Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Health Services Research
Published in: BMC Health Services Research 1/2020

01-12-2020 | Care | Research article

Post-incident reviews—a gift to the Ward or just another procedure? Care providers’ experiences and considerations regarding post-incident reviews after restraint in mental health services. A qualitative study

Authors: Unn Elisabeth Hammervold, Reidun Norvoll, Kari Vevatne, Hildegunn Sagvaag

Published in: BMC Health Services Research | Issue 1/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Public guidelines in many western countries recommend post-incident reviews (PIRs) with patients after restraint use in mental health care. PIRs are one of several elements of seclusion and restraint reduction in internationally used programmes. PIRs may improve restraint prevention, patients’ recovery processes and care providers’ ethical mindfulness. The knowledge base on PIRs is, however, vague. This qualitative study explores professional care providers’ experiences and considerations regarding PIRs that included patients after restraint use in a Norwegian context.

Methods

Within a phenomenological hermeneutical framework, 19 multidisciplinary care providers were interviewed about their experiences and views regarding PIRs that included patients after restraint events. The interviews were performed over the period 2015–2016. Data analysis followed a data-driven stepwise approach in line with thematic content analysis. A group of two patient consultants in mental health services, and one patient’s next of kin, contributed with input regarding the interview guide and analysis process.

Results

Care providers experienced PIRs as having the potential to improve the quality of care through a) knowledge of other perspectives and solutions; b) increased ethical and professional awareness; and c) emotional and relational processing. However, the care providers considered that PIRs’ potential could be further exploited as they struggled to get hold on the patients’ voices in the encounter. The care providers considered that issue to be attributable to the patients’ conditions, the care providers’ safety and skills and the characteristics of institutional and cultural conditions.

