Wellbeing of nurses is associated with patient aggression. Little is known about the differences in these associations between nurses working in different specialties. We aimed to estimate and compare the prevalence of patient aggression and the associations between patient aggression and the wellbeing of nurses in psychiatric and non-psychiatric specialties (medical and surgical, and emergency medicine). A sample of 5288 nurses (923 psychiatric nurses, 4070 medical and surgical nurses, 295 emergency nurses) participated in the study. Subjective measures were used to assess both the occurrence of patient aggression and the wellbeing of nurses (self-rated health, sleep disturbances, psychological distress and perceived work ability). Binary logistic regression with interaction terms was used to compare the associations between patient aggression and the wellbeing of nurses. Psychiatric nurses reported all types of patient aggression more frequently than medical and surgical nurses, whereas nurses working in emergency settings reported physical violence and verbal aggression more frequently than psychiatric nurses. Psychiatric nurses reported poor self-rated health and reduced work ability more frequently than both of the non-psychiatric nursing groups, whereas medical and surgical nurses reported psychological distress and sleep disturbances more often. Psychiatric nurses who had experienced at least one type of patient aggression or mental abuse in the previous year, were less likely to suffer from psychological distress and sleep disturbances compared to medical and surgical nurses. Psychiatric nurses who had experienced physical assaults and armed threats were less likely to suffer from sleep disturbances compared to nurses working in emergency settings. Compared to medical and surgical nurses, psychiatric nurses face patient aggression more often, but certain types of aggression are more common in emergency settings. Psychiatric nurses have worse subjective health and work ability than both of the non-psychiatric nursing groups, while their psychiatric wellbeing is better and they have less sleep problems compared to medical and surgical nurses. Psychiatric nurses maintain better psychiatric wellbeing and experience fewer sleep problems than non-psychiatric nurses after events of exposure to patient aggression. This suggest that more attention should be given to non-psychiatric settings for maintaining the wellbeing of nurses after exposure to patient aggression.

Objectives. This study tested the hypothesis that poor organizational justice and collaboration are associated with nurses' increased stress and the increased likelihood of violent assaults by patients.Methods: Cross-sectional survey was conducted in 90 psychiatric inpatient wards in five hospital districts and one regional hospital in Finland. 758 nurses (registered nurses or enrolled/mental health nurses) responded to the survey measuring psychosocial work environment and patient assaults. Self-administered postal questionnaires were used to assess organizational justice, collaboration, nurses' stress and patient violent assaults. Structural Equation Path Modeling (SEM) was used in model testing.Results: SEM did not support a mediating role of stress between organizational justice, collaboration between nurses, and patient violent assaults, due to non-significant dependencies between stress and both organizational justice and patients' assaults. However, low organizational justice and poor collaboration between nurses were associated with increased patient violent assaults in psychiatric inpatient settings (all p<0.05). The model explained 5.7 % of violent assaults at nearly significant levels (p=0.052). Conclusions:These findings suggest that organizational justice, collaboration between staff members and patient violent assaults are linked in psychiatric inpatient settings. Evaluating a variety of factors, including issues related to organizational justice and collaboration among nurses, may be useful to minimize assaults by patients in psychiatric settings.3

Background Coercive measures is a topic that has long been discussed in the field of psychiatry. Despite global reports of reductions in the use of restraint episodes due to new regulations, it is still questionable if practices have really changed over time. For this study, we examined the rates of coercive measures in the inpatient population of psychiatric care providers across Finland to identify changing trends as well as variations in such trends by region. Methods In this nationwide registry analysis, we extracted patient data from the national database (The Finnish National Care Register for Health Care) over a 20-year period. We included adult patients admitted to psychiatric units (care providers) and focused on patients who had faced coercive measures (seclusion, limb restraints, forced injection and physical restraints) during their hospital stay. Multilevel logistical models (a polynomial model of quadratic form) were used to examine trends in prevalence of any coercive measures as well as the other four specified coercive measures over time, and to investigate variation in such trends among care providers and regions. Results Between 1995 and 2014, the dataset contained 226,948 inpatients who had been admitted during the 20-year time frame (505,169 treatment periods). The overall prevalence of coercive treatment on inpatients was 9.8%, with a small decrease during 2011–2014. The overall prevalence of seclusion, limb restraints, forced injection and physical restraints on inpatients was 6.9, 3.8, 2.6 and 0.8%, respectively. Only the use of limb restraints showed a downward trend over time. Geographic and care provider variations in specific coercive measures used were also observed. Conclusions Despite the decreasing national level of coercive measures used in Finnish psychiatric hospitals, the overall reduction has been small during the last two decades. These results have implications on the future development of structured guidelines and interventions for preventing and more effectively managing challenging situations. Clinical guidelines and staff education related to the use of coercive measures should be critically assessed to ensure that the staff members working with vulnerable patient populations in psychiatric hospitals are ethically competent. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12888-019-2200-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

We examined the associations between work stress (job strain, effort-reward imbalance), perceived job insecurity, workplace social capital, satisfaction with leadership and working hours in relation to the likelihood of encountering patient aggression (overall exposure, assaults on ward property, mental abuse, physical assaults). We conducted a cross-sectional survey for nurses (N = 923) in 84 psychiatric units. Both work stress indicators were associated higher odds for different types of patient aggression. Poorer satisfaction with leadership was associated with higher odds for overall exposure to patient aggression. These findings were robust to adjustment for several nurse and work characteristics, and unit size.

BackgroundPeople admitted to psychiatric hospitals with a diagnosis of schizophrenia may display behavioural problems. These may require management approaches such as use of coercive practices, which impact the well-being of staff members, visiting families and friends, peers, as well as patients themselves. Studies have proposed that not only patients’ conditions, but also treatment environment and ward culture may affect patients’ behaviour. Seclusion and restraint could possibly be prevented with staff education about user-centred, more humane approaches. Staff education could also increase collaboration between patients, family members and staff, which may further positively affect treatment culture and lower the need for using coercive treatment methods.MethodsThis is a single-blind, two-arm cluster randomised controlled trial involving 28 psychiatric hospital wards across Finland. Units will be randomised to receive either a staff educational programme delivered by the team of researchers, or standard care. The primary outcome is the incidence of use of patient seclusion rooms, assessed from the local/national health registers. Secondary outcomes include use of other coercive methods (limb restraint, forced injection, and physical restraint), service use, treatment satisfaction, general functioning among patients, and team climate and employee turn-over (nursing staff).DiscussionThe study, designed in close collaboration with staff members, patients and their relatives, will provide evidence for a co-operative and user-centred educational intervention aiming to decrease the prevalence of coercive methods and service use in the units, increase the functional status of patients and improve team climate in the units. We have identified no similar trials.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02724748. Registered on 25th of April 2016.