Kaunomäki Jenni, Jokela Markus, Kontio Raija, Laiho Tero, Sailas Eila, Lindberg Nina
Institute of Behavioural Sciences, University of Helsinki, Siltavuorenpenger 1A, P.O. Box 9, 00014, Helsinki, Finland.
Helsinki University and Helsinki University Hospital, Psychiatry, Välskärinkatu 12 A, 00029, HUS, Helsinki, Finland.
BMC Health Serv Res. 2017 Jan 11;17(1):26. doi: 10.1186/s12913-016-1942-0.
Patient aggression and violence against staff members and other patients are common concerns in psychiatric units. Many structured clinical risk assessment tools have recently been developed. Despite their superiority to unaided clinical judgments, staff has shown ambivalent views towards them. A constant worry of staff is that the results of risk assessments would not be used. The aims of the present study were to investigate what were the interventions applied by the staff of a psychiatric admission ward after a high risk patient had been identified, how frequently these interventions were used and how effective they were.
The data were collected in a naturalistic setting during a 6-month period in a Finnish psychiatric admission ward with a total of 331 patients with a mean age of 42.9 years (SD 17.39) suffering mostly from mood, schizophrenia-related and substance use disorders. The total number of treatment days was 2399. The staff assessed the patients daily with the Dynamic Appraisal of Situational Aggression (DASA), which is a structured violence risk assessment considering the upcoming 24 h. The interventions in order to reduce the risk of violence following a high DASA total score (≥4) were collected from the patients' medical files. Inductive content analysis was used.
There were a total of 64 patients with 217 observations of high DASA total score. In 91.2% of cases, at least one intervention aiming to reduce the violence risk was used. Pro re nata (PRN)-medication, seclusion and focused discussions with a nurse were the most frequently used interventions. Non-coercive and non-pharmacological interventions like daily activities associated significantly with the decrease of perceived risk of violence.
In most cases, a high score in violence risk assessment led to interventions aiming to reduce the risk. Unfortunately, the most frequently used methods were psychopharmacological or coercive. It is hoped that the findings will encourage the staff to use their imagination when choosing violence risk reducing intervention techniques.
患者对工作人员及其他患者的攻击和暴力行为是精神科病房常见的问题。最近已开发出许多结构化临床风险评估工具。尽管这些工具比单纯的临床判断更具优势,但工作人员对它们的看法却很矛盾。工作人员一直担心风险评估结果不会被采用。本研究的目的是调查在确定高危患者后,精神科住院病房的工作人员采取了哪些干预措施,这些干预措施的使用频率以及效果如何。
在芬兰一个精神科住院病房进行了为期6个月的自然观察研究,共有331名患者,平均年龄42.9岁(标准差17.39),主要患有情绪障碍、精神分裂症相关障碍和物质使用障碍。治疗总天数为2399天。工作人员每天使用情境攻击动态评估(DASA)对患者进行评估,这是一种考虑未来24小时的结构化暴力风险评估。从患者的病历中收集在DASA总分较高(≥4)后为降低暴力风险而采取的干预措施。采用归纳性内容分析法。
共有64例患者出现217次DASA总分较高的情况。在91.2%的病例中,至少使用了一种旨在降低暴力风险的干预措施。按需用药、隔离以及与护士进行针对性讨论是最常用的干预措施。非强制性和非药物性干预措施,如日常活动,与暴力感知风险的降低显著相关。
在大多数情况下,暴力风险评估高分会导致采取旨在降低风险的干预措施。不幸的是,最常用的方法是心理药物治疗或强制性措施。希望这些研究结果能鼓励工作人员在选择降低暴力风险的干预技术时发挥想象力。