RESUMO
Safewards is a multi-intervention mental health nursing model of practice improvement aimed at preventing and reducing conflict and containment. The use of Safewards has now extended beyond mental health settings. Implementation of Safewards has been reported to be challenging and therefore requires an evidence-informed and structured approach. This review's objectives were to: (i) Comprehensively map approaches used to implement Safewards interventions; (ii) Characterise the outcomes measured in Safewards implementation studies; and (iii) Identify the facilitators and barriers to Safewards training and its implementation in practice. All quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods publications of Safewards, the interventions, evaluations, barriers and facilitators from all healthcare services internationally were included. The Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis extension for Scoping Reviews were used to guide methodology. Data were reported according to the 12 items of the TIDieR. Twenty-seven publications reported the implementation of Safewards. Descriptions were limited for reporting items such as intervention descriptions, materials, resources, specific procedures and processes, modifications made to interventions and delivery of interventions and training. No consistent theoretical implementation framework was reported. Collaboration, leadership, feedback and co-design were strong drivers for staff buy-in, engagement and success for implementation in mental health and acute settings. Transparency, replicability and generalisation require a detailed description of all elements of an intervention being implemented. Without adequate information, only assumptions can be drawn about the clinical governance and process of the implementation and training, and it is difficult to conclude when attempting to replicate the interventions.
RESUMO
Safewards is an internationally adopted framework that provides interventions to reduce conflict and containment in healthcare settings. This systematic review evaluated the effect of Safewards on conflict and containment events in inpatient units and the perceptions of staff and consumers. Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods studies were considered for inclusion. Following the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology, two reviewers independently screened, appraised, and extracted data. Qualitative data were synthesized using inductive-thematic analysis. Quantitative and qualitative data were integrated with a convergent-segregated approach and presented in tabular and narrative format. A search of 13 databases and grey literature yielded 14 studies of variable methodological quality. Four studies reported reduced rates of conflict and one study reported reductions that were not statistically significant. Six studies reported reductions in rates of containment, three studies found no statistical significance and one study reported statistically significant reductions at follow-up. Staff and consumers in four studies reported an improved experience of safety. Three themes were developed as follows: (i) therapeutic hold, cohesion, support and the environment, (ii) conflict, containment and the experience of safety, and (iii) the complexities of adapting and embedding change. This review found most staff and consumers reported Safewards improved therapeutic relationships, cohesion, and ward atmosphere. Staff and consumers reported improved ward atmosphere, leading to consumer-centred, recovery-oriented care. Safewards improved the experience of safety from the perspective of staff and consumers when combined with ongoing training, leadership and time for consolidation. While results are promising they should be used cautiously until more robust evidence is established.
