L. A review and meta-analysis of the patient factors associated with psychiatric in-patient aggression.Objective: To combine the results of earlier comparison studies of inpatient aggression to quantitatively assess the strength of the association between patient factors and i) aggressive behaviour,ii) repetitive aggressive behaviour. Method: A systematic review and meta-analysis of empirical articles and reports of comparison studies of aggression and non-aggression within adult psychiatric in-patient settings. Results: Factors that were significantly associated with in-patient aggression included being younger, male, involuntary admissions, not being married, a diagnosis of schizophrenia, a greater number of previous admissions, a history of violence, a history of self-destructive behaviour and a history of substance abuse. The only factors associated with repeated in-patient aggression were not being male, a history of violence and a history of substance abuse. Conclusion: By comparing aggressive with non-aggressive patients, important differences between the two populations may be highlighted. These differences may help staff improve predictions of which patients might become aggressive and enable steps to be taken to reduce an aggressive incident occurring using actuarial judgements. However, the associations found between these actuarial factors and aggression were small. It is therefore important for staff to consider dynamic factors such as a patient's current state and the context to reduce in-patient aggression. Summations• Psychiatric in-patients who are younger, male, admitted involuntarily, not married, have a diagnosis of schizophrenia, have a greater number of previous admissions, a history of violence, a history of self-destructive behaviour and a history of substance abuse were more likely to be aggressive than non-aggressive during their stay.• Psychiatric in-patients who are female and have a history of substance abuse or a history of violence were more likely to be repetitively aggressive than aggressive once during their stay. Considerations• The associations between patient characteristics and aggression were small suggesting that other factors may be helpful in predicting aggression.• There were significantly high levels of heterogeneity across the articles entered into most of the metaanalyses.• A relatively small number of comparison studies were found relative to the number of publications on in-patient aggression suggesting that this is an underused study design.

This review underscores the influence that staff have in making in-patient psychiatric wards safe and efficacious environments.

No abstract

Accessible summaryIn the previous paper we described a model explaining differences in rates of conflict and containment between wards, grouping causal factors into six domains: the staff team, the physical environment, outside hospital, the patient community, patient characteristics and the regulatory framework.This paper reviews and evaluates the evidence for the model from previously published research.The model is supported, but the evidence is not very strong. More research using more rigorous methods is required in order to confirm or improve this model.AbstractIn a previous paper, we described a proposed model explaining differences in rates of conflict (aggression, absconding, self-harm, etc.) and containment (seclusion, special observation, manual restraint, etc.). The Safewards Model identified six originating domains as sources of conflict and containment: the patient community, patient characteristics, the regulatory framework, the staff team, the physical environment, and outside hospital. In this paper, we assemble the evidence underpinning the inclusion of these six domains, drawing upon a wide ranging review of the literature across all conflict and containment items; our own programme of research; and reasoned thinking. There is good evidence that the six domains are important in conflict and containment generation. Specific claims about single items within those domains are more difficult to support with convincing evidence, although the weight of evidence does vary between items and between different types of conflict behaviour or containment method. The Safewards Model is supported by the evidence, but that evidence is not particularly strong. There is a dearth of rigorous outcome studies and trials in this area, and an excess of descriptive studies. The model allows the generation of a number of different interventions in order to reduce rates of conflict and containment, and properly conducted trials are now needed to test its validity.

No abstract