Conclusion

Human care philosophies and a framework of care ethics seem to be preconditions for promoting patients’ active participation in PIRs after restraints. Patients’ voices strengthen PIRs’ potential to improve care and may also contribute to restraint prevention. To minimise the power imbalance in PIRs, patients’ vulnerability, dependency and perceived dignity must be recognised. Patients’ individual needs and preferences should be assessed and mapped when planning PIRs, particularly regarding location, time and preferred participants. Care providers must receive training to strengthen their confidence in conducting PIRs in the best possible way. Patients’ experiences with PIRs should be explored, especially if participation by trusted family members, peers or advocates may support the patients in PIRs.
Literature
1.
Huckshorn KA. Reducing seclusion & restraint use in mental health settings: core strategies for prevention. J Psychosoc Nurs Ment Health Serv. 2004;42(9):22–33.PubMedCrossRef
2.
LeBel JL, Duxbury JA, Putkonen A, Sprague T, Rae C, Sharpe J. Multinational experiences in reducing and preventing the use of restraint and seclusion. J Psychosoc Nurs Ment Health Serv. 2014;52(11):22–9.PubMedCrossRef
3.
Duxbury J, Thomson G, Scholes A, Jones F, Baker J, Downe S, et al. Staff experiences and understandings of the REsTRAIN yourself initiative to minimize the use of physical restraint on mental health wards. Int J Ment Health Nurs. 2019;28(4):845–56.PubMedCrossRef
4.
5.
Krieger E, Moritz S, Weil R, Nagel M. Patients’ attitudes towards and acceptance of coercion in psychiatry. Psychiatry Res. 2018;260:478–85.PubMedCrossRef
6.
Bak J, Aggernaes H. Coercion within Danish psychiatry compared with 10 other European countries. Nord J Psychiatry. 2012;66(5):297–01.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Scanlan JN. Interventions to reduce the use of seclusion and restraint in inpatient psychiatric settings: what we know so far a review of the literature. Int J Soc Psychiat. 2010;56(4):412–23.PubMedCrossRef
8.
United Nations HRC. Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In: Nations U. Geneve: United Nations, Human Rights Council; 2013. p. 23. A/HRC/22/53.
9.
Slade M. Personal recovery and mental illness: a guide for mental health professionals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2009. p. 288.CrossRef
10.
Norvoll R, Hem MH, Pedersen R. The role of ethics in reducing and improving the quality of coercion in mental health care. HEC Forum. 2017;29(1):59–74.PubMedCrossRef
11.
12.
Goulet M-H, Larue C. Post-seclusion and/or restraint review in psychiatry: a scoping review. Arch Psychiatr Nurs. 2016;30(1):120–8.PubMedCrossRef
13.
Goulet M-H, Larue C, Lemieux AJ. A pilot study of "post-seclusion and/or restraint review" intervention with patients and staff in a mental health setting. Perspect Psychiatr Care. 2018;54(2):212–20.PubMedCrossRef
14.
Barker P. Mental health ethics : the human context. London: Routledge; 2011. p. 378.
15.
Barker P, Buchanan-Barker P. The tidal model of mental health recovery and reclamation: application in acute care settings. Issues Ment Health Nurs. 2010;31(3):171–180 10p.
16.
Azeem MW, Aujla A, Rammerth M, Binsfeld G, Jones RB. Effectiveness of six core strategies based on trauma informed care in reducing seclusions and restraints at a child and adolescent psychiatric hospitaljcap. J Child Adolesc Psychiatr Nurs. 2011;24(1):11–5.PubMedCrossRef
17.
Azeem MW, Reddy B, Wudarsky M, Carabetta L, Gregory F, Sarofin M. Restraint reduction at a pediatric psychiatric hospital: a ten-year journey. J Child Adolesc Psychiatr Nurs. 2015;28(4):180–4.PubMedCrossRef
18.
Bonner G, Wellman N. Postincident review of aggression and violence in mental health settings. J Psychosoc Nurs Ment Health Serv. 2010;48(7):35–40.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Sjöström S. Invocation of coercion context in compliance communication — power dynamics in psychiatric care. Int J Law Psychiatry. 2006;29(1):36–47.PubMedCrossRef
20.
Gustafsson N, Salzmann-Erikson M. Effect of complex working conditions on nurses who exert coercive measures in forensic psychiatric care. J Psychosoc Nurs Ment Health Serv. 2016;54(9):37–43.PubMedCrossRef
21.
Ling S, Cleverley K, Perivolaris A. Understanding mental health service user experiences of restraint through debriefing: a qualitative analysis. Can J Psychiatr. 2015;60(9):386–92.CrossRef
22.
Cusack P, McAndrew S, Cusack F, Warne T. Restraining good practice: reviewing evidence of the effects of restraint from the perspective of service users and mental health professionals in the United Kingdom (UK). Int J Law Psychiatry. 2016;46:20–6.PubMedCrossRef
23.
Husum TL, Legernes E, Pedersen R. “A plea for recognition” Users’ experience of humiliation during mental health care. Int J Law Psychiatry. 2019;62:148–53.PubMedCrossRef
24.
Mohr WK, Petti TA, Mohr BD. Adverse effects associated with physical restraint. Can J Psychiatr. 2003;48(5):330–7.CrossRef
25.
Cusack P, Cusack FP, McAndrew S, McKeown M, Duxbury J. An integrative review exploring the physical and psychological harm inherent in using restraint in mental health inpatient settings. Int J Ment Health Nurs. 2018;27(3):1162–76.PubMedCrossRef
26.
Tronto JC. Moral boundaries : a political argument for an ethic of care. New York: Routledge; 1993.
27.
Tronto JC. Caring democracy : markets, equality, and justice (e-book). New York: New York University Press; 2013.
28.
Todres L, Galvin KT, Holloway I. The humanization of healthcare: a value framework for qualitative research. Int J Qual Stud Health Well-being. 2009;4(2):68–77.CrossRef
29.
Mason J. Qualitative researching. 2nd ed. ed. London: Sage; 2002.
30.
Graneheim UH, Lundman B. Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Educ Today. 2004;24(2):105–12.PubMedCrossRef
31.
Graneheim UH, Lindgren B-M, Lundman B. Methodological challenges in qualitative content analysis: a discussion paper. Nurse Educ Today. 2017;56:29–34.PubMedCrossRef
32.
Vaismoradi M, Turunen H, Bondas T. Content analysis and thematic analysis: implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nurs Health Sci. 2013;15:398–405.PubMedCrossRef
33.
34.
Cam Y, Bolz-Johnson M. Expert by experience: valuing patient engagement in healthcare. In: Pomey M-P, Denis J-L, Dumez V, editors. Pateint engagement how patient-provider partnerships transform Healtcare organizations. Switzerland: Springer Nature; 2019. p. 233–67.CrossRef
