Supporting mental health staff following exposure to occupational violence – staff perceptions of ‘peer’ support

Abstract

Mental health professionals frequently work in environments where stressful, unpredictable, and potentially volatile situations can arise. Staff responses to these, often violent events, can be severe and enduring. Psychological first aid provided by a colleague following exposure to such violence is gaining increasing acceptance as a means of assisting affected individuals. However, there has been little attention to how staff perceive this support. In this study, interviews were conducted with 13 staff employed in a secure facility and thematically analysed using content analysis. Four content themes emerged: responding to emotional distress, empowering staff through practical support, the good provider, and resilience. The results indicate that staff value and benefit from receiving support from peers following exposure to occupational violence. Most would access peer support again and would consider recommending it to others. A small number choose not to engage with the programme and the reasons for this are also discussed. This type of peer support could be applied in other high‐risk workplaces as a key element of an integrated and comprehensive workplace violence prevention and management strategy.

Respect for service users’ human rights, job satisfaction, and wellbeing are higher in mental health workers than in other health workers: A study in Italy at time of the Covid pandemic

“…While non-Italian reports have sometimes denounced the exposure to violence of MHWs, 28 in our sample there are no statistically significant differences in the need for staff security between the two samples compared. This perception of safety, or at least this not highlighted alarm for insecurity of MHWs in community care in Italy, might be a determining factor for these results.…”

We need to build the evidence: A systematic review of psychological first aid on mental health and well‐being

“…The 12 included studies reported individual outcomes from a PFA or a PFA‐based intervention; no studies reported community outcomes. Five studies were randomized control trials (Despeaux et al., 2019; Everly et al., 2016; McCart et al., 2020; Meir et al., 2012) or randomized trials (Ironson et al., 2020); study assignment was not randomized for most: One study was a pilot quasi‐experiment (Ramirez et al., 2013), two were convenience sample pretest–posttest group designs (Cain et al., 2010; Kameno et al., 2021), one was a convenience sample uncontrolled longitudinal design (Blake et al., 2020), one was a qualitative comparative analysis (Schafer et al., 2016), and two were qualitative thematic analyses (Bakes‐Denman et al., 2021; De Freitas Girardi et al., 2020). Four studies had control groups (Despeaux et al., 2019; Everly et al., 2016; McCart et al., 2020; Meir et al., 2012), and five included randomization with regard to the intervention condition (Despeaux et al., 2019; Everly et al., 2016; Ironson et al., 2020; McCart et al., 2020; Meir et al., 2012).…”

“…Studies were primarily conducted in the United States (Cain et al., 2010; Despeaux et al., 2019; Everly et al., 2016; Ironson et al., 2020; McCart et al., 2020; Ramirez et al., 2013). Interventions were conducted in school or university facilities (Cain et al., 2010; Despeaux et al., 2019; Everly et al., 2016; Meir et al., 2012; Ramirez et al., 2013), hospitals or other health care settings (Bakes‐Denman et al., 2021; Blake et al., 2020; Kameno et al., 2021), designated child‐friendly spaces (Schafer et al., 2016), community settings (Ironson et al., 2020; McCart et al., 2020), or during home visits (Cain et al., 2010; De Freitas Girardi et al., 2020; Schafer et al., 2016). The target populations were adults (Bakes‐Denman et al., 2021; Blake et al., 2020; Everly et al., 2016; Ironson et al., 2020; Kameno et al., 2021; Schafer et al., 2016), undergraduate college students (Despeaux et al., 2019), adolescents (Ramirez et al., 2013; Schafer et al., 2016), and children (Cain et al., 2010; De Freitas Girardi et al., 2020; Meir et al., 2012).…”

“…All interventions except one (Despeaux et al., 2019) were conducted among individuals who reported PTE exposure. Study sample sizes ranged from 13 (Bakes‐Denman et al., 2021) to 260 participants (Blake et al., 2020).…”

“…PFA intervention components varied across studies (Table 2). Four PFA interventions were conducted with individuals (Bakes‐Denman et al., 2021; Everly et al., 2016; Kameno et al., 2021; Ramirez et al., 2013), and eight were conducted in group settings (Blake et al., 2020; Cain et al., 2010; De Freitas Girardi et al., 2020; Despeaux et al., 2019; Ironson et al., 2020; McCart et al., 2020; Meir et al., 2012; Schafer et al., 2016). Intervention components included promoting safety, calming, self‐ and community efficacy, connectedness, hope, reflective listening, knowledge, self‐worth, and self‐awareness.…”