成人安全心理健康服务中的限制性做法:范围界定综述

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q3 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY
Danielle A. Lawrence, Ruth Bagshaw, D. Stubbings, Andrew Watt
{"title":"成人安全心理健康服务中的限制性做法:范围界定综述","authors":"Danielle A. Lawrence, Ruth Bagshaw, D. Stubbings, Andrew Watt","doi":"10.1080/14999013.2021.1887978","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Restrictive practices are often harmful and many academics, policy-makers and clinicians agree that their use should be reduced in care settings. Specific focus on secure mental health services is warranted because restrictive practices are often seen as an integral part of forensic psychiatry but have received limited research attention relative to other areas of psychiatric practice. The aim of this scoping review was to map and evaluate recent empirical research that examines the use of restrictive practices, the consequences of using them and efforts to reduce restrictive practices, in secure mental health settings published since June 2015. The purpose of this review was to identify limitations and gaps in the literature in order to inform further research. PsycINFO, Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus and ASSIA databases were searched for studies published between 2015 and 2020. Following electronic and manual searches, 36 studies were included. The studies were grouped into four main areas: 1) Nature of the problem describing the type, incidence, prevalence and scope of restrictive practices in secure mental health services; 2) Service user perceptions and experiences of restrictive practices; 3) Staff experiences, views and decision making; and 4) Interventions designed to reduce the use of restrictive practices. Findings support the notion that restrictive practices have a detrimental impact on the wellbeing of most service users in adult secure services as well as the staff who use them. Continued efforts to reduce restrictive practices are needed and the importance of collaborative working cannot be understated. Implications for future research, clinical practice, policy and best practice guidelines are all discussed.","PeriodicalId":14052,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Forensic Mental Health","volume":"21 1","pages":"68 - 88"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-02-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14999013.2021.1887978","citationCount":"17","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Restrictive Practices in Adult Secure Mental Health Services: A Scoping Review\",\"authors\":\"Danielle A. Lawrence, Ruth Bagshaw, D. Stubbings, Andrew Watt\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/14999013.2021.1887978\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Restrictive practices are often harmful and many academics, policy-makers and clinicians agree that their use should be reduced in care settings. Specific focus on secure mental health services is warranted because restrictive practices are often seen as an integral part of forensic psychiatry but have received limited research attention relative to other areas of psychiatric practice. The aim of this scoping review was to map and evaluate recent empirical research that examines the use of restrictive practices, the consequences of using them and efforts to reduce restrictive practices, in secure mental health settings published since June 2015. The purpose of this review was to identify limitations and gaps in the literature in order to inform further research. PsycINFO, Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus and ASSIA databases were searched for studies published between 2015 and 2020. Following electronic and manual searches, 36 studies were included. The studies were grouped into four main areas: 1) Nature of the problem describing the type, incidence, prevalence and scope of restrictive practices in secure mental health services; 2) Service user perceptions and experiences of restrictive practices; 3) Staff experiences, views and decision making; and 4) Interventions designed to reduce the use of restrictive practices. Findings support the notion that restrictive practices have a detrimental impact on the wellbeing of most service users in adult secure services as well as the staff who use them. Continued efforts to reduce restrictive practices are needed and the importance of collaborative working cannot be understated. Implications for future research, clinical practice, policy and best practice guidelines are all discussed.\",\"PeriodicalId\":14052,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Forensic Mental Health\",\"volume\":\"21 1\",\"pages\":\"68 - 88\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-02-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14999013.2021.1887978\",\"citationCount\":\"17\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Forensic Mental Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/14999013.2021.1887978\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Forensic Mental Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14999013.2021.1887978","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 17

摘要

摘要限制性做法通常是有害的,许多学者、决策者和临床医生都认为,在护理环境中应该减少使用限制性做法。有必要特别关注安全的心理健康服务,因为限制性做法通常被视为法医精神病学的一个组成部分,但与精神病实践的其他领域相比,受到的研究关注有限。本次范围界定审查的目的是绘制和评估自2015年6月以来发表的最近的实证研究,该研究考察了在安全的心理健康环境中使用限制性做法、使用限制性措施的后果以及减少限制性做法的努力。这篇综述的目的是确定文献中的局限性和差距,以便为进一步的研究提供信息。检索PsycINFO、Medline、Embase、CINAHL、Scopus和ASSIA数据库中2015年至2020年间发表的研究。经过电子和手动搜索,纳入了36项研究。这些研究分为四个主要领域:1)问题的性质,描述了安全心理健康服务中限制性做法的类型、发生率、流行率和范围;2) 服务使用者对限制性做法的看法和经验;3) 工作人员的经验、观点和决策;以及4)旨在减少使用限制性做法的干预措施。研究结果支持这样一种观点,即限制性做法对成人安全服务中的大多数服务用户以及使用这些服务的工作人员的福祉产生了不利影响。需要继续努力减少限制性做法,合作工作的重要性不容低估。对未来研究、临床实践、政策和最佳实践指南的影响都进行了讨论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Restrictive Practices in Adult Secure Mental Health Services: A Scoping Review
Abstract Restrictive practices are often harmful and many academics, policy-makers and clinicians agree that their use should be reduced in care settings. Specific focus on secure mental health services is warranted because restrictive practices are often seen as an integral part of forensic psychiatry but have received limited research attention relative to other areas of psychiatric practice. The aim of this scoping review was to map and evaluate recent empirical research that examines the use of restrictive practices, the consequences of using them and efforts to reduce restrictive practices, in secure mental health settings published since June 2015. The purpose of this review was to identify limitations and gaps in the literature in order to inform further research. PsycINFO, Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus and ASSIA databases were searched for studies published between 2015 and 2020. Following electronic and manual searches, 36 studies were included. The studies were grouped into four main areas: 1) Nature of the problem describing the type, incidence, prevalence and scope of restrictive practices in secure mental health services; 2) Service user perceptions and experiences of restrictive practices; 3) Staff experiences, views and decision making; and 4) Interventions designed to reduce the use of restrictive practices. Findings support the notion that restrictive practices have a detrimental impact on the wellbeing of most service users in adult secure services as well as the staff who use them. Continued efforts to reduce restrictive practices are needed and the importance of collaborative working cannot be understated. Implications for future research, clinical practice, policy and best practice guidelines are all discussed.
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
2.80
自引率
7.10%
发文量
24
×
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