本主题的知识是什么?:临床指南和员工培训建议使用降级措施,而不是限制性做法,例如约束和隔离证据表明,尽管接受了培训,但限制性做法仍在频繁使用。这表明现有员工降级培训缺乏影响。本文对现有知识有何贡献?:降级培训的功能为员工所接受,并被认为是有影响力的。共同设计和共同提供的关于创伤知情方法的培训课程,以降低心理健康病房的升级是可以接受的,并且被认为是有影响力的。参加培训的人员特别重视如何将生活经验纳入培训内容和共同交付组织和团队背景下的适应培训可能需要更多的培训。实践的含义是什么?:采用创伤知情方法并考虑病房环境的背景的降级培训对工作人员来说是可以接受的,共同提供的培训模式可以解决限制性实践问题。进一步的研究将表明,这种培训在临床上如何有效地改善病房环境中的服务使用者的成果。
■背景:证据表明,在心理健康环境中,推荐和常规做法之间存在差异,表明现有培训缺乏影响。
目的:调查共同设计/实施的培训干预措施对精神卫生病房创伤知情降级方法的可接受性和感知影响。
方法:受训者被邀请在训练后完成训练可接受性评定量表(TARS)。对定量项目的响应使用描述性统计进行总结,和开放文本响应使用内容分析进行编码。
结果:在214名学员中,211完成了TARS。受训者对培训的评价较好(总体TARS中位数=55/63),为可接受(中位数33/36)和有影响力(中位数23/27)。有五个定性主题:感兴趣的模块;多种观点;交付方式;塑造上下文;并修改其他元素。
结论:EDITION培训被认为是可接受的和有影响力的,学员特别重视共同交付模式。学员提出了几种改进培训的方法,特别是需要进一步将干预措施塑造到特定的病房环境/团队。
结论:我们建议共同设计并共同向精神卫生专业人员提供员工培训,以应对限制性做法。
结论:这项研究与生活经验从业者有关,他们希望参与围绕限制性实践培训心理健康专业人员,展示他们声音的价值和重要性。它与当前降级培训的提供者有关,以及接受培训的员工,概述一本小说,但是可以接受和有影响力,心理健康实践关键领域的培训形式。它与任何有兴趣通过共同提供的培训减少限制性实践的人有关。
WHAT IS KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT?: Clinical guidelines and staff training recommend using de-escalation over restrictive practices, such as restraint and seclusion Evidence suggests that restrictive practices continue to be used frequently despite training This suggests a lack of impact of existing staff de-escalation training. WHAT DOES THIS PAPER ADD TO EXISTING KNOWLEDGE?: The features of de-escalation training that are acceptable to staff and perceived to be impactful A co-designed and co-delivered training session on a trauma-informed approach to de-escalation on mental health wards was acceptable and perceived to be impactful Those attending training particularly valued how lived experience was incorporated into the training content and co-delivery The organizational and team context may need more consideration in adapting the training. WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE?: De-escalation training that adopts a trauma-informed approach and considers the context of ward environments is acceptable to staff Co-delivery models of training to tackle restrictive practice can be acceptable and impactful Further research will show how clinically effective this training is in improving outcomes for service users in ward contexts.
UNASSIGNED: BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests a discrepancy between recommended and routine practice in de-escalation in mental health settings, suggesting a lack of impact of existing training.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the acceptability and perceived impact of a co-designed/delivered training intervention on a trauma-informed approach to de-escalation on mental health wards.
METHODS: Trainees were invited to complete the Training Acceptability Rating Scale (TARS) post-training. Responses to the quantitative items were summarized using descriptive statistics, and open-text responses were coded using content analysis.
RESULTS: Of 214 trainees, 211 completed the TARS. The trainees rated the training favourably (median overall TARS = 55/63), as acceptable (median 33/36) and impactful (median 23/27). There were five qualitative themes: modules of interest; multiple perspectives; modes of delivery; moulding to context; and modifying other elements.
CONCLUSIONS: The EDITION training was found to be acceptable and impactful, with trainees particularly valuing the co-delivery model. Trainees suggested several ways in which the training could be improved, particularly around the need for further moulding of the intervention to the specific ward contexts/teams.
CONCLUSIONS: We recommend co-designing and co-delivering staff training to mental health professionals that tackles restrictive practices.
CONCLUSIONS: This research is relevant to lived experience practitioners who want to be involved in training mental health professionals around restrictive practices, demonstrating the value and importance of their voice. It is relevant to current providers of de-escalation training, and to staff receiving training, outlining a novel, but acceptable and impactful, form of training on a key area of mental health practice. It is relevant to anyone with an interest in reducing restrictive practice via co-delivered training.