Citation

Benson A, Secker J, Balfe E, Lipsedge M, Robinson S, Walker J. Soc. Sci. Med. 2003; 57(5): 917-926.

Affiliation

Florence Nightingale School of Nursing and Midwifery, King's College, London, UK.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2003, Elsevier Publishing)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

12850116

Abstract

The English National Service Framework for Mental Health stipulates that the highest quality of health care should be provided for mental health service users in the most efficient and effective manner. Incidents of aggression and violence militate against achieving that goal, yet such incidents are frequently reported in inpatient settings. Traditionally, research in this area has focused on the extent of the phenomenon, the individual characteristics of those involved and precursors to the incident. For the most part the literature reflects a dualistic, perpetrator/victim conceptualisation of incidents. This study aimed to address the lack of research undertaken from a more systemic perspective by examining how all those involved understood and attributed meaning to violent or aggressive situations and how these attributions justified individual perceptions, reactions and actions. Working from the position that all behaviour, including violent behaviour, has meaning to those involved and can be understood, 16 semi-structured interviews were carried out in one mental health unit. Because only one client was both willing and able to give a full account of an incident, we focus here on two incidents in which that client was involved. Discourse analytic techniques were used to examine her account of the two incidents and those of the staff members involved. Participants discussed key themes from the interviews in terms of several dilemmas: whether the violent or aggressive behaviour was 'mad' or 'bad'; predictable or unpredictable; and had resulted from 'personality' or ' mental illness'. The client and staff discourses were strikingly similar and in each case the central concern was with the attribution of blame. The findings have implications for the professional discourse of mental health care, including the discourse of the current policy agenda, a discourse itself constructed with the primary function of exoneration from and attribution of blame.

Language: en