Forensic Mental Health Research Unit Middelfart, Department of Regional Health Research, University of Southern Denmark, Middelfart, Denmark.
Psychiatric Department Middelfart, Mental Health Services in the Region of Southern Denmark, Middelfart, Denmark.
Nord J Psychiatry. 2024 May;78(4):328-338. doi: 10.1080/08039488.2024.2323125. Epub 2024 Mar 4.
To explore mental health staff's responses towards interventions designed to reduce the use of mechanical restraint (MR) in adult mental health inpatient settings.
We conducted a cross-sectional, questionnaire-based survey. The questionnaire, made available online REDCap, presented 20 interventions designed to reduce MR use. Participants were asked to rate and rank the interventions based on their viewpoints regarding the relevance and importance of each intervention.
A total of 128 mental health staff members from general and forensic mental health inpatient units across the Mental Health Services in the Region of Southern Denmark completed the questionnaire (response rate = 21.3%). A total of 90.8% of the ratings scored either 'agree' (45.2%) or 'strongly agree' (45.6%) concerning the relevance of the interventions in reducing MR use. Overall and in the divided analysis, interventions labelled as 'building relationship' and 'patient-related knowledge' claimed high scores in the staff's rankings of the interventions' importance concerning implementation. Conversely, interventions like 'carers' and 'standardised assessments' received low scores.
The staff generally considered that the interventions were relevant. Importance rankings were consistent across the divisions chosen, with a range of variance and dispersion being recorded among certain groups.
探讨精神卫生工作人员对旨在减少成人精神科住院环境中使用机械约束(MR)的干预措施的反应。
我们进行了一项横断面、基于问卷的调查。问卷通过 REDCap 在线提供,展示了 20 种旨在减少 MR 使用的干预措施。参与者根据他们对每项干预措施相关性和重要性的观点,对干预措施进行评分和排名。
丹麦南部地区精神卫生服务机构的普通和法医精神科住院病房的 128 名精神卫生工作人员完成了问卷(应答率=21.3%)。对于干预措施在减少 MR 使用方面的相关性,90.8%的评分要么是“同意”(45.2%),要么是“强烈同意”(45.6%)。总体而言,在细分分析中,被标记为“建立关系”和“患者相关知识”的干预措施在工作人员对干预措施实施重要性的排名中得分较高。相反,像“照顾者”和“标准化评估”这样的干预措施得分较低。
工作人员普遍认为这些干预措施是相关的。重要性排名在所选部门之间是一致的,某些群体之间记录了一定的差异和分散。