Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-v5vhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-26T06:12:48.516Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 9 - Ward Milieu and the Management of In-Patient Violence

Use of Seclusion and Other Restrictive Practices

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  aN Invalid Date NaN

Mary Davoren
Affiliation:
Broadmoor Hospital and West London NHS Trust
Harry G. Kennedy
Affiliation:
Trinity College Dublin
Get access

Summary

Increasingly, secure forensic mental health services must balance reducing restrictive practices on one hand with keeping a violence free environment on the other. Nursing staff and other hospital staff have the right to work in a safe environment. They should not be subject to intimidation and assaults in the work setting. Patients have the right to care in a safe environment and they need to have confidence that staff members can keep them safe during their in-patient stay. Minimising in-patient violence and minimising past violence for forensic patients is undermining an area of significant treatment need and may seriously limit the patient’s chance of a future successful discharge in the community. We posit in this chapter that active and careful management of ward milieu and dynamics, and active treatment of psychotic and other symptoms, together with proportionate use only of restrictive practice and thorough evaluation of any and all restrictive practice is the most effective way of managing a forensic in-patient setting to effectively reduce and prevent incidents of violence.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2024

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Williams, HK, Senanayke, M, Ross, CC, Bates, R, Davoren, M. Security needs among patients referred for high secure care in Broadmoor Hospital England. BJPsych Open 2020; 6 (4): e55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coid, JW, Ullrich, S, Kallis, C et al. The relationship between delusions and violence: findings from the East London first episode psychosis study. JAMA Psychiatry 2013; 70 (5): 465–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kennedy, HG. Therapeutic uses of security: mapping forensic mental health services by stratifying risk. Advances in Psychiatric Treatment 2002; 8 (6): 433–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, PD. Solutions to the problem of the dangerous offender. The BMJ 1974; 4 (5945): 640–1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, KS, Hart, SD, Webster, CD et al. Historical-clinical-risk management-20, version 3 (HCR-20V3): development and overview. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health 2014; 13 (2): 93108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blom-Cooper, LJ, Hally, H. The Falling Shadow: One Patient’s Mental Health Care, 1978–1993. Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Events Leading Up to and Surrounding the Fatal Incident at the Edith Morgan Centre, Torbay, on 1 September 1993. London, Duckworth, 1995.Google Scholar
Bowers, L, Alexander, J, Bilgin, H et al. Safewards: the empirical basis of the model and a critical appraisal. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing 2014; 21 (4): 354–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stensgaard, L, Andersen, MK, Nordentoft, M, Hjorthøj, C. Implementation of the safewards model to reduce the use of coercive measures in adult psychiatric inpatient units: an interrupted time-series analysis. Journal of Psychiatric Research 2018; 105: 147–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Allen, E. Your Guide to Relational Security: See, Think, Act, 3rd ed. London, Royal College of Psychiatrists, 2023.Google Scholar
Tighe, J, Gudjonsson, GH. See, Think, Act Scale: preliminary development and validation of a measure of relational security in medium- and low-secure units. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology 2012; 23 (2): 184–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schalast, N, Redies, M, Collins, M, Stacey, J, Howells, K. EssenCES, a short questionnaire for assessing the social climate of forensic psychiatric wards. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health 2008; 18 (1): 4958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, KS, Webster, CD, Hart, SD, Belfrage, H. HCR-20v3: Assessing Risk for Violence: User Guide. 3rd ed. Burnaby, Mental Health, Law, and Policy Institute, Simon Fraser University, 2013.Google Scholar
Almvik, R, Woods, P, Rasmussen, K. The Brøset Violence Checklist: sensitivity, specificity, and interrater reliability. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 2000; 15 (12): 1284–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ogloff, JR, Daffern, M. The dynamic appraisal of situational aggression: an instrument to assess risk for imminent aggression in psychiatric inpatients. Behavioral Sciences & the Law 2006; 24 (6): 799813.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hvidhjelm, J, Sestoft, D, Skovgaard, LT et al. Aggression in psychiatric wards: effect of the use of a structured risk assessment. Issues in Mental Health Nursing 2016; 37 (12): 960–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Griffith, JJ, Meyer, D, Maguire, T, Ogloff, JRP, Daffern, M. A clinical decision support system to prevent aggression and reduce restrictive practices in a forensic mental health service. Psychiatric Services 2021; 72 (8): 885–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, SG, Wheeler, EG. Survival skills for working with potentially violent clients. Social Casework 1983; 64 (6): 339–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT). Means of Restraint in Psychiatric Establishments for Adults (Revised CPT Standards). Strasbourg, 21 March 2017, CPT/Inf(2017)6, p. 2. https://rm.coe.int/16807001c.Google Scholar
Broderick, C, Azizian, A, Kornbluh, R, Warburton, K. Prevalence of physical violence in a forensic psychiatric hospital system during 2011–2013: Patient assaults, staff assaults, and repeatedly violent patients. CNS Spectrums 2015; 20 (3): 319–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, HG, Mullaney, R, McKenna, P et al. A tool to evaluate proportionality and necessity in the use of restrictive practices in forensic mental health settings: the DRILL tool (Dundrum restriction, intrusion and liberty ladders). BMC Psychiatry 2020; 20 (1): 120.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×