35.
Malterud K, Siersma VD, Guassora AD. Sample size in qualitative interview studies. Qual Health Res. 2016;26(13):1753–60.PubMedCrossRef
36.
Hsieh HF, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005;15(9):1277–88.CrossRefPubMed
37.
Fleming V, Gaidys U, Robb Y. Hermeneutic research in nursing: developing a Gadamerian-based research method. Nurs Inq. 2003;10(2):113–20 8.PubMedCrossRef
38.
NVivo 12. NVivo qualitative data analysis Software; Version 12: QSR International Pty Ltd,; 2016.
39.
Finlay L. “Outing” the researcher: the provenance, process, and practice of reflexivity. Qual Health Res. 2002;12(4):531–45.PubMedCrossRef
40.
Gadamer H-G. Truth and method. 2nd, rev. ed. translation revised by Joel Weinsheimer and Donald G. Marshall. Ed. London: Sheed & Ward; 1989.
41.
Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects, 310(20) (2013).
42.
Goffman E, Kristiansen S, Hviid Jacobsen M, Gooseman B. Stigma : om afvigerens sociale identitet. 2. udg. ed. Samfundslitteratur: Frederiksberg; 2009.
43.
Aguilera-Serrano C, Guzman-Parra J, Garcia-Sanchez JA, Moreno-Küstner B, Mayoral-Cleries F. Variables Associated With the Subjective Experience of Coercive Measures in Psychiatric Inpatients: A Systematic Review. Can J Psychiatr. 63(2):129–44. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​0706743717738491​.
44.
Schön DA. The reflective practitioner : how professionals think in action. Aldershot: Avebury; 1991.
45.
Cusack L, Drioli-Phillips PG, Brown JA, Hunter S. Re-engaging concepts of professionalism to inform regulatory practices in nursing. J Nurs Regul. 2019;10(3):21–7.CrossRef
46.
47.
48.
Ashcraft L, Anthony W. Eliminating seclusion and restraint in recovery-oriented crisis services. Psychiatr Serv. 2008;59(10):1198–202.PubMedCrossRef
49.
Petti TA, Mohr WK, Somers JW, Sims L. Perceptions of seclusion and restraint by patients and staff in an intermediate-term care facility. J Child Adolesc Psychiatr Nurs. 2001;14(3):115–27 13.PubMedCrossRef
50.
Topor A, Denhov A. Helping relationships and time: inside the black box of the working Alliance. Am J Psychiatr Rehabil. 2012;15(3):239–54.CrossRef
51.
Mangaoil RA, Cleverley K, Peter E. Immediate staff debriefing following seclusion or restraint use in inpatient mental health settings: a scoping review. Clin Nurs Res. 2018;1054773818791085:1–40.
52.
Kittay EF. The ethics of care, dependence, and disability*. Ratio Juris. 2011;24(1):49–58.CrossRef
53.
54.
Knowles SF, Hearne J, Smith I. Physical restraint and the therapeutic relationship. J Forens Psychiatry Psychol. 2015;26(4):461–75.CrossRef
55.
Tingleff EB, Bradley SK, Gildberg FA, Munksgaard G, Hounsgaard L. "treat me with respect". A systematic review and thematic analysis of psychiatric patient's reported perceptions of the situations associated with the process of coercion. J Psychosoc Nurs Ment Health Serv. 2017;24(9/10):681–98.CrossRef
56.
57.
Nyttingnes O, Ruud T, Rugkåsa J. ‘It's unbelievably humiliating’—Patients' expressions of negative effects of coercion in mental health care. Int J Law Psychiatry. 2016;49:147–53.PubMedCrossRef
58.
Norvoll R, Pedersen R. Patients’ moral views on coercion in mental healthcare. J Nurs Ethics. 2018;25(6):796–807.CrossRef
59.
Buber M, Smith RG. I and thou. 2 ed. with a postscript by the author. Ed. London: Continuum; 2004.
60.
Ryan R, Happell B. Learning from experience: using action research to discover consumer needs in post-seclusion debriefing. Int J Ment Health Nurs. 2009;18(2):100–7 8.PubMedCrossRef
61.
Foucault M. Madness and civilization : a history of insanity in the age of reason. London: Routledge; 2001.
62.
Foucault M, Faubion JD, Rabinow P. The essential works of Michel Foucault, 1954–1984, vol. 3. London: Allen Lane; 2001.
63.
Foucault M. Discipline and punish : the birth of the prison. London: Allen Lane; 1977.
64.
Tingleff EB, Hounsgaard L, Bradley SK, Gildberg FA. Forensic psychiatric patients’ perceptions of situations associated with mechanical restraint: a qualitative interview study. Int J Ment Health Nurs. 2019;28(2):468–79.PubMedCrossRef
65.
Chien W-T, Chan CWH, Lam L-W, Kam CW. Psychiatric inpatients’ perceptions of positive and negative aspects of physical restraint. Patient Educ Couns. 2005;59(1):80–6.PubMedCrossRef
66.
Ridley J, Newbigging K, Street C. Mental health advocacy outcomes from service user perspectives. Ment Health Rev J. 2018;23(4):280–92.CrossRef
67.
Levy J, Payne M. Welfare rights advocacy in a specialist health and social care setting: a service audit. Br J Soc Work. 2006;36(2):323–31.CrossRef
68.
Riahi S, Dawe IC, Stuckey MI, Klassen PE. Implementation of the six core strategies for restraint minimization in a specialized mental health organization. J Psychosoc Nurs Ment Health Serv. 2016;54(10):32–9.PubMedCrossRef
69.
Metadata
Title
Post-incident reviews—a gift to the Ward or just another procedure? Care providers’ experiences and considerations regarding post-incident reviews after restraint in mental health services. A qualitative study
Authors
Unn Elisabeth Hammervold
Reidun Norvoll
Kari Vevatne
Hildegunn Sagvaag
Publication date
01-12-2020
Publisher
BioMed Central
Keyword
Care
Published in
BMC Health Services Research / Issue 1/2020
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6963
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-020-05370-8

Other articles of this Issue 1/2020

BMC Health Services Research 1/2020 Go to the issue

Research article

Impact of the Programa Mais médicos (more doctors Programme) on primary care doctor supply and amenable mortality: quasi-experimental study of 5565 Brazilian municipalities

Research article

Barriers to accessing health care services: a qualitative study of migrant construction workers in a southwestern Indian city

Research article

Empirical development of a typology on residential long-term care units in Germany - results of an exploratory multivariate data analysis

Research article

Feasibility of coding-based Charlson comorbidity index for hospitalized patients in China, a representative developing country

Research article

Professionals’ perceptions of the establishment of a specialized brief therapy unit in a district psychiatric centre - a qualitative study

Research article

Adherence to breast cancer guidelines is associated with better survival outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies in EU countries