Treating insomnia in people who are incarcerated: a feasibility study of a multicomponent treatment pathway.

Around 60% of people who are incarcerated have insomnia; 6-10 times more prevalent than the general population. Yet, there is no standardized, evidence-based approach to insomnia treatment in prison. We assessed the feasibility of a treatment pathway for insomnia in a high-secure prison to inform a future randomized controlled trial (RCT) and initial efficacy data for sleep and mental health outcomes. We used a within-participants pre-post design. The stepped-care pathway included: self-management with peer support, environmental aids, and cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBTi). Assessment measures for insomnia, well-being, mood, anxiety, suicidality, overall health, sleepiness, fatigue, and cognitive functioning were administered at baseline and pathway exit. Feasibility criteria included eligibility to participate, CBTi uptake, and assessment completion. Forty-two adult males who are incarcerated were approached of which 95.2% were eligible. Of those deemed eligible, most participated (36/40, 90.0%). Most who completed baseline completed post-assessments (28/36, 77.8%) and of these, most showed improvements in their subjective sleep (27/28, 96.4%). Large reductions were found from pre- to posttreatment in insomnia severity (d = -1.81, 95% CI: 8.3 to 12.9) and 57.0% reported no clinically significant insomnia symptoms at post-assessment. There was no overall change in actigraphy-measured sleep. Large treatment benefits were found for depression, anxiety, well-being, and cognitive functioning, with a medium benefit on suicidal ideation. The treatment pathway for insomnia in prison was feasible and may be an effective treatment for insomnia in people who are incarcerated, with additional promising benefits for mental health. A pragmatic RCT across different prison populations is warranted. This paper is part of the Sleep and Circadian Health in the Justice System Collection.

Barriers and facilitators to incident reporting in mental healthcare settings: A qualitative study.

WHAT IS KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT?: The barriers and facilitators to incident reporting are becoming well known in general healthcare settings due to a large body of research in this area. At present, it is unknown if these factors also affect incident reporting in mental healthcare settings as the same amount of research has not been conducted in these settings. WHAT THE PAPER ADDS TO EXISTING KNOWLEDGE: Some of the barriers and facilitators to incident reporting in mental healthcare settings are the same as general healthcare settings (i.e., learning and improvement, time and fear). Other factors appear to be specific to mental healthcare settings (i.e., the role of patient diagnosis and how incidents involving assault are dealt with). WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE?: Interventions to improve incident reporting in mental healthcare settings may be adapted from general healthcare settings in some cases. Bespoke interventions for mental healthcare settings that focus specifically on violence and aggression should be co-designed with patients and staff. Thresholds for incident reporting (i.e., what types of incidents will not be tolerated) need to be set, communicated and adopted Trust wide to ensure parity across staff groups and services. ABSTRACT: Introduction Barriers and facilitators to incident reporting have been widely researched in general health care. However, it is unclear if the findings are applicable to mental health care where care is increasingly complex. Aim To investigate if barriers and facilitators affecting incident reporting in mental health care are consistent with factors identified in other healthcare settings. Method Data were collected from focus groups (n = 8) with 52 members of staff from across West London NHS Trust and analysed with thematic analysis. Results Five themes were identified during the analysis. Three themes (a) learning and improvement, (b) time and (c) fear were consistent with the existing wider literature on barriers and facilitators to incident reporting. Two further themes (d) interaction between patient diagnosis and incidents and (e) aftermath of an incident-prosecution specifically linked to the provision of mental health care. Conclusions Whilst some barriers and facilitators to incident reporting identified in other settings are also prevalent in the mental healthcare setting, the increased incidence of violent and aggressive behaviour within mental health care presents a unique challenge for incident reporting. Clinical implications Although interventions to improve incident reporting may be adapted/adopted from other settings, there is a need to develop specific interventions to improve reporting of violent and aggressive incidents.

