Search

Risk management which assesses and mitigates risks such as suicide and violence is under scrutiny, particularly within psychiatric inpatient settings. Restrictive practices, which result from risk assessment, such as observations, physical restraint and ward seclusion can impact negatively on patient recovery, hindering abilities to develop a meaningful life that emphasizes purpose, hope and autonomy, despite experiencing mental distress. Yet, less is known about the impact from the patient's perspective when first admitted to hospital, a period which among other reasons may come with increasing risk management practices owing to the clinical uncertainties about patient risks. In this grounded theory study, we explore the impact on recovery, interviewing 15 adult participants with patient experiences of being in an acute hospital. The main theme of the study, termed a core category with a grounded theory, was identified as "ontological insecurity of inattentiveness". This highlighted a staff inattentiveness with involving patients with risk management and explaining the purposes of the practice, which raised insecurities about what was happening to the patients when admitted to hospital. Four subcategories support the core category; discounting the patients' experiences to gain a meaningful grasp of risk management, ambiguity about risk management rules, particularly the reasons around their use, forebodingness to the hospital environment and, management from afar, with patients feeling scrutinized from observations without a voice to offer different views. It is hoped these findings will add to the field of patient involvement in psychiatric inpatient settings, proposing attempts to raise understanding and inclusivity of risk management, starting when first admitted to hospital. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Why you should read this article: • To recognise the importance of nurses having knowledge of trauma and its effects • To enhance your understanding of the main principles of trauma-informed care • To consider practical strategies that could be used to integrate a trauma-informed approach into preregistration nurse education It is likely that nurses across all disciplines will have contact with people who have experienced trauma and adverse childhood experiences, and nurses themselves may have had such experiences. Therefore, all nurses should have at least a working knowledge of trauma and its effects. Nurse educators are in an optimal position to raise awareness of the prevalence and effects of trauma and to model the principles that underpin trauma-informed approaches. This article provides an introduction to trauma and trauma-informed approaches in the context of preregistration nurse education. The authors explore practical ways in which nurse educators can begin to integrate a trauma-informed approach into curricula, and suggest that doing so could enhance nursing students' well-being and their ability to provide high-quality patient care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An editorial is presented about responding to media coverage of recent mental health service failures, discussing portrayals of poor practice and proposing changes in mental health nurse education to address the root causes. It highlights the global nature of human rights abuses and coercive practices in psychiatric care, emphasizing the need for education to instill values and practices that counter prevailing difficulties within mental health care.

Background: Research priority setting aims to identify research gaps within particular health fields. Given the global burden of mental illness and underfunding of mental health research compared to other health topics, knowledge of methodological procedures may raise the quality of priority setting to identify research with value and impact. However, to date there has been no comprehensive review on the approaches adopted with priority setting projects that identify mental health research, despite viewed as essential knowledge to address research gaps. Hence, the paper presents a summary of the methods, designs, and existing frameworks that can be adopted for prioritising mental health research to inform future prioritising projects. Method: A systematic review of electronic databases located prioritisation literature, while a critical interpretive synthesis was adopted whereby the appraisal of methodological procedures was integrated into the synthesis of the findings. The synthesis was shaped using the good practice checklist for priority setting by Viergever and colleagues drawing on their following categories to identify and appraise methodological procedures: (1) Comprehensive Approach—frameworks/designs guiding the entire priority setting; (2) Inclusiveness –participation methods to aid the equal contribution of stakeholders; (3) Information Gathering—data collecting methods to identify research gaps, and (4) Deciding Priorities—methods to finalise priorities. Results: In total 903 papers were located with 889 papers removed as either duplicates or not meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria. 14 papers were identified, describing 13 separate priority setting projects. Participatory approaches were the dominant method adopted but existing prioritisation frameworks were modified with little explanation regarding the rationale, processes for adaptation and theoretical foundation. Processes were predominately researcher led, although with some patient involvement. Surveys and consensus building methods gathered information while ranking systems and thematic analysis tend to generate finalised priorities. However, limited evidence found about transforming priorities into actual research projects and few described plans for implementation to promote translation into user-informed research. Conclusion: Prioritisation projects may benefit from justifying the methodological approaches taken to identify mental health research, stating reasons for adapting frameworks alongside reasons for adopting particular methods, while finalised priorities should be worded in such a way as to facilitate their easy translation into research projects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As a philosophical position, pragmatism can be critiqued to distinguish truth only with methods that bring about desired results, predominantly with scientific enquiry. The article hopes to dismiss this oversimplification and propose that within mental health nursing, enquiry enlightened by pragmatism can be anchored to methods helping to tackle genuine human problems. Whilst pragmatists suggest one reality exists, fluctuating experiences and shifting beliefs about the world can inhabit within; hence, pragmatists propose reality has the potential to change. Moreover, pragmatism includes being cognisant of what works to whom reality concerns, making reality context‐driven, with a view to understand how actions shape experiences so what is generated has usefulness. Hence, it somewhat follows pragmatism can inform mental health nursing, after all, nursing is a discipline of action, and awareness is needed in how actions produce experiences that patients find helpful. Given the principles of recovery are preferably adopted in mental health care, the paper will explore how pragmatism can help nurses move towards that goal; specifically, with patients voicing their experiences. This is because like pragmatism, recovery subscribes to hope that reality can progress, and through meaningful experiences and beliefs, patients have expertise about personal difficulties alongside how life