医疗保健服务中安全卫士模式的实施和使用:范围审查。

IF 3.6 2区 医学 Q1 NURSING
Kristel Ward-Stockham, Catherine Daniel, Helena Bujalka, Rebecca J. Jarden, Celene Y. L. Yap, Lindy Cochrane, Marie Frances Gerdtz
{"title":"医疗保健服务中安全卫士模式的实施和使用:范围审查。","authors":"Kristel Ward-Stockham,&nbsp;Catherine Daniel,&nbsp;Helena Bujalka,&nbsp;Rebecca J. Jarden,&nbsp;Celene Y. L. Yap,&nbsp;Lindy Cochrane,&nbsp;Marie Frances Gerdtz","doi":"10.1111/inm.13345","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Safewards is a multi-intervention mental health nursing model of practice improvement aimed at preventing and reducing conflict and containment. The use of Safewards has now extended beyond mental health settings. Implementation of Safewards has been reported to be challenging and therefore requires an evidence-informed and structured approach. This review's objectives were to: (i) Comprehensively map approaches used to implement Safewards interventions; (ii) Characterise the outcomes measured in Safewards implementation studies; and (iii) Identify the facilitators and barriers to Safewards training and its implementation in practice. All quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods publications of Safewards, the interventions, evaluations, barriers and facilitators from all healthcare services internationally were included. The Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis extension for Scoping Reviews were used to guide methodology. Data were reported according to the 12 items of the TIDieR. Twenty-seven publications reported the implementation of Safewards. Descriptions were limited for reporting items such as intervention descriptions, materials, resources, specific procedures and processes, modifications made to interventions and delivery of interventions and training. No consistent theoretical implementation framework was reported. Collaboration, leadership, feedback and co-design were strong drivers for staff buy-in, engagement and success for implementation in mental health and acute settings. Transparency, replicability and generalisation require a detailed description of all elements of an intervention being implemented. Without adequate information, only assumptions can be drawn about the clinical governance and process of the implementation and training, and it is difficult to conclude when attempting to replicate the interventions.</p>","PeriodicalId":14007,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Mental Health Nursing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/inm.13345","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Implementation and use of the Safewards model in healthcare services: A scoping review\",\"authors\":\"Kristel Ward-Stockham,&nbsp;Catherine Daniel,&nbsp;Helena Bujalka,&nbsp;Rebecca J. Jarden,&nbsp;Celene Y. L. Yap,&nbsp;Lindy Cochrane,&nbsp;Marie Frances Gerdtz\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/inm.13345\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Safewards is a multi-intervention mental health nursing model of practice improvement aimed at preventing and reducing conflict and containment. The use of Safewards has now extended beyond mental health settings. Implementation of Safewards has been reported to be challenging and therefore requires an evidence-informed and structured approach. This review's objectives were to: (i) Comprehensively map approaches used to implement Safewards interventions; (ii) Characterise the outcomes measured in Safewards implementation studies; and (iii) Identify the facilitators and barriers to Safewards training and its implementation in practice. All quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods publications of Safewards, the interventions, evaluations, barriers and facilitators from all healthcare services internationally were included. The Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis extension for Scoping Reviews were used to guide methodology. Data were reported according to the 12 items of the TIDieR. Twenty-seven publications reported the implementation of Safewards. Descriptions were limited for reporting items such as intervention descriptions, materials, resources, specific procedures and processes, modifications made to interventions and delivery of interventions and training. No consistent theoretical implementation framework was reported. Collaboration, leadership, feedback and co-design were strong drivers for staff buy-in, engagement and success for implementation in mental health and acute settings. Transparency, replicability and generalisation require a detailed description of all elements of an intervention being implemented. Without adequate information, only assumptions can be drawn about the clinical governance and process of the implementation and training, and it is difficult to conclude when attempting to replicate the interventions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14007,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Mental Health Nursing\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/inm.13345\",\"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.13345\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"NURSING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Mental Health Nursing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/inm.13345","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

摘要

安全防范是一种旨在预防和减少冲突及遏制冲突的多重干预心理健康护理实践改进模式。现在,"安全卫士 "的使用范围已经超出了心理健康环境。据报道,实施 "安全策略 "具有一定的挑战性,因此需要一种以证据为依据的结构化方法。本次审查的目标是(i) 全面梳理用于实施安全卫士干预措施的方法;(ii) 描述安全卫士实施研究中测量的结果的特点;以及 (iii) 确定安全卫士培训及其在实践中实施的促进因素和障碍。所有定量、定性和混合方法的出版物,包括来自国际上所有医疗保健服务机构的安全卫士、干预措施、评估、障碍和促进因素。乔安娜-布里格斯研究所(Joanna Briggs Institute)的范围综述和系统综述首选报告项目以及范围综述 Meta 分析扩展用于指导研究方法。数据按照 TIDieR 的 12 个项目进行报告。27 篇出版物报告了安全保障措施的实施情况。对干预说明、材料、资源、具体程序和流程、对干预的修改以及干预和培训的实施等报告项目的描述有限。没有报告一致的理论实施框架。合作、领导力、反馈和共同设计是员工接受、参与和在心理健康和急诊环境中成功实施的强大推动力。要实现透明度、可复制性和推广性,就必须详细描述正在实施的干预措施的所有要素。如果没有足够的信息,就只能对实施和培训的临床管理和过程进行假设,在试图复制干预措施时很难得出结论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Implementation and use of the Safewards model in healthcare services: A scoping review

Implementation and use of the Safewards model in healthcare services: A scoping review

Safewards is a multi-intervention mental health nursing model of practice improvement aimed at preventing and reducing conflict and containment. The use of Safewards has now extended beyond mental health settings. Implementation of Safewards has been reported to be challenging and therefore requires an evidence-informed and structured approach. This review's objectives were to: (i) Comprehensively map approaches used to implement Safewards interventions; (ii) Characterise the outcomes measured in Safewards implementation studies; and (iii) Identify the facilitators and barriers to Safewards training and its implementation in practice. All quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods publications of Safewards, the interventions, evaluations, barriers and facilitators from all healthcare services internationally were included. The Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis extension for Scoping Reviews were used to guide methodology. Data were reported according to the 12 items of the TIDieR. Twenty-seven publications reported the implementation of Safewards. Descriptions were limited for reporting items such as intervention descriptions, materials, resources, specific procedures and processes, modifications made to interventions and delivery of interventions and training. No consistent theoretical implementation framework was reported. Collaboration, leadership, feedback and co-design were strong drivers for staff buy-in, engagement and success for implementation in mental health and acute settings. Transparency, replicability and generalisation require a detailed description of all elements of an intervention being implemented. Without adequate information, only assumptions can be drawn about the clinical governance and process of the implementation and training, and it is difficult to conclude when attempting to replicate the interventions.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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