In Western society, policy and legislation seeks to minimize restrictive interventions, including physical restraint; yet research suggests the use of such practices continues to raise concerns. Whilst international agreement has sought to define physical restraint, diversity in the way in which countries use restraint remains disparate. Research to date has reported on statistics regarding restraint, how and why it is used, and staff and service user perspectives about its use. However, there is limited evidence directly exploring the physical and psychological harm restraint may cause to people being cared for within mental health inpatient settings. This study reports on an integrative review of the literature exploring available evidence regarding the physical and psychological impact of restraint. The review included both experimental and nonexperimental research papers, using Cooper's (1998) five-stage approach to synthesize the findings. Eight themes emerged: Trauma/retraumatization; Distress; Fear; Feeling ignored; Control; Power; Calm; and Dehumanizing conditions. In conclusion, whilst further research is required regarding the physical and psychological implications of physical restraint in mental health settings, mental health nurses are in a prime position to use their skills and knowledge to address the issues identified to eradicate the use of restraint and better meet the needs of those experiencing mental illness.

A qualitative study of staff and service users' views of recovery was undertaken in a UK high secure hospital working to implement recovery practices. 30 staff and 25 service users participated in semi-structured interviews or focus groups. Thematic analysis identified four broad accounts of how recovery was made sense of in the high secure environment: the importance of meaningful occupation; valuing relationships; recovery journeys and dialogue with the past; and recovery as personal responsibility. These themes are discussed with an emphasis on service user strategies of cooperation or resistance, respectively advancing or impeding progress through the system. In this context the notion of cooperation is, for many, commensurate with compliance with a dominant medical model. The policy framing of recovery opens up contemplation of treatment alternatives, more participatory approaches to risk management, and emphasise the value of relational skills, but may not elude the overarching bio-psychiatric episteme.

This is a repository copy of Minimising the use of physical restraint in acute mental health services: The outcome of a restraint reduction programme ('REsTRAIN YOURSELF').

Accessible summary What is known on the subject? Mental health nursing in the UK and other countries faces an acute workforce crisis. Safe staffing levels are called for, and in some jurisdictions have been legislated for. The evidence base linking staffing levels and patient outcomes is limited. Staffing levels are implicated in adverse experiences of service users and staff within mental health ward settings, and they might contribute to levels of violence and aggression and the application of restrictive practices, such as physical restraint but there is limited research evidence to support this. Programmes such as Safewards, No Force First, the Engagement Model and the Six Core Strategies can reduce the use of restrictive practices. What does this paper add to existing knowledge? Staffing levels on acute mental health wards appeared crucial in the implementation of a restraint minimization project. Both staff and service users implicate insufficient staffing for deficiencies in the relational elements of care, such as lack of face‐to‐face contact between nurses and service users. Similarly, staffing levels are associated with perceived problems in the cause of violence and aggression and responses to it. Despite successes in minimizing restrictive practices in this project, difficulties implementing alternative forms of practice that would reduce use of physical restraint, such as de‐escalation, were also attributed to staffing levels. There is an irony that a project concerned with safety itself provoked concern over safe staffing levels. What are the implications for practice? Efforts to reduce restrictive practices will be hampered without adequate staffing levels. Restrictive practices may justifyably be framed as an employment relations matter. Organisations and policy makers ought to address environmental, contextual and resourcing factors, rather than identify problems exclusively in terms of perceived aberrant behaviour of staff or service users. Abstract IntroductionSafe staffing and coercive practices are of pressing concern for mental health services. These are inter‐dependent, and the relationship is under‐researched. AimTo explore views on staffing levels in a context of attempting to minimize physical restraint practices on mental health wards. Findings emerged from a wider data set with the broader aim of exploring experiences of a restraint reduction initiative. MethodsThematic analysis of semi‐structured interviews with staff (n = 130) and service users (n = 32). ResultsFive themes were identified regarding how staffing levels impact experiences and complicate efforts to minimize physical restraint. We titled the themes—“insufficient staff to do the job”; “detriment to staff and service users”; “a paperwork exercise: the burden of non‐clinical tasks”; “false economies”; and, “you can't do these interventions.” DiscussionTendencies detracting from relational aspects of care are not independent of insufficiencies in staffing. The relational, communicative and organizational developm...

No abstract