Staff responses to interventions aiming to reduce mechanical restraint in adult mental health inpatient settings: a questionnaire-based survey.

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q3 PSYCHIATRY
Nordic Journal of Psychiatry Pub Date : 2024-05-01 Epub Date: 2024-03-04 DOI:10.1080/08039488.2024.2323125
Martin Locht Pedersen, Frederik Alkier Gildberg, Søren Bie Bogh, Søren Birkeland, Ellen Boldrup Tingleff
{"title":"Staff responses to interventions aiming to reduce mechanical restraint in adult mental health inpatient settings: a questionnaire-based survey.","authors":"Martin Locht Pedersen, Frederik Alkier Gildberg, Søren Bie Bogh, Søren Birkeland, Ellen Boldrup Tingleff","doi":"10.1080/08039488.2024.2323125","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To explore mental health staff's responses towards interventions designed to reduce the use of mechanical restraint (MR) in adult mental health inpatient settings.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a cross-sectional, questionnaire-based survey. The questionnaire, made available online <i>via</i> REDCap, presented 20 interventions designed to reduce MR use. Participants were asked to rate and rank the interventions based on their viewpoints regarding the relevance and importance of each intervention.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 128 mental health staff members from general and forensic mental health inpatient units across the Mental Health Services in the Region of Southern Denmark completed the questionnaire (response rate = 21.3%). A total of 90.8% of the ratings scored either 'agree' (45.2%) or 'strongly agree' (45.6%) concerning the relevance of the interventions in reducing MR use. Overall and in the divided analysis, interventions labelled as 'building relationship' and 'patient-related knowledge' claimed high scores in the staff's rankings of the interventions' importance concerning implementation. Conversely, interventions like 'carers' and 'standardised assessments' received low scores.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The staff generally considered that the interventions were relevant. Importance rankings were consistent across the divisions chosen, with a range of variance and dispersion being recorded among certain groups.</p>","PeriodicalId":19201,"journal":{"name":"Nordic Journal of Psychiatry","volume":" ","pages":"328-338"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nordic Journal of Psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08039488.2024.2323125","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To explore mental health staff's responses towards interventions designed to reduce the use of mechanical restraint (MR) in adult mental health inpatient settings.

Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional, questionnaire-based survey. The questionnaire, made available online via REDCap, presented 20 interventions designed to reduce MR use. Participants were asked to rate and rank the interventions based on their viewpoints regarding the relevance and importance of each intervention.

Results: A total of 128 mental health staff members from general and forensic mental health inpatient units across the Mental Health Services in the Region of Southern Denmark completed the questionnaire (response rate = 21.3%). A total of 90.8% of the ratings scored either 'agree' (45.2%) or 'strongly agree' (45.6%) concerning the relevance of the interventions in reducing MR use. Overall and in the divided analysis, interventions labelled as 'building relationship' and 'patient-related knowledge' claimed high scores in the staff's rankings of the interventions' importance concerning implementation. Conversely, interventions like 'carers' and 'standardised assessments' received low scores.

Conclusions: The staff generally considered that the interventions were relevant. Importance rankings were consistent across the divisions chosen, with a range of variance and dispersion being recorded among certain groups.

工作人员对旨在减少成人精神疾病住院患者机械束缚的干预措施的反应:基于问卷的调查。
目的:探讨精神卫生工作人员对旨在减少成人精神卫生住院环境中机械约束(MR)使用的干预措施的反应:我们进行了一项横断面问卷调查。调查问卷可通过 REDCap 在线获取,其中介绍了 20 种旨在减少 MR 使用的干预措施。要求参与者根据他们对每项干预措施的相关性和重要性的看法对干预措施进行评分和排序:共有 128 名来自南丹麦地区精神卫生服务机构普通和法医精神卫生住院病房的精神卫生工作人员填写了问卷(回复率 = 21.3%)。对于干预措施在减少 MR 使用方面的相关性,90.8% 的评分为 "同意"(45.2%)或 "非常同意"(45.6%)。总体而言,在分项分析中,"建立关系 "和 "患者相关知识 "等干预措施在员工对干预措施实施重要性的排名中得分较高。相反,"护理人员 "和 "标准化评估 "等干预措施得分较低:结论:员工普遍认为干预措施具有相关性。所选部门的重要性排名是一致的,但在某些群体中存在一定的差异和分散。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Nordic Journal of Psychiatry
Nordic Journal of Psychiatry 医学-精神病学
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
5.60%
发文量
86
审稿时长
12 months
期刊介绍: Nordic Journal of Psychiatry publishes international research on all areas of psychiatry. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry is the official journal for the eight psychiatry associations in the Nordic and Baltic countries. The journal aims to provide a leading international forum for high quality research on all themes of psychiatry including: Child psychiatry Adult psychiatry Psychotherapy Pharmacotherapy Social psychiatry Psychosomatic medicine Nordic Journal of Psychiatry accepts original research articles, review articles, brief reports, editorials and letters to the editor.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信