精神科重症监护期间约束减少:文化改变干预的受控双相时间序列评估。

IF 1.6 Q4 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Eleanor Green, Stephen Kellett, Chris Gaskell, Martin Hobbs
{"title":"精神科重症监护期间约束减少:文化改变干预的受控双相时间序列评估。","authors":"Eleanor Green, Stephen Kellett, Chris Gaskell, Martin Hobbs","doi":"10.1136/bmjoq-2024-002956","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Restrictive practices (ie, physical restraint, rapid tranquilisation and seclusion) are used to manage risk of harm to self and/or others during inpatient psychiatric admissions. Restrictive practices can be physically and psychologically hazardous for both patients and staff, but there have been few well-controlled evaluations of interventions to reduce restrictive practices.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To conduct a controlled evaluation of the implementation of a culture change intervention on a psychiatric intensive care unit (PICU) compared with a control PICU on use of restraint.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A new staff role was created on the intervention PICU (ie, the <i>reducing restrictive interventions advocate</i>; RRIA). The RRIA met with patients/carers and advised, trained, supervised and debriefed the multidisciplinary team concerning restraint. Mixed methods evaluated the effectiveness of the RRIA role. Restraint outcomes on the intervention and the control PICU were compared pre (19 months) and post intervention (19 months). Qualitative interviews were conducted with the RRIA, the PICU ward manager and the RRI organisational lead.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>On the intervention PICU, there were significant reductions in the use of seclusion, full restraint and use of standing holds. Qualitatively, positive changes to the safety culture of the intervention PICU were reported, and these were consistently rated as important, impactful and unlikely without the RRIA role.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>PICU safety culture can improve when specific roles focused on changing ward practices around restraints are implemented. More controlled evaluations of reducing restraint interventions on PICUs are needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":9052,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open Quality","volume":"14 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12406904/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Restraint reduction during psychiatric intensive care: a controlled bi-phasic time series evaluation of a culture change intervention.\",\"authors\":\"Eleanor Green, Stephen Kellett, Chris Gaskell, Martin Hobbs\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/bmjoq-2024-002956\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Restrictive practices (ie, physical restraint, rapid tranquilisation and seclusion) are used to manage risk of harm to self and/or others during inpatient psychiatric admissions. Restrictive practices can be physically and psychologically hazardous for both patients and staff, but there have been few well-controlled evaluations of interventions to reduce restrictive practices.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To conduct a controlled evaluation of the implementation of a culture change intervention on a psychiatric intensive care unit (PICU) compared with a control PICU on use of restraint.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A new staff role was created on the intervention PICU (ie, the <i>reducing restrictive interventions advocate</i>; RRIA). The RRIA met with patients/carers and advised, trained, supervised and debriefed the multidisciplinary team concerning restraint. Mixed methods evaluated the effectiveness of the RRIA role. Restraint outcomes on the intervention and the control PICU were compared pre (19 months) and post intervention (19 months). Qualitative interviews were conducted with the RRIA, the PICU ward manager and the RRI organisational lead.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>On the intervention PICU, there were significant reductions in the use of seclusion, full restraint and use of standing holds. Qualitatively, positive changes to the safety culture of the intervention PICU were reported, and these were consistently rated as important, impactful and unlikely without the RRIA role.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>PICU safety culture can improve when specific roles focused on changing ward practices around restraints are implemented. More controlled evaluations of reducing restraint interventions on PICUs are needed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9052,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMJ Open Quality\",\"volume\":\"14 3\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12406904/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMJ Open Quality\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2024-002956\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Open Quality","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2024-002956","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:在精神病住院期间,限制性做法(即身体约束、快速镇静和隔离)用于管理伤害自己和/或他人的风险。限制性做法可能对患者和工作人员造成身体和心理上的危害,但对减少限制性做法的干预措施进行的控制良好的评估很少。目的:对精神科重症监护病房(PICU)实施文化改变干预与对照PICU使用约束进行对照评估。方法:在干预PICU中创建一个新的工作人员角色(即减少限制性干预倡导者;RRIA)。RRIA会见了患者/护理人员,并就约束问题向多学科小组提供建议、培训、监督和汇报。混合方法评估了RRIA作用的有效性。比较干预前(19个月)和干预后(19个月)PICU与对照PICU的约束结果。对RRIA、PICU病房经理和RRI组织领导进行了定性访谈。结果:在干预PICU中,隔离、全约束和站立支架的使用明显减少。从质量上讲,干预PICU的安全文化发生了积极的变化,这些变化一直被认为是重要的、有影响力的,如果没有RRIA的作用,这些变化是不可能的。结论:PICU的安全文化可以改善,当特定的角色侧重于改变病房实践围绕约束实施。需要对减少对picu的约束干预进行更多的对照评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Restraint reduction during psychiatric intensive care: a controlled bi-phasic time series evaluation of a culture change intervention.

Restraint reduction during psychiatric intensive care: a controlled bi-phasic time series evaluation of a culture change intervention.

Restraint reduction during psychiatric intensive care: a controlled bi-phasic time series evaluation of a culture change intervention.

Restraint reduction during psychiatric intensive care: a controlled bi-phasic time series evaluation of a culture change intervention.

Background: Restrictive practices (ie, physical restraint, rapid tranquilisation and seclusion) are used to manage risk of harm to self and/or others during inpatient psychiatric admissions. Restrictive practices can be physically and psychologically hazardous for both patients and staff, but there have been few well-controlled evaluations of interventions to reduce restrictive practices.

Objective: To conduct a controlled evaluation of the implementation of a culture change intervention on a psychiatric intensive care unit (PICU) compared with a control PICU on use of restraint.

Methods: A new staff role was created on the intervention PICU (ie, the reducing restrictive interventions advocate; RRIA). The RRIA met with patients/carers and advised, trained, supervised and debriefed the multidisciplinary team concerning restraint. Mixed methods evaluated the effectiveness of the RRIA role. Restraint outcomes on the intervention and the control PICU were compared pre (19 months) and post intervention (19 months). Qualitative interviews were conducted with the RRIA, the PICU ward manager and the RRI organisational lead.

Results: On the intervention PICU, there were significant reductions in the use of seclusion, full restraint and use of standing holds. Qualitatively, positive changes to the safety culture of the intervention PICU were reported, and these were consistently rated as important, impactful and unlikely without the RRIA role.

Conclusions: PICU safety culture can improve when specific roles focused on changing ward practices around restraints are implemented. More controlled evaluations of reducing restraint interventions on PICUs are needed.

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
BMJ Open Quality
BMJ Open Quality Nursing-Leadership and Management
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
226
审稿时长
20 weeks
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信