The Active Recovery Triad monitor: evaluation of a model fidelity scale for recovery-oriented care in long-term mental health care settings.

OBJECTIVE: The Active Recovery Triad (ART) model is a recently developed care model for people who are admitted to an institutional setting for several years and receive 24-h mental health care and support. This study focuses on the ART monitor, a model fidelity scale that measures the degree of compliance with the ART model. Our aim is to evaluate the psychometric properties of the ART monitor and to further improve the instrument. METHODS: Fifteen teams at the start (n = 7, group 1) or in the process (6 months to three years) of implementing care according to the ART model (n = 8, group 2) were audited using the ART monitor. Auditors were trained care workers, peer workers, and family peer workers. Auditors and team members provided feedback on the instrument. The content validity, construct validity and inter-rater reliability of the ART monitor were investigated. Based on the outcomes of these psychometric properties, the ART monitor was finalized. RESULTS: Regarding content validity, auditors and teams indicated that they perceived the ART monitor to be a useful instrument. In terms of construct validity, a significant difference (t(13) = 2.53, p < 0.05) was found between teams at the start of the implementation process (group 1, average score of 2.42 (SD = 0.44)) and teams with a longer duration of implementation (group 2, average score of 2.95 (SD = 0.37)). When allowing for a one-point difference in scores, 88% of the items had an inter-rater agreement over 65%. Items with a relatively low inter-rater reliability, in combination with feedback from auditors and teams regarding content validity, provided direction for further improvement and revision of the instrument. CONCLUSIONS: We concluded that the revised ART monitor is feasible and useful in mental health care practice. However, further evaluation of its psychometric properties will be needed.

Dealing with care disruption in High and Intensive Care wards: From difficult patients to difficult situations.

High and Intensive Care is a relatively new care model in Dutch mental health care for clinical admissions. One of the goals is to keep the admission short. For some patients, this goal is not realized, which results in a long-term admission. Often, this is experienced as a disruption. Disruptions in care processes are frequently defined in terms of patient characteristics. Yet, it may be that other factors play a role. The aim of this study is to gain better insight into the perceptions of care professionals of what is characteristic for disruptions at High and Intensive Care wards and how professionals can deal with these. Qualitative research was performed by means of semi-structured interviews and a focus group with professionals. Results show that a focus on patient characteristics is too narrow and that other factors also play an important role. These factors include challenges in the relation between professionals and the patient, a divided team, and a lack of collaboration with ambulatory care. In order to deal with these factors, professionals should invest in the relationship with the patient, identify destructive team processes early, and improve communication with ambulatory care. It is recommended to develop a monitoring tool that includes all these factors. Another recommendation is to organize structured reflection on dilemmas experienced in care. In conclusion, this study shows the importance of going beyond patient characteristics in order to better understand, identify, and deal with disruption at High and Intensive Care wards.

Preventing seclusion in psychiatry: a care ethics perspective on the first five minutes at admission.

In this article, an intervention aimed at improving quality of care to prevent seclusion in psychiatry by focusing on the first five minutes at admission is analyzed from a care ethics perspective. Two cases are presented from an evaluation study in a psychiatric hospital. In both cases, the nurses follow the intervention protocol, but the outcome is different. In the first case, the patient ends up in the seclusion room. In the second case, this does not happen. Analyzing the cases from a care ethics perspective, we conclude that applying the intervention in the right way implies more than following the steps laid down in the protocol. It requires a new way of thinking and acting, resulting in new relationships between nurses and patients. Care ethics theory can help clarify what good care is actually about and keep in mind what is needed to apply the intervention. Thus, care ethics theory can be highly practical and helpful in changing and improving healthcare practice.