus on staff-patient interactions during one-to-one psychiatric nursing observations as an opportunity for therapeutic engagement - yet if and how this is feasible is unknown. Aim This study aimed to integrate staff and patient perspectives to determine what factors facilitate or impede therapeutic engagement during one-to-one observation. Method Thematic analysis of qualitative interviews with 31 psychiatric inpatient staff at different levels of seniority and 28 inpatients spanning a range of diagnoses and risk profiles. Results Negative experiences of observation were characterized by a reciprocal dynamic where both patients and staff withdrew from interactions, having felt the other did not want to engage with them. Staff and patients agreed that these difficulties could be overcome when staff showed patients that they cared, gradually building trust through simple demonstrations of compassion and 'normalizing' conversation about everyday things. This approach helped patients to feel safe enough to open up about their distress, which in turn helped staff to better understand their experiences and work with them to find solutions. Implications for practice Engagement during observation could be facilitated if staff receive more supervision in understanding difficult dynamics that impede rapport-building and in managing their emotions towards patients they experience as "hard-to-engage".

Purpose Continuous observation of psychiatric inpatients aims to protect those who pose an acute risk of harm to self or others, but involves intrusive privacy restrictions. Initiating, conducting and ending continuous observation requires complex decision-making about keeping patients safe whilst protecting their privacy. There is little published guidance about how to balance privacy and safety concerns, and how staff and patients negotiate this in practice is unknown. To inform best practice, the present study, therefore, aimed to understand how staff and patients experience negotiating the balance between privacy and safety during decision-making about continuous observation. Methods Thematic analysis of qualitative interviews with thirty-one inpatient psychiatric staff and twenty-eight inpatients. Results Most patients struggled with the lack of privacy but valued feeling safe during continuous observation. Staff and patients linked good decision-making to using continuous observation for short periods and taking positive risks, understanding and collaborating with the patient, and working together as a supportive staff team. Poor decision-making was linked to insufficient consideration of observation’s iatrogenic potential, insufficient collaboration with patients, and the stressful impact on staff of conducting observations and managing risk. Conclusions Best practice in decision-making about continuous observation may be facilitated by making decisions in collaboration with patients, and by staff supporting each-other in positive risk-taking. To achieve truly patient-centred decision-making, decisions about observation should not be influenced by staff’s own stress levels. To address the negative impact of staff stress on decision-making, it may be helpful to improve staff training, education and support structures. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00127-017-1338-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Warfarin is the most commonly prescribed anticoagulant in the UK and the one most frequently associated with both fatal medication errors and litigation claims [1]. Its life-threatening interactions and side effects are a concern for all doctors. Identifying and implementing solutions to achieve safer prescribing and monitoring is imperative to improve patient safety. The National Patient Safety Agency (NPSA) has outlined the major risks associated with anticoagulant therapy and sought to establish safer practice [1]. The monitoring of safety indicators has been highlighted as a solution. This quality improvement project (QIP) introduces a management algorithm for oral anticoagulant therapy in hospital patients, validated through a completed audit cycle. It was completed at one district general hospital (DGH) in England and involved all inpatient wards. Doctors and pharmacists were interviewed to assess their knowledge of the correct pathways for management of patients on warfarin. The number of errors on hospital warfarin charts was audited over three weeks. These results, coupled with senior haematological advice led to the production of an algorithm illustrating the gold-standard pathway for warfarin management from admission to discharge. It was emailed to all doctors in the Trust and a laminated copy attached to hospital Pneumatic Tube System (PTS) machines. The warfarin charts were re-audited over the following three weeks. The results showed a marked decrease in errors and incomplete anticoagulation referrals as well as a reduction in doctors’ anxiety around prescribing warfarin.

n/a