may flourish, despite mental illness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is considerable debate about how to review the literature in grounded theory research. Notably, grounded theory typically discourages reviewing the literature before data are collected and analysed, so that researchers do not form preconceptions about the theory. However, it is likely researchers will need to review the literature to show they intend to address a gap in knowledge with their research. This might confuse novice researchers, especially given that different approaches to grounded theory can have contrasting positions concerning how and when literature should be reviewed. Aim: To provide an overview of grounded theory and how different approaches might tackle literature reviews. Discussion: A framework is presented to illustrate some of the commonalities between grounded theory approaches, to guide novice researchers in reviewing the literature. The framework acknowledges some of the tensions concerning researchers' objectivity and sketches three phases for researchers to consider when reviewing the literature. Conclusion: Reviewing the literature has different meanings and implications when using grounded theory compared with other research methodologies. Implications for practice: Novice researchers must be attuned to the different ways of reviewing [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Accessible Summary: What is known about the subject?: Risk in psychiatry involves harm to self or others owing to mental health difficulties, for example iatrogenic effects of treatment, self‐harm, suicide and violence.Risk management is a framework to minimize risks, comprising of risk assessment, generation of risk management plans and evaluation of interventions.Literature has extensively explored risk management and presented a critique that its practices can lead to patient harm. However, there is a paucity of literature about what patients identify as helpful risk management practices, despite the potential for such patient views to ameliorate harm and improve mental health care. What this paper adds to existing knowledge: Interpersonal relationships with clinicians, and communication that keeps patients involved and informed of management processes, were found to be central to beneficial risk management practices, while patients having agency and autonomy to influence their participation was also important.Beneficial interpersonal relationships and connectivity in the form of patients' wider community of support were found to be influential in aiding risk management. Meaningful relationships, and particularly peer support, that maintained personal and collective identities were prevalent in the literature. What are the implications for practice?: Rendering risk management more visible and accessible in practice might cultivate an openness that promotes patient participation. This includes drawing on a wider network of support, for example the patient's friends and family, as well as having advocacy utilizing peer support. Introduction: Minimizing the harm that patients pose to themselves and others, due to mental health difficulties, is a central component of risk management in psychiatry. However, risk management itself can cause patient harm, but despite this and the potentially informative value of lived experience, little is known about what patients want or expect from risk management. Aim: To review research and explore what patients consider beneficial in risk management practice. Method: A mixed studies systematic review utilizing PRISMA guidelines, alongside a convergent qualitative design to categorize findings. Results: Twelve papers were identified, generating two categories of beneficial practices: interpersonal relationships and communication with clinicians; coupled with patient agency in their own risk management. Discussion: Connectivity appears important. Particularly patients feeling involved, and their voices being heard in both the identification of risks and then shaping risk management practice. Moreover, this included involvement of friends, family and peers to widen input and supportive networks beyond clinical relationships. Implications for Practice: Risk management needs to be an accessible part of care, which is more inclusive of patient views and needs. The latter might also be aided by drawing on the patient's wider community in order to provide more effective support and risk management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Self‐harm is an international concern. While treatment in health care focusses on methods to reduce the act, there is less exploration in how to assist adults who are unable to minimize their self‐harm. In order to aid these people, in the present systematic review, we employed a qualitative meta‐synthesis to explore the lived experience of what activities might facilitate personal recovery for adults who continue to self‐harm. Findings were interpreted by drawing on the CHIME framework; a taxonomy of personal recovery comprising of connectedness, hope and optimism, identity, meaning and purpose, and empowerment. The located activities in the review converged on different support groups, and although face‐to‐face groups were discovered, the majority highlighted the benefits of Internet forums where mutuality and reciprocity were key to promoting personal recovery. Adults desired time to share accounts of themselves, to develop connection and identity. Furthermore, hope was established by group members accepting that self‐harm has a role, while congregating with others who did not judge the act. Helping relationships also promoted hope by having a balance between goals and protection against disappointment. The nature of writing online seemingly had cathartic properties fostering meaning, alongside empowerment being facilitated by adults controlling the narrative of their self‐harm. It is hoped that these insights might guide self‐harm research to develop beyond the confines of minimizing self‐injury in health care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, support staff working with people with learning disabilities experienced a range of stressors directly related to the effects of the pandemic on themselves and on service users. Supporting staff well-being is crucial given their essential role in the lives of people with learning disabilities. Aim: To investigate the experiences, during the COVID-19 pandemic, of support staff working in residential and supported-living services for people with learning disabilities and understand the stressors staff encountered, the ways in which they managed stress and the support mechanisms they found useful. Method: A qualitative descriptive approach was used and individual semi-structured interviews were conducted with 14 support staff working in residential or supported-living services for people with learning disabilities in the south of England. Findings: The COVID-19 pandemic caused additional stress for staff, including information overload, challenges in providing person-centred, holistic support, and feelings of unfairness or being let down. However, staff derived benefits from timely, practical and non-judgemental support from managers and peers, and from celebrating their own and service users' achievements. Conclusion: A greater focus on non-judgemental listening by managers, celebration of staff's and service users' achievements and awareness of the potential overwhelming effects of email communication could reduce the stress levels support staff are exposed to. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]