Nursing - Research Publications
Permanent URI for this collection
Search Results
1 - 2 of 2
-
ItemWorking towards least restrictive environments in acute mental health wards in the context of locked door policy and practice(WILEY, 2019-04-01)There has been a shift towards provision of mental health care in community-based settings in Australia. However, hospitals continue to care for people in acute mental health wards. An increasing proportion of the people in wards are admitted involuntarily, subject to restrictions of movement to minimize risk of harm to self and others. In response to concerns about the safety of people absconding from care, Queensland Health introduced a policy requiring all acute mental health wards in the State to be locked. In response, the Queensland Mental Health Commission funded a project to understand the impact of this policy and develop evidence-based recommendations regarding provision of least restrictive, recovery-oriented practices in acute wards. Facilitated forums were conducted with 35 purposively selected participants who identified as consumers, carers, or staff of acute mental health hospital wards, to test the acceptability, feasibility, and face validity of a set of evidence-informed recommendations for providing least restrictive, recovery-oriented practices. Participant responses were recorded, and data were analysed through an inductive, thematic approach. A recovery-oriented approach was supported by all stakeholders. Reducing boredom and increasing availability of peer support workers were considered key to achieving this. Focusing less on risk aversion was reported as central to enabling true Recovery Orientation. This project enabled recognition of the perspectives of consumers, carers, and staff in the consideration of evidence-informed recommendations that could be implemented to provide least restrictive care in the context of locked doors.
-
ItemAttitudes towards seclusion and restraint in mental health settings: findings from a large, community-based survey of consumers, carers and mental health professionals(CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS, 2017-10)AIMS: There are growing calls to reduce, and where possible eliminate, the use of seclusion and restraint in mental health settings, but the attitudes and beliefs of consumers, carers and mental health professionals towards these practices are not well understood. The aim of this study was to compare the attitudes of mental health service consumers, carers and mental health professionals towards seclusion and restraint in mental health settings. In particular, it aimed to explore beliefs regarding whether elimination of seclusion and restraint was desirable and possible. METHODS: In 2014, an online survey was developed and widely advertised in Australia via the National Mental Health Commission and through mental health networks. The survey adopted a mixed-methods design, including both quantitative and qualitative questions concerning participants' demographic details, the use of seclusion and restraint in practice and their views on strategies for reducing and eliminating these practices. RESULTS: In total 1150 survey responses were analysed. A large majority of participants believed that seclusion and restraint practices were likely to cause harm, breach human rights, compromise trust and potentially cause or trigger past trauma. Consumers were more likely than professionals to view these practices as harmful. The vast majority of participants believed that it was both desirable and feasible to eliminate mechanical restraint. Many participants, particularly professionals, believed that seclusion and some forms of restraint were likely to produce some benefits, including increasing consumer safety, increasing the safety of staff and others and setting behavioural boundaries. CONCLUSIONS: There was strong agreement across participant groups that the use of seclusion and restraint is harmful, breaches human rights and compromises the therapeutic relationship and trust between mental health service providers and those who experience these restrictive practices. However, some benefits were also identified, particularly by professionals. Participants had mixed views regarding the feasibility and desirability of eliminating these practices.