|
Affiliation
|
School of Health Sciences, Division of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, University of Manchester, United Kingdom. Electronic address: karina.lovell@manchester.ac.uk. |
|
Abstract
|
BACKGROUND: De-escalation techniques are recommended to manage violence and aggression in mental health settings yet restrictive practices continue to be frequently used. Barriers and enablers to the implementation and effectiveness of de-escalation techniques in practice are not well understood.
OBJECTIVES: To obtain staff descriptions of de-escalation techniques currently used in mental health settings and explore factors perceived to influence their implementation and effectiveness.
DESIGN: Qualitative, semi-structured interviews and Framework Analysis. SETTINGS: Five in-patient wards including three male psychiatric intensive care units, one female acute ward and one male acute ward in three UK Mental Health NHS Trusts. PARTICIPANTS: 20 ward-based clinical staff.
METHODS: Individual semi-structured interviews were digitally recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using a qualitative data analysis software package.
RESULTS: Participants described 14 techniques used in response to escalated aggression applied on a continuum between support and control. Techniques along the support-control continuum could be classified in three groups: 'support' (e.g. problem-solving, distraction, reassurance) 'non-physical control' (e.g. reprimands, deterrents, instruction) and 'physical control' (e.g. physical restraint and seclusion). Charting the reasoning staff provided for technique selection against the described behavioural outcome enabled a preliminary understanding of staff, patient and environmental influences on de-escalation success or failure. Importantly, the more coercive 'non-physical control' techniques are currently conceptualised by staff as a feature of de-escalation techniques, yet, there was evidence of a link between these and increased aggression/use of restrictive practices. Risk was not a consistent factor in decisions to adopt more controlling techniques. Moral judgements regarding the function of the aggression; trial-and-error; ingrained local custom (especially around instruction to low stimulus areas); knowledge of the patient; time-efficiency and staff anxiety had a key role in escalating intervention.
CONCLUSION: This paper provides a new model for understanding staff intervention in response to escalated aggression, a continuum between support and control. It further provides a preliminary explanatory framework for understanding the relationship between patient behaviour, staff response and environmental influences on de-escalation success and failure. This framework reveals potentially important behaviour change targets for interventions seeking to reduce violence and use of restrictive practices through enhanced de-escalation techniques.
Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Language: en |