Co-Designing Case Scenarios and Survey Strategies to Examine the Classification and Reporting of Restrictive Care Practices in Adult Mental Health Inpatient Settings: Perspectives From International Stakeholders

IF 3.6 2区 医学 Q1 NURSING
Zelalem Belayneh, Den-Ching A. Lee, Terry P. Haines, Deborah Oyine Aluh, Justus Uchenna Onu, Giles Newton-Howes, Kim Masters, Yoav Kohn, Jacqueline Sin, Marie-Hélène Goulet, Tonje Lossius Husum, Eleni Jelastopulu, Maria Bakola, Tim Opgenhaffen, Guru S. Gowda, Birhanie Mekuriaw, Kathleen De Cuyper, Eimear Muir-Cochrane, Yana Canteloupe, Emer Diviney, Vincent S. Staggs, Melissa Petrakis
{"title":"Co-Designing Case Scenarios and Survey Strategies to Examine the Classification and Reporting of Restrictive Care Practices in Adult Mental Health Inpatient Settings: Perspectives From International Stakeholders","authors":"Zelalem Belayneh,&nbsp;Den-Ching A. Lee,&nbsp;Terry P. Haines,&nbsp;Deborah Oyine Aluh,&nbsp;Justus Uchenna Onu,&nbsp;Giles Newton-Howes,&nbsp;Kim Masters,&nbsp;Yoav Kohn,&nbsp;Jacqueline Sin,&nbsp;Marie-Hélène Goulet,&nbsp;Tonje Lossius Husum,&nbsp;Eleni Jelastopulu,&nbsp;Maria Bakola,&nbsp;Tim Opgenhaffen,&nbsp;Guru S. Gowda,&nbsp;Birhanie Mekuriaw,&nbsp;Kathleen De Cuyper,&nbsp;Eimear Muir-Cochrane,&nbsp;Yana Canteloupe,&nbsp;Emer Diviney,&nbsp;Vincent S. Staggs,&nbsp;Melissa Petrakis","doi":"10.1111/inm.13479","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>There is a global initiative to reduce the use of restrictive care practices in mental health settings. Variations in the reported rates across regions complicate the understanding of their use and tracking trends over time. However, it remains unclear whether these discrepancies reflect real differences in the implementation of these practices or are sourced from inconsistencies in incident classification and reporting methods. This study employed a co-design approach to identify contexts that would influence the classification and reporting of restrictive care practices. The research involved 29 mental health stakeholders, including 22 professional experts from 13 countries across Europe, Africa, North America, Asia and Australasia and seven service users and family carers from Australia. Recruitment was conducted through email invitations, snowball sampling and social media outreach. Six web-based panel meetings, each lasting 90–120 minnutes were held. These discussions focused on exploring various contexts that might lead to uncertainty among professionals when classifying and reporting actions whether or not as restrictive care practices. A final list of 23 contexts was identified and considered for the development of 81 case scenario items. Finally, all the 29 panel members selected 44 from 81 case scenarios for inclusion in an upcoming international survey to examine variations in the classification and reporting of restrictive care practices. The findings from this co-design work emphasise the involvement of a wide range of factors and contexts in the classification and reporting of restrictive care practices that may contribute to the observed variations in the in the reported rates of these practices. The case scenarios developed in this study will support future research and serve educational purposes, illustrating real-life situations in the mental healthcare context.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":14007,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Mental Health Nursing","volume":"34 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Mental Health Nursing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/inm.13479","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

There is a global initiative to reduce the use of restrictive care practices in mental health settings. Variations in the reported rates across regions complicate the understanding of their use and tracking trends over time. However, it remains unclear whether these discrepancies reflect real differences in the implementation of these practices or are sourced from inconsistencies in incident classification and reporting methods. This study employed a co-design approach to identify contexts that would influence the classification and reporting of restrictive care practices. The research involved 29 mental health stakeholders, including 22 professional experts from 13 countries across Europe, Africa, North America, Asia and Australasia and seven service users and family carers from Australia. Recruitment was conducted through email invitations, snowball sampling and social media outreach. Six web-based panel meetings, each lasting 90–120 minnutes were held. These discussions focused on exploring various contexts that might lead to uncertainty among professionals when classifying and reporting actions whether or not as restrictive care practices. A final list of 23 contexts was identified and considered for the development of 81 case scenario items. Finally, all the 29 panel members selected 44 from 81 case scenarios for inclusion in an upcoming international survey to examine variations in the classification and reporting of restrictive care practices. The findings from this co-design work emphasise the involvement of a wide range of factors and contexts in the classification and reporting of restrictive care practices that may contribute to the observed variations in the in the reported rates of these practices. The case scenarios developed in this study will support future research and serve educational purposes, illustrating real-life situations in the mental healthcare context.

共同设计案例场景和调查策略,以检查成人精神卫生住院环境中限制性护理实践的分类和报告:来自国际利益相关者的观点。
有一项减少在精神卫生机构使用限制性护理做法的全球倡议。各区域报告的比率的差异使人们对其使用情况的理解和对长期趋势的跟踪复杂化。然而,尚不清楚这些差异是否反映了这些做法实施的实际差异,还是源于事件分类和报告方法的不一致。本研究采用共同设计方法来确定可能影响限制性护理实践分类和报告的环境。这项研究涉及29名心理健康利益相关者,其中包括来自欧洲、非洲、北美、亚洲和大洋洲13个国家的22名专业专家,以及来自澳大利亚的7名服务使用者和家庭照顾者。招聘是通过电子邮件邀请、滚雪球抽样和社交媒体宣传进行的。举行了六次网络小组会议,每次会议持续90-120分钟。这些讨论的重点是探索各种可能导致专业人员在分类和报告行为时不确定的情况,无论是否为限制性护理实践。确定并审议了23种情况的最后清单,以编制81个情景项目。最后,所有29名小组成员从81个案例中选出44个纳入即将进行的国际调查,以检查限制性护理实践分类和报告的差异。这项共同设计工作的发现强调了限制性护理实践分类和报告中涉及的广泛因素和背景,这些因素和背景可能导致这些实践报告率的观察变化。在本研究中发展的案例场景将支持未来的研究,并服务于教育目的,说明现实生活中的精神卫生保健情境。
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
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
8.90%
发文量
128
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Mental Health Nursing is the official journal of the Australian College of Mental Health Nurses Inc. It is a fully refereed journal that examines current trends and developments in mental health practice and research. The International Journal of Mental Health Nursing provides a forum for the exchange of ideas on all issues of relevance to mental health nursing. The Journal informs you of developments in mental health nursing practice and research, directions in education and training, professional issues, management approaches, policy development, ethical questions, theoretical inquiry, and clinical issues. The Journal publishes feature articles, review articles, clinical notes, research notes and book reviews. Contributions on any aspect of mental health nursing are welcomed. Statements and opinions expressed in the journal reflect the views of the authors and are not necessarily endorsed by the Australian College of Mental Health Nurses Inc.
×
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