Patient safety in inpatient mental health settings: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: Patients in inpatient mental health settings face similar risks (eg, medication errors) to those in other areas of healthcare. In addition, some unsafe behaviours associated with serious mental health problems (eg, self-harm), and the measures taken to address these (eg, restraint), may result in further risks to patient safety. The objective of this review is to identify and synthesise the literature on patient safety within inpatient mental health settings using robust systematic methodology. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-synthesis. Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Health Management Information Consortium, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Web of Science were systematically searched from 1999 to 2019. Search terms were related to 'mental health', 'patient safety', 'inpatient setting' and 'research'. Study quality was assessed using the Hawker checklist. Data were extracted and grouped based on study focus and outcome. Safety incidents were meta-analysed where possible using a random-effects model. RESULTS: Of the 57 637 article titles and abstracts, 364 met inclusion criteria. Included publications came from 31 countries and included data from over 150 000 participants. Study quality varied and statistical heterogeneity was high. Ten research categories were identified: interpersonal violence, coercive interventions, safety culture, harm to self, safety of the physical environment, medication safety, unauthorised leave, clinical decision making, falls and infection prevention and control. CONCLUSIONS: Patient safety in inpatient mental health settings is under-researched in comparison to other non-mental health inpatient settings. Findings demonstrate that inpatient mental health settings pose unique challenges for patient safety, which require investment in research, policy development, and translation into clinical practice. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42016034057.

Identifying research priorities for patient safety in mental health: an international expert Delphi study.

OBJECTIVE: Physical healthcare has dominated the patient safety field; research in mental healthcare is not as extensive but findings from physical healthcare cannot be applied to mental healthcare because it delivers specialised care that faces unique challenges. Therefore, a clearer focus and recognition of patient safety in mental health as a distinct research area is still needed. The study aim is to identify future research priorities in the field of patient safety in mental health. DESIGN: Semistructured interviews were conducted with the experts to ascertain their views on research priorities in patient safety in mental health. A three-round online Delphi study was used to ascertain consensus on 117 research priority statements. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Academic and service user experts from the USA, UK, Switzerland, Netherlands, Ireland, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Sweden, Australia, New Zealand and Singapore were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Agreement in research priorities on a five-point scale. RESULTS: Seventy-nine statements achieved consensus (>70%). Three out of the top six research priorities were patient driven; experts agreed that understanding the patient perspective on safety planning, on self-harm and on medication was important. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first international Delphi study to identify research priorities in safety in the mental field as determined by expert academic and service user perspectives. A reasonable consensus was obtained from international perspectives on future research priorities in patient safety in mental health; however, the patient perspective on their mental healthcare is a priority. The research agenda for patient safety in mental health identified here should be informed by patient safety science more broadly and used to further establish this area as a priority in its own right. The safety of mental health patients must have parity with that of physical health patients to achieve this.

A systematic review of patient safety in mental health: a protocol based on the inpatient setting.

BACKGROUND: Despite the growing international interest in patient safety as a discipline, there has been a lack of exploration of its application to mental health. It cannot be assumed that findings based upon physical health in acute care hospitals can be applied to mental health patients, disorders and settings. To the authors' knowledge, there has only been one review of the literature that focuses on patient safety research in mental health settings, conducted in Canada in 2008. We have identified a need to update this review and develop the methodology in order to strengthen the findings and disseminate internationally for advancement in the field. This systematic review will explore the existing research base on patient safety in mental health within the inpatient setting. METHODS: To conduct this systematic review, a thorough search across multiple databases will be undertaken, based upon four search facets ("mental health", "patient safety", "research" and "inpatient setting"). The search strategy has been developed based upon the Canadian review accompanied with input from the National Reporting and Learning System (NRLS) taxonomy of patient safety incidents and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (fifth edition). The screening process will involve perspectives from at least two researchers at all stages with a third researcher invited to review when discrepancies require resolution. Initial inclusion and exclusion criteria have been developed and will be refined iteratively throughout the process. Quality assessment and data extraction of included articles will be conducted by at least two researchers. A data extraction form will be developed, piloted and iterated as necessary in accordance with the research question. Extracted information will be analysed thematically. DISCUSSION: We believe that this systematic review will make a significant contribution to the advancement of patient safety in mental health inpatient settings. The findings will enable the development and implementation of interventions to improve the quality of care experienced by patients and support the identification of future research priorities. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42016034057.