Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T05:39:43.372Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Management of disturbed behaviour in a psychiatric intensive care unit: views of staff on options for intervention

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 March 2011

Richard Bennett ,
Vishwanath Ramakrishna  and
Dinesh Maganty
Richard Bennett*
Affiliation:
Principal Clinical Psychologist, Hillis Lodge, Birmingham, UK
Vishwanath Ramakrishna
Affiliation:
Specialist Practice Registrar, Reaside Clinic, Birmingham, UK
Dinesh Maganty
Affiliation:
Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist, Reaside Clinic, Birmingham, UK
*
Correspondence to: Dr Richard G. Bennett, Hillis Lodge, Hollymoor Way, Northfield, Birmingham, B31 5HE. Tel: 0121 678 3110; Fax: 0121 678 3163; E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Aims and method: NICE guidelines provide a framework for decision making with regard to the management of disturbed or violent behaviour in inpatient mental health settings, although also point to the fact that there is a limited evidence base for the use of more high risk interventions such as rapid tranquillisation, restraint, and seclusion. The current study sought to elicit the views of a team of PICU staff regarding their preference for management strategies for such behaviour.

Results: Forty-three staff assigned ranks to five intervention options: restraint to administer medication, restraint without medication, seclusion, individual counselling, and offering PRN medication. The results revealed a clear preference for individual counselling as the first choice of intervention, and offering PRN medication as a second choice. The three remaining options could not be statistically separated.

Clinical implications: The results indicate that respondents viewed the choice of intervention beyond counselling and the offer of PRN medication as an issue of clinical judgement, dependent on a range of factors relevant to the presenting clinical situation. As such they offer support for the current NICE guidelines. The results are discussed with reference to the NICE guidelines, and areas for further study are highlighted.

Keywords

PICUmentally disordered offendersforensicNICE guidelinesviolenceseclusion
Type
Original Article
Information
Journal of Psychiatric Intensive Care , Volume 7 , Issue 2 , December 2011 , pp. 85 - 89
Copyright
Copyright © NAPICU 2011

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

Agarwal, M. & Roberts, M. (1995) Management of violence among psychiatric inpatients. Psychiatric Bulletin. 19: 609–611.Google Scholar
Duxbury, J. (2002) An evaluation of staff and patient views of and strategies employed to manage inpatient aggression and violence on one mental health unit: a pluralistic design. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing. 9(3): 325–337.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klinge, V. (1994) Staff opinion about seclusion and restraint at a State Forensic Hospital. Hospital and Community Psychiatry. 45:138–141.Google Scholar
National Institute for Clinical Excellence (2005) Violence: The Short Term Management of Distributed/Violent Behaviour in In-Patient Psychiatric Settings and Emergency Departments. www.guidance.nice.org.uk/CG25/NICEGuidance/pdf/EnglishGoogle Scholar
Royal College of Psychiatrists (2007) Healthcare Commission National Audit of Violence 2006–2007: Final Report – Working age adult services. http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/WAA%20Nat%20Report%20final%20with%20all%20appendices.pdfGoogle Scholar
Tobin, M., Lim, L. & Falowski, W. (1991) How do we manage violent behaviour? British Journal of Clinical and Social Psychiatry. 8: 19–23.Google Scholar
Whittington, R., Bowers, L., Nolan, P., Simpson, A. & Neil, L. (2009) Approval ratings of coercive interventions in a national sample of mental health service users and staff in England. Psychiatric Services. 60(6): 792–798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar