Dataset Information

Social inclusion and violence prevention in psychiatric inpatient care. A qualitative interview study with service users, staff members and ward managers

ABSTRACT:

Background

Many psychiatric services include social inclusion as a policy with the aim to offer users the opportunity to participate in care and to form reciprocal relationships. The aim of this study was to explore opportunities and problems with regard to participation, reciprocity and social justice that different stakeholders experience when it comes to social inclusion for service users and minimizing violence in psychiatric inpatient care.

Methods

Qualitative interviews were performed with 12 service users, 15 staff members, and six ward managers in three different kinds of psychiatric wards in Sweden. The data were analyzed using the framework method and qualitative content analysis, which was based on the three following social inclusion values: participation, reciprocity, and social justice.

Results

Themes and subthemes were inductively constructed within the three social inclusion values. For participation, staff and ward managers reported difficulties in involving service users in their care, while service users did not feel that they participated and worried about what would happen after discharge. Staff gave more positive descriptions of their relationships with service users and the possibility for reciprocity. Service users described a lack of social justice, such as disruptive care, a lack of support from services, not having access to care, or negative experiences of coercive measures. Despite this, service users often saw the ward as being safer than outside the hospital. Staff and managers reported worries about staffing, staff competence, minimizing coercion and violence, and a lack of support from the management.

Conclusions

By applying the tentative model on empirical data we identified factors that can support or disrupt the process to create a safe ward where service users can feel socially included. Our results indicate that that staff and service users may have different views on the reciprocity of their relationships, and that users may experience a lack of social justice. The users may, due to harsh living conditions, be more concerned about the risk of violence in the community than as inpatients. Staff and ward managers need support from the management to foster a sense of community in the ward and to implement evidence-based prevention programs.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-021-07178-6.

SUBMITTER: Pelto-Piri V

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8605501 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundViolence towards staff working in psychiatric inpatient care is a serious problem. The aim of the present study was to explore staff perspectives of serious violent incidents involving psychiatric inpatients through the following research questions: Which factors contributed to violent incidents, according to staff? How do staff describe their actions and experiences during and after violent incidents?MethodsWe collected data via a questionnaire with open-ended questions, and captured 283 incidents reported by 181 staff members from 10 inpatient psychiatric wards in four different regions. We used the Critical Incident Technique to analyse the material. Our structural analysis started by structuring extracts from the critical incidents into descriptions, which were grouped into three chronological units of analyses: before the incident, during the incident and after the incident. Thereafter, we categorised all descriptions into subcategories, categories and main areas.ResultsStaff members often attributed aggression and violence to internal patient factors rather than situational/relational or organisational factors. The descriptions of violent acts included verbal threats, serious assault and death threats. In addition to coercive measures and removal of patients from the ward, staff often dealt with these incidents using other active measures rather than passive defence or de-escalation. The main effects of violent incidents on staff were psychological and emotional. After violent incidents, staff had to continue caring for patients, and colleagues provided support. Support from managers was reported more rarely and staff expressed some dissatisfaction with the management.ConclusionsAs a primary prevention effort, it is important to raise awareness that external factors (organisational, situational and relational) are important causes of violence and may be easier to modify than internal patient factors. A secondary prevention approach could be to improve staff competence in the use of de-escalation techniques. An important tertiary prevention measure would be for management to follow up with staff regularly after violent incidents and to increase psychological support in such situations.

Project description:BackgroundThe Safewards model aims to reduce conflict and use of containment on psychiatric wards. To evaluate the implementation of Safewards and understand why it is effective in some settings but not in others, it is important to assess the level of implementation fidelity. To do this, the Safewards Fidelity Checklist (SFC) is often used, which focuses on objective visual observations of interventions but does not include patient responsiveness. The latter is a key indicator of implementation fidelity and includes engagement, relevance, acceptability and usefulness. The aim of the present study was to investigate the fidelity of Safewards implementation on an acute psychiatric ward from the perspective of patient responsiveness.MethodThe study was conducted on a ward for patients with mainly affective disorders. To assess the general level of fidelity the SFC was used together with a detailed ward walkthrough. Ten patients were interviewed with a focus on patient responsiveness to each of the seven interventions implemented on the ward. Data were analysed using qualitative descriptive analysis.ResultsThe findings indicate high implementation fidelity, which was reflected in the SFC assessment, walkthrough and patient responsiveness. Patients gave examples of improvements that had happened over time or of the ward being better than other wards. They felt respected, less alone, hopeful and safe. They also described supporting fellow patients and taking responsibility for the ward climate. However, some patients were unfamiliar with a ward where so much communication was expected. Several suggestions were made about improving Safewards.ConclusionsThis study confirms previous research that patient responsiveness is an important factor for achieving fidelity in a prevention programme. The patients' descriptions of the acceptability, relevance and usefulness of the specific interventions reflected to a high degree the objective visual observations made by means of the SFC and ward walkthrough. Patient engagement was demonstrated by several suggestions about how to adapt the interventions. There is potential to obtain valuable input from patients when adapting Safewards in practice. This study also presents many examples of practical work with these interventions and the effects it can have on patients' experiences of care.