International journal of mental health nursing最新文献

Elimination of restrictive practices (physical/mechanical restraint and seclusion) from adult acute mental health care services has been demanded internationally for many decades. This study aimed to: (1) Identify priority issues in the elimination of and use of alternative approaches to restrictive practices (seclusion and physical/mechanical restraint) in rural/regional acute adult mental healthcare services, as told by mental healthcare service users and practitioners, (2) identify the community-based, system-level feedback loops that enhance or reduce the use of restrictive practices and viable alternatives and, (3) identify potential action areas to improve system structures to increase regional mental healthcare services' ability to eliminate restrictive practices and use alternative approaches. Group model building (GMB) workshops were held with a small group (n = 9) of mental healthcare practitioners and service users with lived experience of restrictive practice use. This participatory approach enables exploration and visual mapping of local structures causing behaviour patterns of practitioner and service user concern over time - in this case, the barriers, and enablers to alternative approaches to restrictive practices in adult acute mental healthcare services within the Geelong-Barwon region. This is the first study that specifically applies GMB in the discussion of the elimination of restrictive practices in mental health in the non-metropolitan regional/rural context. Participants identified four key priorities in relation to eliminating restrictive practices: (1) self-advocacy, (2) continuity of care, (3) early intervention, and (4) safety for all. The study findings were distilled into a novel preliminary set of mental healthcare practitioner and service user action ideas.

Embedded into Victoria's mental health legislation as part of the 2014 Mental Health Act suite of reforms, advance statements are designed to convey an individuals' preferences for treatment during times when the ability to communicate or make decisions may be impaired. This study investigated Victorian mental health clinicians' knowledge and attitudes of advance statements as well as their experience with training and implementation. We used an online Qualtrics survey of Victorian mental health clinicians (n = 190) to achieve this aim. Instrument validity was determined using the Content Validity Index (CVI) with field experts rating each item for relevance. A value of 80% or higher was sought and computed for each individual item on the scale, as well as for the overall scale. The Cronbach's Alpha coefficient was conducted to determine internal consistency reliability with a value of α = 0.721 for the survey, suggesting that the scale had acceptable internal consistency and reliability. Despite widespread support and positive attitudes towards advance statements existing among mental health clinician participants, the level of knowledge and perception of barriers continues to significantly affect the wide-spread uptake of advance statements. The quality and extent of training in legal and clinical aspects of advance statement varied widely among the study participants, with the quality and benefits of the training affecting participant reported confidence level as well as their practical experience with advance statements. Three recommendations can be made: that advance statements are embed into routine mental health practice to identify individuals who have existing advance statements and support those who do not to prepare one; that regular co-produced and facilitated training be provided to increase understanding, promotion, and overall use and uptake of advance statements; and finally, for local mental health service to develop a culture for positive engagement and promotion of autonomy through inclusive practices around decision-making.