Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35168682›Full record

ArticleBMC psychology2022

De-escalation of conflict in forensic mental health inpatient settings: a Theoretical Domains Framework-informed qualitative investigation of staff and patient perspectives.

Isobel Johnston, Owen Price, Peter McPherson, Christopher J Armitage, Helen Brooks, Penny Bee, Karina Lovell, Cat Papastavrou Brooks

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC psychology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Observational
  10. Review
  11. On Being Open in Closed Places: Vulnerability and Violence in Inpatient Psychiatric Settings.Nursing philosophy : an international journal for healthcare professionals · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Isobel JohnstonSchool of Health Sciences, Division of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, Jean McFarlane Building, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.
Owen PriceSchool of Health Sciences, Division of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, Jean McFarlane Building, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK. owen.price@manchester.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4601-3363
Peter McPhersonDivision of Psychiatry, University College London, 6th Floor, Maple House, 149 Tottenham Court Road, London, W1T 7NF, UK.
Christopher J ArmitageManchester Centre for Health Psychology, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.
Helen BrooksSchool of Health Sciences, Division of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, Jean McFarlane Building, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.
Penny BeeSchool of Health Sciences, Division of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, Jean McFarlane Building, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.
Karina LovellSchool of Health Sciences, Division of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, Jean McFarlane Building, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.
Cat Papastavrou BrooksPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK.
University of Manchester · GBManchester Academic Health Science Centre · GBUniversity College London · GBUniversity of Bristol · GB

Funding

Health Technology Assessment Programme 16/101/02
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundViolence and other harms that result from conflict in forensic inpatient mental health settings are an international problem. De-escalation approaches for reducing conflict are recommended, yet the evidence-base for their use is limited. For the first time, the present study uses implementation science and behaviour change approaches to identify the specific organisational and individual behaviour change targets for enhanced de-escalation in low and medium secure forensic inpatient settings. The primary objective of this study was to identify and describe individual professional, cultural and system-level barriers and enablers to the implementation of de-escalation in forensic mental health inpatient settings. The secondary objective was to identify the changes in capabilities, opportunities and motivations required to enhance de-escalation behaviours in these settings.

methodsQualitative design with data collection and analysis informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Two medium secure forensic mental health inpatient wards and one low secure mental health inpatient ward participated. 12 inpatients and 18 staff participated across five focus groups and one individual interview (at participant preference) guided by a semi-structured interview schedule informed by the TDF domains. Data were analysed via Framework Analysis, organised into the 14 TDF domains then coded inductively within each domain.

resultsThe capabilities required to enhance de-escalation comprised relationship-building, emotional regulation and improved understanding of patients. Staff opportunities for de-escalation are limited by shared beliefs within nursing teams stigmatising therapeutic intimacy in nurse-patient relationships and emotional vulnerability in staff. These beliefs may be modified by ward manager role-modelling. Increased opportunity for de-escalation may be created by increasing service user involvement in antipsychotic prescribing and modifications to the physical environment (sensory rooms and limiting restrictions on patient access to ward spaces). Staff motivation to engage in de-escalation may be increased through reducing perceptions of patient dangerousness via post-incident debriefing and advanced de-escalation planning.

conclusionsInterventions to enhance de-escalation in forensic mental health settings should enhance ward staff's understanding of patients and modify beliefs about therapeutic boundaries which limit the quality of staff-patient relationships. The complex interactions within the capabilities-opportunities-motivation configuration our novel analysis generated, indicates that de-escalation behaviour is unlikely to be changed through knowledge and skills-based training alone. De-escalation training should be implemented with adjunct interventions targeting: collaborative antipsychotic prescribing; debriefing and de-escalation planning; modifications to the physical environment; and ward manager role-modelling of emotional vulnerability and therapeutic intimacy in nurse-patient relationships.

Indexed as

InpatientsMental HealthFocus GroupsHumansMotivationQualitative ResearchViolenceAggressionCommunicationImplementation scienceMental healthNursing

Identifiers

PMID35168682
PMCPMC8845398
OpenAlexW4212925293

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.