Safewards is a complex intervention developed to promote a therapeutic response to minimise conflict and containment in inpatient mental health settings. A pilot study was conducted to adapt Safewards for the emergency department (ED) setting to evaluate its impact on the use of restrictive interventions. This subgroup analysis focusses on patients transported to the ED by police for mental health assessment. METHOD:A retrospective file audit was conducted using pre and post measures on the use of restrictive interventions following the implementation of Safewards. Demographic and restrictive interventions data were extracted from the hospital databases 12 months before and 6 months after Safewards was implemented. All patients transported to the ED by police for a mental health assessment were included in two regional emergency departments in Victoria, Australia, with over 122,000 presentations per year accredited by the Australasian College for Emergency Medicine. RESULTS:There were 1379 pre and 543 post attendances accompanied by police. Of these, 85.5% pre and 99.1% post were transported to the hospital under Section 351 of the MHA (2014). Post implementation, there were fewer code grey events (clinical and security responses to unarmed threat) that required restrictive interventions including mechanical or chemical restraint. The number of code grey events in which no restrictive intervention was applied increased from 76.7% to 86.6%. Staff assigned higher triage ratings following the introduction of Safewards. There was a significant reduction in code grey events that used one restrictive intervention after implementing Safewards ED interventions (15.6% versus 7.2%; p=<0.001). Significantly fewer sedative medications were administered to manage behaviour on arrival (20.6% pre versus 9.8% post, p=<0.001). CONCLUSION:The Safewards ED adaptation may have contributed to a reduction in the use of restrictive interventions in this high-risk subgroup of patients frequently subject to restrictive interventions in the ED. Further research is required to validate the findings from this subgroup analysis.

BackgroundSafewards is an evidence-based practice improvement model to minimise conflict in inpatient mental health units. There is limited published research on implementing Safewards in acute medical/surgical care wards.ObjectiveTo identify, from nurses' perspectives, barriers, and facilitators to implement four Safewards interventions in acute medical/surgical care wards.MethodsThis article reports qualitative findings from a funded mixed-method evaluation of the Safewards Acute Care Pilot Project. Six focus group interviews comprising 35 nursing staff from four hospitals in Victoria, Australia were completed between April and October 2022. The semi-structured interview guide included questions developed using the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation and Behaviour model. Data was thematically analysed and mapped to a matrix combining Capability, Opportunity, Motivation and Behaviour model and the Theoretical Domains Framework to elucidate barriers and facilitators to implementing four Safewards interventions in acute medical/surgical care wards.ResultsThree components in the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation and Behaviour model and three Theoretical Domains Framework domains were identified as barriers to the adoption of Safewards in acute medical/surgical care wards. Specific barriers included physical opportunity challenges related to the environmental context and resources domains. The key themes included time constraints and competing priorities; lack of physical space and infrastructure; and poor patient uptake due to lack of understanding. Gaps emerged as a psychological capability barrier within the Theoretical Domains Framework knowledge domain. Additionally, resistance to practice changes was associated with the motivation component of the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation and Behaviour model. Conversely, six TDF domains were relevant to facilitating the implementation of the Safewards interventions: memory, attention, and decision processes; physical skills; social influences; social/professional role and identity; goals; and beliefs about consequences. Key facilitators included the Safewards interventions serving as reminders to focus on compassionate nursing care; nursing staff possessing the skillset for interventions; peer pressure and mandated change; supportive and passionate leadership; presence of champions to drive momentum; belief in nursing staff ownership and expertise for leading implementation; personal commitment to improve work environments and care quality; and the belief that Safewards would improve ward culture.ConclusionsAddressing barriers and leveraging facilitators can inform strategies for enhancing staff capability to implement Safewards in acute care wards. Specifically, a tailored, multilayered approach focusing on leadership support, training, resources, patient input, and feedback can promote effective adoption of the Safewards model and adaptation of discrete interventions.Tweetable abstractSafewards adaptation: Addressing barriers like resources, space, and patient awareness; leveraging peer modelling and leadership strategies for success.

