{"title":"Are principles of recovery-oriented practice evident in staff and service user perspectives on seclusion?","authors":"Antaine Stíobhairt, David Staunton, S. Guerin","doi":"10.1108/mhrj-02-2022-0009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nThis paper aims to explore the extent to which principles of recovery-oriented practice are evident in the published perspectives and experiences of health professionals and service users on seclusion in adult mental health services.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nA systematic review informed by PRISMA guidelines was conducted, drawing from four databases, which were searched in August 2018 and August 2022. Only original empirical studies rated as having “major” relevance were included. Data were extracted from 31 studies and qualitatively synthesised through deductive analysis using recovery principles as themes.\n\n\nFindings\nThere was limited evidence of perceptions of seclusion being being consistent with recovery principles, with greater evidence of perceptions that directly opposed them. Studies of service user perspectives highlighted this more often than staff perspectives. The findings highlight paradoxical relationships between care and control and conflicting rights and emphasise the need to openly acknowledge the complexity of seclusion and its interface with recovery.\n\n\nResearch limitations/implications\nThis review was developed in line with international best practice and the protocol was registered. Using a search string with only three components maximised sensitivity during searches and minimised the risk of relevant literature being missed. Limitations include the focus on studies where the full text was published in English.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nThis review makes a unique contribution, highlighting that, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, no studies to date have explicitly explored the perspectives and experiences of staff and service users on the use of seclusion in the context of recovery-oriented practice. The findings are relevant to clinical practice, policy and future research, including amending procedures and practices to partially reconcile seclusion and recovery where the seclusion is deemed necessary.\n","PeriodicalId":45687,"journal":{"name":"Mental Health Review Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Mental Health Review Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/mhrj-02-2022-0009","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
Purpose
This paper aims to explore the extent to which principles of recovery-oriented practice are evident in the published perspectives and experiences of health professionals and service users on seclusion in adult mental health services.
Design/methodology/approach
A systematic review informed by PRISMA guidelines was conducted, drawing from four databases, which were searched in August 2018 and August 2022. Only original empirical studies rated as having “major” relevance were included. Data were extracted from 31 studies and qualitatively synthesised through deductive analysis using recovery principles as themes.
Findings
There was limited evidence of perceptions of seclusion being being consistent with recovery principles, with greater evidence of perceptions that directly opposed them. Studies of service user perspectives highlighted this more often than staff perspectives. The findings highlight paradoxical relationships between care and control and conflicting rights and emphasise the need to openly acknowledge the complexity of seclusion and its interface with recovery.
Research limitations/implications
This review was developed in line with international best practice and the protocol was registered. Using a search string with only three components maximised sensitivity during searches and minimised the risk of relevant literature being missed. Limitations include the focus on studies where the full text was published in English.
Originality/value
This review makes a unique contribution, highlighting that, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, no studies to date have explicitly explored the perspectives and experiences of staff and service users on the use of seclusion in the context of recovery-oriented practice. The findings are relevant to clinical practice, policy and future research, including amending procedures and practices to partially reconcile seclusion and recovery where the seclusion is deemed necessary.