Action learning sets for supporting postgraduate mental health nurses' transition to professional practice: A qualitative study.

This paper reports on a qualitative case study of postgraduate mental health nurses participating in a monthly facilitated action learning set (ALS) in order to support them while they transition from PGMHN to independent professional practice. The aim of the study was to determine what the impact of participating in an ALS would have on how they perceived clinical practice issues. The ALS comprised a small group of PGMHN supported by a facilitator in order to explore issues from clinical practice by using Socratic questions to challenge their thinking. Data were collected via a single focus group and a 20-item survey. Focus group textual data were coded line by line, and codes were synthesized thematically. The major theme to emerge from the qualitative results was as follows: 'Learning from doing an action learning set'. Three subthemes were identified: Think outside the box: Developing Socratic questions; there's rarely one right way: Applying action learning to practice; and Not easy to implement: Action plans in action. A 20-item evaluative survey indicated that ALS increased participant's confidence as a mental health nurse. Using critical questions increased participants' confidence to explore different perspectives when engaged in problem-solving.

The missing voice of engagement: an exploratory study from the perspectives of case-managers at an early intervention service for first-episode psychosis.

BACKGROUND: A key component of case-management in early intervention services for first-episode psychosis is engaging a person with the service and building a relationship from which therapy and treatment can be facilitated. The aim of this study was to understand how case-managers at an early intervention service experience the process of engagement and working with varying levels of attendance and participation. METHODS: Qualitative interviews were conducted with the case-managers of nine young people treated at an early intervention service for first-episode psychosis within 6 months of treatment entry. Interviews discussed the process of working with the young person and factors that influenced service engagement. Interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Case-managers described a range of influences on engagement which were grouped under the themes: young person and caregiver influences on engagement, case-manager influences on engagement, and influences of the early intervention service system on engagement. The experience of engagement was described as relational, however it occurred in the context of broader influences, some of which were unable to be changed or challenged by the case-manager (e.g., resource allocation, models of treatment, young person demographics). CONCLUSION: This study illustrates the challenges that case-managers face when working with young people with first-episode psychosis, and the direct influence this has on engagement with treatment. Understanding these challenges and addressing them in policy and service design may lead to improvements in young peoples' recovery from first-episode psychosis and increase case-manager job satisfaction.

Essential ingredients of engagement when working alongside people after their first episode of psychosis: A qualitative meta-synthesis.

AIM: Early intervention services (EISs) for first-episode psychosis (FEP) have been established internationally, however, service disengagement is a recurrent concern resulting in unplanned treatment cessation. The implications of this are far-reaching due to the financial and personal costs associated with untreated symptoms. The aim of this meta-synthesis was to collect, interpret and synthesize qualitative research about how engagement is experienced within EISs for FEP. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in PsycINFO, Ovid MEDLINE and Ovid Emcare from date of conception to November 2016. Following initial screening, 91 abstracts and 13 full texts were reviewed for eligibility. Nine studies were then critically appraised using the CASP tool for qualitative studies, data were systematically extracted and results were synthesized using constant comparison and reciprocal translational analysis. RESULTS: Nine qualitative studies explored engagement with EISs, from the perspectives of service users and their caregivers. No studies were found from the perspectives of clinicians or services. All 9 studies employed an inductive methodology, within an interpretivist epistemology. Five main themes were identified: experiences of finding help; factors promoting engagement; the therapeutic relationship; the role of caregivers in supporting engagement; and factors impacting ongoing engagement. CONCLUSIONS: There is a critical need to stimulate discussion around this multifaceted phenomenon, including a continued focus on the roles of key stakeholders and clinical models that may further facilitate collaboration in treatment plans and recovery.

Consumers' and their supporters' perspectives on barriers and strategies to reducing seclusion and restraint in mental health settings.

Objective This paper examines the perspectives of consumers and their supporters regarding the use of seclusion and restraint in mental health settings. Methods Five focus groups for consumers and five focus groups for supporters were conducted in four Australian cities and in one rural location. The 66 participants were asked about strategies to reduce or eliminate the use of seclusion and restraint in mental health settings. Results All participants supported the reduction of the use of seclusion and restraint. Barriers to reducing these practices related to the environment, the effects of drug and alcohol issues, lack of a human rights focus and poor recognition of trauma, stigma and discrimination. Strategies for reducing or eliminating seclusion and restraint included workforce development, environmental and cultural changes. Conclusions Participants clearly identified that the status quo needs to change and conveyed urgency for action. Participants suggested that the involvement of supporters and a range of consumer roles are integral to reducing the use of seclusion and restraint. The findings support the current policy emphasis of working towards the elimination of these practices. What is known about the topic? Mental health policies across many jurisdictions support the reduction and elimination of restraint and seclusion. Evidence suggests those subjected to restraint and seclusion largely experience a range of harmful consequences. No studies focus on the views of supporters of consumers regarding the reduction and elimination of seclusion and restraint, whereas the views of consumers appear in a minority of international studies. What does this paper add? The research enabled an opportunity to hear from people who have been personally affected by and/or have lived experience of these coercive practices. Participants identified local reforms that can uphold the human rights of consumers. They suggested practices to increase accountability, peer support and family involvement, areas that have not been analysed in depth in any of the seclusion and restraint literature. What are the implications for practitioners? This paper will give healthcare services a deeper insight into how to reduce or eliminate restraint or seclusion from the perspective of those with lived experience.

Consumers and Carer perspectives on poor practice and the use of seclusion and restraint in mental health settings: results from Australian focus groups.

BACKGROUND: Seclusion and restraint are interventions currently permitted for use in mental health services to control or manage a person's behaviour. In Australia, serious concerns about the use of such seclusion and restraint have been raised at least since 1993. Consumers and their supporters have also expressed strong views about the harm of these practices. This paper presents the results of ten focus group discussions with people with lived experience of mental health issues and also carers, family members and support persons in relation to the use of seclusion and restraint. METHODS: The 30 consumers and 36 supporters participating in the focus groups convened in four Australian cities and one regional centre discussed their understandings of the use of seclusion and restraint and its impact on the people involved. Participants also presented their observations about poor practice and what contributes to it as well as providing ideas and recommendations regarding strategies to reduce or eliminate seclusion and restraint. Focus group discussions were recorded and transcribed, then analysed using the NVivo 10 qualitative data analysis software with a general inductive approach used to analyse data. This analysis enabled consideration of the responses to key questions in the focus groups as well as the identification of emerging themes. RESULTS: Six themes emerged from the analysis, these being: human rights, trauma, control, isolation, dehumanisation and 'othering', and anti-recovery. Examples of poor practice identified by focus groups included the use of excessive force, lack of empathy/paternalistic attitudes, lack of communication and interaction and a lack of alternative strategies to the use of seclusion and restraint. There was a confluence of factors identified by participants as contributing to poor practice, with the main factors being organisational culture, the physical environment, under-resourced mental health services and fear and stigma. CONCLUSIONS: Focus group participants in the main viewed seclusion and restraint practices in mental health settings as unnecessarily overused, exacerbating problems for individuals, carers, staff and the broader system of care. This study highlights that lived experience of both consumers and their supporters can make an important contribution to mental health services and its ongoing reform.

Erratum to: Consumers and their supporters' perspectives on poor practice and the use of seclusion and restraint in mental health settings: results from Australian focus groups.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1186/s13033-016-0038-x.].