Introduction Safewards is an organisational approach to delivering inpatient mental health services. The aim of Safewards is to minimise the number of situations in which conflict arises between healthcare workers and patients that lead to the use of coercive interventions (restriction and/or containment).The Safewards Model has been developed, implemented and evaluated for its impact on all forms of containment. Safewards has been adopted as the recommended approach to preventing patient agitation and clinical aggression in some jurisdictions. Notwithstanding these recommendations, the outcomes of Safewards for staff and patients have not been comprehensively described.The aim of the scoping review is to describe (1) Safewards interventions; (2) how Safewards interventions have been implemented in healthcare settings; (3) outcome measures used to evaluate the effectiveness of Safewards; (4) barriers and enablers to the uptake and sustainability of Safewards. This review will provide a foundation for further research and/or systematic review of the effectiveness of Safewards.Methods and analysis Peer-reviewed manuscripts of quantitative, qualitative and mixed-method research in English with be included for the period 01 January 2013– December 31st 2020. Electronic databases including Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane, Embase, Emcare, Joanna Briggs Institute, Medline, Global Health, PsycINFO and Scopus will be searched. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis extension for Scoping Reviews checklist and explanation and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocol will be followed. Publications will be excluded if they do not include the required participants, concept or context. Two reviewers will independently screen all titles and abstracts and full-text studies for inclusion.Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval for this review is not required as the information to be collected is publicly available. There are no participants or safety considerations in this review of published literature. Key findings for future research and clinical practice will be disseminated though peer-reviewed publication, stakeholder reporting and conference presentations.

•The perceptions of healthcare staff and ED attendees on causes and management of patient aggression are important to identify effective prevention strategies.•Public awareness of the contribution of environmental and situational factors on patient aggression is important to allow individual ED attendees to be self-aware of the triggers for conflicts and manage the negative situations in healthy ways.•ED nurses are facing daily ethical dilemmas in making clinical decision regarding patient agreement management.

Recognizing mental health deterioration remains a challenge for health systems globally, with evidence of suboptimal care for patients with increasing co-morbid psychiatric illness. Mechanisms exist to detect and respond to physical deterioration with the use of Observation Response Charts, monitoring of vital signs and medical emergency teams but registered nurses lack psychiatric nursing skills to care for this patient population. Currently, there are no validated processes in place to recognize and respond to mental health deterioration in general hospital wards. This qualitative descriptive study explores nurses' experiences of using a Mental Health Observation Response Chart that uses signs of distress to track and trigger tiered responses to mental health deterioration on general hospital wards. Thirty-five surgical and rehabilitation nurses participated in focus groups from January to March 2020. All qualitative data were thematically analysed using an inductive approach. Analysis resulted in four themes: clinical relevance, a useful chart, identifying distress, and working with doctors. The clinical relevance of the chart was influenced by the level of nursing experience; patient distress; existing escalation pathways and ward culture. The study findings will inform the establishment of a process for nurses to recognize mental health deterioration that could improve patient outcomes and promote staff safety. Further research is needed to validate specific signs of distress with patients in general hospital wards and to develop findings for the clinical relevance of this approach to detect mental health deterioration and improve patient outcomes.

INTRODUCTION:Australasian emergency departments (ED) routinely test patient alcohol levels following major trauma, but assessment for illicit drugs is uncommon.METHODS:A prospective cross-sectional study of major motor-vehicle-related trauma patients attending both adult major trauma centres in Victoria, Australia. All eligible patients had point-of-care saliva testing to determine the prevalence of common illicit drugs.RESULTS:Over 12 months, 1411 patients were screened, 36 refused (2.6%) and 63 were excluded. Of the final 1312 cases included, 173 (13.2%; 95% confidence interval 11.5, 15.1) tested positive to at least one illicit substance, with 133 (76.9%; 69.7, 82.8) positive for meth/amphetamines. One in five had more than one illicit substance detected. Patients testing positive were most frequently in motor vehicles (91.9% vs. 85.6%) and least frequently cyclists (2.3% vs. 4.2%) or pedestrians (5.2% vs. 10.3%), compared to those testing negative. They were younger (mean age 35.4 vs. 43.1 years), more likely to arrive overnight (27.2% vs. 12.1%) or after single vehicle crashes (54.3% vs. 42.3%). Although the initial disposition from ED did not differ, those testing positive were more likely to re-present within 28 days (13.9% vs. 5.4%).DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:A high prevalence of potentially illicit substances among patients presenting with suspected major trauma supports the need for urgent preventive strategies. The low rate of patient refusal and large numbers screened by ED staff suggests that point-of care testing for illicit substances in major trauma is acceptable and feasible. This study and ongoing surveillance may be used to inform driver education strategies.

