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.

BackgroundThe promotion of care pathways in the recent Governmental health policy reports of Lord Darzi is likely to increase efforts to promote the use of care pathways in the NHS. Evidence on the process of pathway implementation, however, is sparse and variations in how organisations go about the implementation process are likely to be large. This paper summarises what is known about factors which help or hinder clinicians in adopting and putting care pathways into practice, and which consequently promote or hinder the implementation of scientific evidence in clinical practice.DiscussionCare pathways can provide patients with clear expectations of their care, provide a means of measuring patient's progress, promote teamwork on a multi-disciplinary team, facilitate the use of guidelines, and may act as a basis for a payment system. In order to achieve adequate implementation, however, facilitators and barriers must be considered, planned for, and incorporated directly into the pathway with full engagement among clinical and management staff. Barriers and/or facilitators may be present at each stage of development, implementation and evaluation; and, barriers at any stage can impede successful implementation. Important considerations to be made are ensuring the inclusion of all types of staff, plans for evaluating and incorporating continuous improvements, allowing for organisational adaptations and promoting the use of multifaceted interventions.SummaryAlthough there is a dearth of information regarding the successful implementation of care pathways, evidence is available which may be applied when implementing a care pathway. Multifaceted interventions which incorporate all staff and facilitate organisational adaptations must be seriously considered and incorporated alongside care pathways in a continuous manner. In order to better understand the mechanism upon which care pathways are effective, however, more research specifically addressing conditions under which providers become engaged in using care pathways is needed.

Incidents of absconding from inpatient care are high-risk events which have been linked to serious harm to self and others. This paper brings together for the first time findings from a disparate body of research literature spanning many years. Varied definitions of absconding and methods of calculating the rates of absconding make comparisons between studies difficult. Nevertheless, it is clear that absconders are more often young, male, from disadvantaged groups, and suffering from schizophrenia, compared to admissions generally. Roughly half of the abscondings take place while the patient is temporarily off the ward with permission, the remainder of absconding patients use an assortment of means to make their escape. A large variety of reasons for absconding have been elicited from patients or advanced as possibilities by researchers. Only six evaluative studies of interventions impacting upon absconding have been reported in the literature, but no firm conclusions can be drawn from them.

Overall, imprisonment did not exacerbate psychiatric symptoms, although differences in group responses were observed. Continued discussion regarding non-custodial alternatives for vulnerable groups and increased support for all during early custody are recommended.

Absconding by patients from acute psychiatric care poses a significant problem to professional staff, and can involve significant risks for patients and others. This paper describes the methodology of a major prospective study of absconding recently completed in the East End of London, and reports the findings on why patients abscond from hospital. Interviews with 52 patients who returned to their wards showed that they abscond because they are bored, frightened of other patients, feel trapped and confined, have household responsibilities they feel they must fulfil, feel cut off from relatives and friends, or are worried about the security of their home and property. Psychiatric symptoms also contribute to the decision to leave, but in nearly every case patients can give additional and rational reasons for their abscond. Some patients leave impulsively and in anger following unwelcome news about delayed permission for leave or discharge. Others leave specifically in order to carry out some activity outside the hospital. In order to reduce absconding and rejection of care, nurses may need to carefully consider the meaning admission has for patients, and the impact it can have upon their everyday lives.