Owen Price

Key components of de-escalation techniques: A thematic synthesis

De-escalation techniques are a highly recommended set of therapeutic interventions that are frequently used to prevent violence and aggression within mental health services. A thematic synthesis literature review identified 11 international papers. Seven themes emerged from the data synthesis. The first three related broadly to staff skills, including: characteristics of effective de-escalators, maintaining personal control, and verbal and non-verbal skills. The last four relate to the process of intervening and include: engaging with the patient, when to intervene, ensuring safe conditions for de-escalation, and strategies for de-escalation (including two sub-themes, autonomy confirming interventions, and limit-setting and authoritative interventions). De-escalation techniques are an example of a complex intervention, which has been overlooked by rigorous research, and it is often assumed that staff are able to perform these techniques in clinical practice.

Learning and performance outcomes of mental health staff training in de-escalation techniques for the management of violence and aggression

BACKGROUND De-escalation techniques are a recommended non-physical intervention for the management of violence and aggression in mental health. Although taught as part of mandatory training for all National Health Service (NHS) mental health staff, there remains a lack of clarity around training effectiveness. AIMS To conduct a systematic review of the learning, performance and clinical safety outcomes of de-escalation techniques training. METHOD The review process involved a systematic literature search of 20 electronic databases, eligibility screening of results, data extraction, quality appraisal and data synthesis. RESULTS A total of 38 relevant studies were identified. The strongest impact of training appears to be on de-escalation-related knowledge, confidence to manage aggression and deescalation performance (although limited to artificial training scenarios). No strong conclusions could be drawn about the impact of training on assaults, injuries, containment and organisational outcomes owing to the low quality of evidence and conflicting results. CONCLUSIONS It is assumed that de-escalation techniques training will improve staffs ability to de-escalate violent and aggressive behaviour and improve safety in practice. There is currently limited evidence that this training has these effects.

Aggression on inpatient units: Clinical characteristics and consequences

Aggression and violence are widespread in UK Mental Health Trusts, and are accompanied by negative psychological and physiological consequences for both staff and other patients. Patients who are younger, male, and have a history of substance use and psychosis diagnoses are more likely to display aggression; however, patient factors are not solely responsible for violence, and there are complex circumstances that lead to aggression. Indeed, patient-staff interactions lead to a sizeable portion of aggression and violence on inpatient units, thus they cannot be viewed without considering other forms of conflict and containment that occur before, during, and after the aggressive incident. For this reason, we examined sequences of aggressive incidents in conjunction with other conflict and containment methods used to explore whether there were particular profiles to aggressive incidents. In the present study, 522 adult psychiatric inpatients from 84 acute wards were recruited, and there were 1422 incidents of aggression (verbal, physical against objects, and physical). Cluster analysis revealed that aggressive incident sequences could be classified into four separate groups: solo aggression, aggression-rule breaking, aggression-medication, and aggression-containment. Contrary to our expectations, we did not find physical aggression dominant in the aggression-containment cluster, and while verbal aggression occurred primarily in solo aggression, physical aggression also occurred here. This indicates that the management of aggression is variable, and although some patient factors are linked with different clusters, these do not entirely explain the variation.

Aggression on inpatient units

Aggression and violence are widespread in UK Mental Health Trusts, and are accompanied by negative psychological and physiological consequences for both staff and other patients. Patients who are younger, male, and have a history of substance use and psychosis diagnoses are more likely to display aggression; however, patient factors are not solely responsible for violence, and there are complex circumstances that lead to aggression. Indeed, patient-staff interactions lead to a sizeable portion of aggression and violence on inpatient units, thus they cannot be viewed without considering other forms of conflict and containment that occur before, during, and after the aggressive incident. For this reason, we examined sequences of aggressive incidents in conjunction with other conflict and containment methods used to explore whether there were particular profiles to aggressive incidents. In the present study, 522 adult psychiatric inpatients from 84 acute wards were recruited, and there were 1422 incidents of aggression (verbal, physical against objects, and physical). Cluster analysis revealed that aggressive incident sequences could be classified into four separate groups: solo aggression, aggression-rule breaking, aggression-medication, and aggression-containment. Contrary to our expectations, we did not find physical aggression dominant in the aggression-containment cluster, and while verbal aggression occurred primarily in solo aggression, physical aggression also occurred here. This indicates that the management of aggression is variable, and although some patient factors are linked with different clusters, these do not entirely explain the variation.

Clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and acceptability of low-intensity interventions in the management of obsessive-compulsive disorder: the Obsessive-Compulsive Treatment Efficacy randomised controlled Trial (OCTET).

BACKGROUND The Obsessive-Compulsive Treatment Efficacy randomised controlled Trial emerged from a research recommendation in National Institute for Health and Care Excellence obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) guidelines, which specified the need to evaluate cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) treatment intensity formats. OBJECTIVES To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of two low-intensity CBT interventions [supported computerised cognitive-behavioural therapy (cCBT) and guided self-help]: (1) compared with waiting list for high-intensity CBT in adults with OCD at 3 months; and (2) plus high-intensity CBT compared with waiting list plus high-intensity CBT in adults with OCD at 12 months. To determine patient and professional acceptability of low-intensity CBT interventions. DESIGN A three-arm, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. SETTING Improving Access to Psychological Therapies services and primary/secondary care mental health services in 15 NHS trusts. PARTICIPANTS Patients aged ≥ 18 years meeting Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-Fourth Edition criteria for OCD, on a waiting list for high-intensity CBT and scoring ≥ 16 on the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (indicative of at least moderate severity OCD) and able to read English. INTERVENTIONS Participants were randomised to (1) supported cCBT, (2) guided self-help or (3) a waiting list for high-intensity CBT. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary outcome was OCD symptoms using the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale - Observer Rated. RESULTS Patients were recruited from 14 NHS trusts between February 2011 and May 2014. Follow-up data collection was complete by May 2015. There were 475 patients randomised: supported cCBT (n = 158); guided self-help (n = 158) and waiting list for high-intensity CBT (n = 159). Two patients were excluded post randomisation (one supported cCBT and one waiting list for high-intensity CBT); therefore, data were analysed for 473 patients. In the short term, prior to accessing high-intensity CBT, guided self-help demonstrated statistically significant benefits over waiting list, but these benefits did not meet the prespecified criterion for clinical significance [adjusted mean difference -1.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.27 to -0.55; p = 0.006]. Supported cCBT did not demonstrate any significant benefit (adjusted mean difference -0.71, 95% CI -2.12 to 0.70). In the longer term, access to guided self-help and supported cCBT, prior to high-intensity CBT, did not lead to differences in outcomes compared with access to high-intensity CBT alone. Access to guided self-help and supported cCBT led to significant reductions in the uptake of high-intensity CBT; this did not seem to compromise patient outcomes at 12 months. Taking a decision-making approach, which focuses on which decision has a higher probability of being cost-effective, rather than the statistical significance of the results, there was little evidence that supported cCBT and guided self-help are cost-effective at the 3-month follow-up compared with a waiting list. However, by the 12-month follow-up, data suggested a greater probability of guided self-help being cost-effective than a waiting list from the health- and social-care perspective (60%) and the societal perspective (80%), and of supported cCBT being cost-effective compared with a waiting list from both perspectives (70%). Qualitative interviews found that guided self-help was more acceptable to patients than supported cCBT. Professionals acknowledged the advantages of low intensity interventions at a population level. No adverse events occurred during the trial that were deemed to be suspected or unexpected serious events. LIMITATIONS A significant issue in the interpretation of the results concerns the high level of access to high-intensity CBT during the waiting list period. CONCLUSIONS Although low-intensity interventions are not associated with clinically significant improvements in OCD symptoms, economic analysis over 12 months suggests that low-intensity interventions are cost-effective and may have an important role in OCD care pathways. Further research to enhance the clinical effectiveness of these interventions may be warranted, alongside research on how best to incorporate them into care pathways. TRIAL REGISTRATION Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN73535163. FUNDING This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 37. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Resistance to changing practice from pro re nata prescriptions to patient group directions in acute mental health settings