Safewards is an internationally adopted framework that provides interventions to reduce conflict and containment in healthcare settings. This systematic review evaluated the effect of Safewards on conflict and containment events in inpatient units and the perceptions of staff and consumers. Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods studies were considered for inclusion. Following the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology, two reviewers independently screened, appraised, and extracted data. Qualitative data were synthesized using inductive-thematic analysis. Quantitative and qualitative data were integrated with a convergent-segregated approach and presented in tabular and narrative format. A search of 13 databases and grey literature yielded 14 studies of variable methodological quality. Four studies reported reduced rates of conflict and one study reported reductions that were not statistically significant. Six studies reported reductions in rates of containment, three studies found no statistical significance and one study reported statistically significant reductions at follow-up. Staff and consumers in four studies reported an improved experience of safety. Three themes were developed as follows: (i) therapeutic hold, cohesion, support and the environment, (ii) conflict, containment and the experience of safety, and (iii) the complexities of adapting and embedding change. This review found most staff and consumers reported Safewards improved therapeutic relationships, cohesion, and ward atmosphere. Staff and consumers reported improved ward atmosphere, leading to consumer-centred, recovery-oriented care. Safewards improved the experience of safety from the perspective of staff and consumers when combined with ongoing training, leadership and time for consolidation. While results are promising they should be used cautiously until more robust evidence is established.

Suicide by hanging is increasing in many countries around the world and whilst efforts are being made to influence the prevention agenda to reduce the incidence, little is known regarding the contributing factors for choosing this method. The purpose of this scoping review is to summate understandings about how the epidemiology and prevention of suicide by hanging is recognised, described, and discussed in the literature, and critically appraise the extent to which the lived-experiences of survivors of suicide attempts are included. A scoping review was conducted implementing the appropriate framework and in accord with the PRIMSA-ScR extension. Three databases (CINAHL, PubMed, and PsycINFO) were searched along with the reference lists of eligible sources in January and February 2021. Thirty-six articles with a primary focus on hanging as a method of suicide and/or its prevention are included in this review, with brief thematic analysis used to summarise the featured studies. Three distinct themes emerging from the literature include: (i) Hanging suicide deaths in the community environment or person's usual place of residence, (ii) Hanging suicide deaths in controlled environments (including police cells, prisons, and inpatient units), and (iii) Medical management of near-lethal hangings. This review highlights the necessity for improving education and policy regarding the controlled environments frequently associated with hanging suicides and the medical management of near-lethal hangings, as well as the ongoing need for policy to guide and govern the responsible media portrayal of known suicides as well as fictional hangings. Finally, this review highlights the necessity for including those with lived-experiences of a suicide attempt by hanging to advance the current prevention agenda.

The aim of this study was to examine the association between physical health conditions and quality of life and functioning in private psychiatric inpatients. We sought to determine whether quality of life and functioning was poorer in individuals with physical comorbidity compared to those without. A quantitative correlational descriptive design was utilized. Seventy patients were included in sequential order within a week of admission to hospital. Participants completed the SF-36 survey, and the corresponding hospital records were audited. The STROBE guidelines were followed in the reporting of this research. The study found that 64.3% (45/70) of participants had one or more comorbid physical health conditions, primarily cardiovascular, respiratory, musculoskeletal, endocrine and medically unexplained conditions or syndromes. Chronic pain was experienced by 40% (28/70) of participants, and 47.6% (33/70) were found to be overweight or obese. Tobacco smoking and obesity were risk factors associated with physical comorbidity (P = 0.02 and P < 0.001, respectively). Quality of life and functioning were poorer in those with physical health conditions, particularly in the SF-36 domains of bodily pain, physical functioning and general health (P < 0.001, P = 0.003 and P = 0.005, respectively). Physical health conditions were largely prevalent, and quality of life and functioning were poorer in those with physical comorbidities. The implementation of clinical guidelines for the monitoring of physical health has been proposed as well as a dedicated physical health nursing role. Continuation of integrative programmes focusing on both physical and mental health may also benefit patients in this setting.

