The use and impact of surveillance-based technology initiatives in inpatient and acute mental health settings: a systematic review.

Abstract

Background: The use of surveillance technologies is becoming increasingly common in inpatient mental health settings, commonly justified as efforts to improve safety and cost-effectiveness. However, their use has been questioned in light of limited research conducted and the sensitivities, ethical concerns and potential harms of surveillance. This systematic review aims to (1) map how surveillance technologies have been employed in inpatient mental health settings, (2) explore how they are experienced by patients, staff and carers and (3) examine evidence regarding their impact.

Methods: We searched five academic databases (Embase, MEDLINE, PsycInfo, PubMed and Scopus), one grey literature database (HMIC) and two pre-print servers (medRxiv and PsyArXiv) to identify relevant papers published up to 19/09/2024. We also conducted backwards and forwards citation tracking and contacted experts to identify relevant literature. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool assessed quality. Data were synthesised narratively.

Results: Thirty-two studies met the inclusion criteria. They reported on CCTV/video monitoring (n = 13), Vision-Based Patient Monitoring and Management (n = 9), body-worn cameras (n = 6), GPS electronic monitoring (n = 2) and wearable sensors (n = 2). Sixteen papers (50.0%) were low quality, five (15.6%) medium quality and eleven (34.4%) high quality. Nine studies (28.1%) declared a conflict of interest. Qualitative findings indicate patient, staff and carer views of surveillance technologies are mixed and complex. Quantitative findings regarding the impact of surveillance on outcomes such as self-harm, violence, aggression, care quality and cost-effectiveness were inconsistent or weak.

Conclusions: There is currently insufficient evidence to suggest that surveillance technologies in inpatient mental health settings are achieving their intended outcomes, such as improving safety and reducing costs. The studies were generally of low methodological quality, lacked lived experience involvement, and a substantial proportion (28.1%) declared conflicts of interest. Further independent coproduced research is needed to more comprehensively evaluate the impact of surveillance technologies in inpatient settings. If they are to be implemented, all key stakeholders should be engaged in the development of policies, procedures and best practice guidance to regulate their use, prioritising patients' perspectives.