Poor practice associated with pro re nata (PRN) prescriptions in mental health is known to be common and can increase the risk of serious and potentially fatal side effects. A contributing factor to poor practice is the lack of a clear chain of accountability between the decision to prescribe and administer PRN prescriptions. To address this problem, a patient group direction (PGD) for acute behavioural disturbance (lorazepam 0.5-2 mg) and staff training materials were developed. The intention was to replace PRN prescriptions with the PGD in two mental health trusts. One of the potential benefits of this would be the removal of the contribution of PRN to high and combined dose antipsychotic prescriptions. This proposal, however, was met with significant resistance in both trusts and did not replace PRN as a result. A series of interviews and focus groups were conducted with 16 RMNs working in the two trusts, to explore the reasons why the PGD was met with resistance. Senior nurses perceived resistance to be associated with anxieties over increased responsibility for decision making. Junior nurses reported concerns regarding the medicalization of the nursing role, the paperwork associated with the PGD and the training approach used. Future efforts to implement PGDs in mental health settings must carefully consider the methods for engaging effectively with participating organizations, in terms of managing change and completing the necessary groundwork for successful implementation.

Low-intensity cognitive-behaviour therapy interventions for obsessive-compulsive disorder compared to waiting list for therapist-led cognitive-behaviour therapy: 3-arm randomised controlled trial of clinical effectiveness

Background Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is prevalent and without adequate treatment usually follows a chronic course. “High-intensity” cognitive-behaviour therapy (CBT) from a specialist therapist is current “best practice.” However, access is difficult because of limited numbers of therapists and because of the disabling effects of OCD symptoms. There is a potential role for “low-intensity” interventions as part of a stepped care model. Low-intensity interventions (written or web-based materials with limited therapist support) can be provided remotely, which has the potential to increase access. However, current evidence concerning low-intensity interventions is insufficient. We aimed to determine the clinical effectiveness of 2 forms of low-intensity CBT prior to high-intensity CBT, in adults meeting the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV) criteria for OCD. Methods and findings This study was approved by the National Research Ethics Service Committee North West–Lancaster (reference number 11/NW/0276). All participants provided informed consent to take part in the trial. We conducted a 3-arm, multicentre randomised controlled trial in primary- and secondary-care United Kingdom mental health services. All patients were on a waiting list for therapist-led CBT (treatment as usual). Four hundred and seventy-three eligible patients were recruited and randomised. Patients had a median age of 33 years, and 60% were female. The majority were experiencing severe OCD. Patients received 1 of 2 low-intensity interventions: computerised CBT (cCBT; web-based CBT materials and limited telephone support) through “OCFighter” or guided self-help (written CBT materials with limited telephone or face-to-face support). Primary comparisons concerned OCD symptoms, measured using the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale–Observer-Rated (Y-BOCS-OR) at 3, 6, and 12 months. Secondary outcomes included health-related quality of life, depression, anxiety, and functioning. At 3 months, guided self-help demonstrated modest benefits over the waiting list in reducing OCD symptoms (adjusted mean difference = −1.91, 95% CI −3.27 to −0.55). These effects did not reach a prespecified level of “clinically significant benefit.” cCBT did not demonstrate significant benefit (adjusted mean difference = −0.71, 95% CI −2.12 to 0.70). At 12 months, neither guided self-help nor cCBT led to differences in OCD symptoms. Early access to low-intensity interventions led to significant reductions in uptake of high-intensity CBT over 12 months; 86% of the patients allocated to the waiting list for high-intensity CBT started treatment by the end of the trial, compared to 62% in supported cCBT and 57% in guided self-help. These reductions did not compromise longer-term patient outcomes. Data suggested small differences in satisfaction at 3 months, with patients more satisfied with guided self-help than supported cCBT. A significant issue in the interpretation of the results concerns the level of access to high-intensity CBT before the primary outcome assessment. Conclusions We have demonstrated that providing low-intensity interventions does not lead to clinically significant benefits but may reduce uptake of therapist-led CBT. Trial registration International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) Registry ISRCTN73535163.

Training Staff to Manage Violence and Aggression

6. 6 Online Misogyny Targeting Feminist Activism: Anita Sarkeesian and Gamergate Aggression Research Team and 595B class members: At the moment (Jan. 8, 2018), the ISU library does not have this book. However, I think that you might be able to access the chapters using the doi for the full pdf given in the last line under each chapter. I suspect that you will have to register with Wiley and pay for access, until ISU purchases the book.