Amphetamine-type stimulant use, including methamphetamine, amphetamine, and 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine, is associated with a range of behavioural symptoms. Screening for amphetamine-type stimulant use among people presenting to the emergency department with behavioural disturbance and referral to treatment has not been evaluated. The objective of this study was to determine the prevalence of amphetamine-type stimulant use among patients admitted to a behavioural assessment unit and report referral outcomes. A prospective observational design was used. Individuals who tested positive or self-reported amphetamine-type stimulant use were referred to the alcohol and other drug clinician. We measured the prevalence of amphetamine-type stimulant use in saliva and by self-report along with rates of referral. The setting was a behavioural assessment unit located within an Australian emergency department. Admitted adults were enrolled from July to December 2017. Those who tested positive or self-reported amphetamine-type stimulant use were provided with harm reduction advice and offered referral. Four hundred and seventy-two tests were performed. Fifteen were excluded due to invalid results or redundant enrolment. Of the 457 individuals, 59% were male, with a mean age of 35 years (SD 13). Fifty-three (11.6%, 95% CI: 8.9-15.0) tested positive for amphetamine-type stimulants. Of those with a negative test, 44 (9.6%, 95% CI: 7.3-12.7) self-reported amphetamine-type stimulant use in the previous 24 hours. The prevalence of amphetamine-type stimulant use was 21.2% (95% CI: 17.7-25.2). Most accepted referral to the alcohol and other drug clinician (85.6%, 95% CI 77.2-91.2). The emergency visit represents a window of opportunity for screening for amphetamine-type stimulant use and initiating referrals.

Behavioural assessment units (BAU) have been established in emergency departments (EDs) to provide short-term observation, treatment, and care to people experiencing acute behavioural disturbance. A prospective observational study was conducted in a cohort of adult patients admitted to one BAU located within an ED (July-December 2017) to compare clinical characteristics, treatment outcomes, and use of restrictive interventions for those who received a specialist mental health (MH) assessment with those who did not. Of the 457 patients, 61.5% received a specialist MH assessment. This group had a lower acuity (Australasian Triage Score 10.4%; CI 0.2-2.0% vs 13.6%; CI 9.3-19.5%); more arrived with police (28.8%; CI 23.8-34.3 vs 5.1%; CI 2.7-9.4%); and were subjected to restrictive interventions while in the BAU. Security responses for unarmed threat (code grey) were higher (10.9%; CI 7.8-15.0% vs 4.4%; CI 2.3-8.5%), as was the use of chemical restraint (4.2%; CI 2.4-7.2 vs 0.0% CI 0.0 - 2.1%). Those requiring specialist MH assessment had a longer length of stay (12.7 vs 5.2 hours). Further development of the BAU model of care must include targeted, evidence-based strategies to minimize the use of restrictive interventions and ensure timely access to acute mental health services.

OBJECTIVE:To determine current clinical practices for managing behavioural emergencies within Victorian public hospital EDs. METHODS:A multi-centre retrospective study involving all patients who attended ED in 2016 at the Alfred, Ballarat, Dandenong, Geelong and Royal Melbourne Hospitals. The primary outcome was the rate of patient presentations with at least one restrictive intervention. Secondary outcomes included the rate of security calls for unarmed threats (Code Grey), legal status under the Mental Health Act at both the time of ED arrival and the restrictive intervention, and intervention details. For each site, data on 100 patients who had a restrictive intervention were randomly extracted for indication and methods of restraint. RESULTS:In 2016, 327 454 patients presented to the five EDs; the Code Grey rate was 1.49% (95% CI 1.45-1.54). Within the Code Grey population, 942 had at least one restrictive intervention (24.3%, 95% CI 23.0-25.7). Details were extracted on 494 patients. The majority (62.8%, 95% CI 58.4-67.1) were restrained under a Duty of Care. Physical restraint was used for 165 (33.4%, 95% CI 29.3-37.8) patients, 296 were mechanically restrained (59.9%, 95% CI 55.4-64.3), median mechanical restraint time 180 min (IQR 75-360), and 388 chemically restrained (78.5%, 95% CI 74.6-82.0). CONCLUSIONS:Restrictive interventions in the ED largely occurred under a Duty of Care. Care of patients managed under legislation that covers assessment and treatment of mental illness has a strong clinical governance framework and focus on minimising restrictive interventions. However, this is not applied to the majority of patients who experience restraint in Victorian EDs.

