Introduction Aggression and violence are highly complex problems in acute psychiatry that often lead to the coercive interventions. The Safewards Model is an evidence-informed conflict-reduction strategy to prevent and reduce such incidents. The aim of this study was to evaluate the implementation of this model with regard to coercive interventions in inpatient care. Materials and Methods We evaluated outcomes of the implementation of the Safewards Model in two locked psychiatric wards in Germany. Frequency and duration of coercive interventions applied during a period of 11 weeks before and 11 weeks after the implementation period were assessed through routine data. Fidelity to the Safewards Model was assessed by the Organization Fidelity Checklist. Results Fidelity to the Safewards Model was high in both wards. The overall use of coercive measures differed significantly between wards [case-wise: χ 2 (1, n = 250) = 35.34, p ≤ 0.001; patient-wise: χ 2 (1, n = 103) = 21.45, p ≤ 0.001] and decreased post-implementation. In one ward, the number of patients exposed to coercive interventions in relation to the overall number of Patients decreased significantly [χ 2 (1, 281) = 6.40, p = 0.01]. Furthermore, the mean duration of coercive interventions overall declined significantly [ U (55,21) = −2.142, p = 0.032] with an effect size of Cohen’s d = −0.282 (95% CI: −0.787, 0.222) in that ward. Both aspects declined as well in the other ward, but not significantly. Discussion Results indicate that the implementation of the Safewards interventions according to the model in acute psychiatric care can reduce coercive measures. They also show the role of enabling factors as well as of obstacles for the implementation process.

The methodological quality of guidelines has a strong influence on their applicability. However, the lack of financial means to develop and implement guidelines is a serious problem. Independent international organisations could contribute to defining a core set of unbiased schizophrenia treatment recommendations. In countries with a shortage of resources, this could be a basis for adaptation to different cultural and economic backgrounds in collaboration with stakeholders.

BackgroundThe benefit of Ginkgo biloba has been discussed controversially. The aim of this review was to assess the effects of Ginkgo biloba in Alzheimer's disease as well as vascular and mixed dementia covering a variety of outcome domains.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane databases, CINAHL and PsycINFO for controlled trials of ginkgo for Alzheimer's, vascular or mixed dementia. Studies had to be of a minimum of 12 weeks duration with at least ten participants per group. Clinical characteristics and outcomes were extracted. Meta-analysis results were expressed as risk ratios or standardized mean differences (SMD) in scores.ResultsNine trials using the standardized extract EGb761® met our inclusion criteria. Trials were of 12 to 52 weeks duration and included 2372 patients in total. In the meta-analysis, the SMDs in change scores for cognition were in favor of ginkgo compared to placebo (-0.58, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.14; -0.01, p = 0.04), but did not show a statistically significant difference from placebo for activities in daily living (ADLs) (SMD = -0.32, 95% CI -0.66; 0.03, p = 0.08). Heterogeneity among studies was high. For the Alzheimer subgroup, the SMDs for ADLs and cognition outcomes were larger than for the whole group of dementias with statistical superiority for ginkgo also for ADL outcomes (SMD = -0.44, 95% CI -0.77; -0.12, p = 0.008). Drop-out rates and side effects did not differ between ginkgo and placebo. No consistent results were available for quality of life and neuropsychiatric symptoms, possibly due to the heterogeneity of the study populations.ConclusionsGinkgo biloba appears more effective than placebo. Effect sizes were moderate, while clinical relevance is, similar to other dementia drugs, difficult to determine.