Background Research on patient aggression in hospital emergency departments supports the development of a systematic process for identifying individuals at risk of becoming violent. The feasibility and community acceptance of this approach is unknown. In this study, we determine the feasibility and explore the need for a violence risk screening process in one Australian emergency department. Method We used a descriptive exploratory design that involved semistructured interviews and observations of practice. The setting was an adult tertiary referral hospital and major trauma centre located in Melbourne, Australia. A convenience sample of nine triage nurses were observed assessing patients to explore how risk screening was undertaken in practice. Semistructured interviews were conducted with emergency department (ED) service users (N=19) to explore community perspectives on the process of violence risk screening. Results Observations of practice revealed that nurses used observed and reported information to screen for potential risk of violence rather than employing a direct questioning approach. Interviews with community members in the emergency department waiting room highlighted a public expectation that nurses screen and accurately identify patients at risk of violence on arrival to the ED. Conclusions Consistent with local prevalence data, public expectations of emergency care supported the need to adopt a uniform approach to identifying people at risk of becoming violent on arrival to hospital. Observations of triage nurses interactions with patients revealed that the existing violence risk screening approach was not being consistently used by triage nurses. An integrated approach to determining violence risk during triage assessment is recommended.

Background: Patient aggression is a common source of occupational violence in emergency departments. Staff attitudes regarding the causes for aggression influence the way they manage it. The Management of Clinical Aggression - Rapid Emergency Department Intervention is a 45 min educational program that aims to promote the use of de-escalation techniques and effective communication skills to prevent patient aggression.Objective: We sought to evaluate the impact of the program on staff attitudes regarding the prevention and early management of patient aggression.Design: A mixed methods approach was used including a pre-test post-test survey of training participants and individual interviews with key stakeholders.Setting and sample: The setting was public sector hospital emergency departments located in metropolitan and regional Victoria, Australia. A convenience sample of eighteen emergency departments was recruited via the Victorian Department of Health.Participants: Survey participants were nurses and midwives who were employed at the study sites. Interview participants were a purposive sample of nurse unit managers and trainers.Methods: The Management of Aggression and Violence Attitude Scale was administered to training participants immediately before and 6-8 weeks after training. Semi-structured telephone interviews with trainers and managers occurred 8-10 weeks after the intervention.Results: Four hundred and seventy one participants completed the pre-test and post-test. Statistically significant shifts were observed in 5/23 items (Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test: p <= 0.01). Despite training, participants were undecided if it was possible to prevent patient aggression, and continued to be unsure about the use of physical restraint. Twenty-eight (82.3%) of managers' and trainers' eligible to be interviewed provided their perceptions of the impact of the program. Overall, these perceptions were consistent with the significant shifts observed in the survey items.Conclusion: There was limited evidence to demonstrate that the program significantly modified staff attitudes towards the prevention of patient aggression using the Management of Aggression and Violence Attitude Scale. Additional survey items that specifically measure staff attitudes about the use of restraint in emergency settings are needed to better understand decision making about restraining practices. Further work is indicated to quantify the impact of training in practice. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Background: The Management of Clinical Aggression-Rapid Emergency Department Intervention (MOCA-REDI) is an evidence-based train-the-trainer program that was developed by Melbourne Health in partnership with The University of Melbourne and The Victorian Department of Health to support existing, locally based, violence prevention and management programs and to link the core knowledge and skills required to prevent clinical aggression.

Objective: The aim was to describe the Psychiatric Assessment and Planning Unit (PAPU), established at the Royal Melbourne Hospital (RMH) to improve access to psychiatric care for patients presenting via the Emergency Department (ED). Method: PAPU was opened in January 2007. Data was recorded from RMH ED databases to compare ED lengths of stay (LOS) prior to and after establishing PAPU. Interventions including requirement for one-to-one nursing (i.e. one nurse dedicated to the care and observation of one patient) and mechanical restraint and unarmed security threats are routinely documented and were compared before and after PAPU opened. Demographic data and inpatient LOS information was collected by clinicians in PAPU. Results: During the 12 months of initial evaluation we found that PAPU assisted with reducing the number of patients waiting excessive LOS in the RMH ED essentially to zero, due to both expedient transfers from ED and increased direct admissions from the community. We were also able to demonstrate a reduction in mechanical restraint, security codes for unarmed threats and one-to-one nursing in the ED. Conclusions: The establishment of the PAPU at RMH has resulted in significant improvement in the care of patients with mental illness in the least restrictive environment, based on decreased LOS and need for interventions.