International emergency nursing · 2025
The potential for Safewards to reduce restrictive interventions for people arriving to the emergency Department with police for a mental health assessment.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Daniel Catherine, Yap Celene Y L, Knott Jonathan C, Ryan Ashleigh, Brittliff Rebecca, Gerdtz Marie
Аннотация
UNLABELLED: Safewards is a complex intervention developed to promote a therapeutic response to minimise conflict and containment in inpatient mental health settings. A pilot study was conducted to adapt Safewards for the emergency department (ED) setting to evaluate its impact on the use of restrictive interventions. This subgroup analysis focusses on patients transported to the ED by police for mental health assessment.
METHOD: A retrospective file audit was conducted using pre and post measures on the use of restrictive interventions following the implementation of Safewards. Demographic and restrictive interventions data were extracted from the hospital databases 12 months before and 6 months after Safewards was implemented. All patients transported to the ED by police for a mental health assessment were included in two regional emergency departments in Victoria, Australia, with over 122,000 presentations per year accredited by the Australasian College for Emergency Medicine.
RESULTS: There were 1379 pre and 543 post attendances accompanied by police. Of these, 85.5% pre and 99.1% post were transported to the hospital under Section 351 of the MHA (2014). Post implementation, there were fewer code grey events (clinical and security responses to unarmed threat) that required restrictive interventions including mechanical or chemical restraint. The number of code grey events in which no restrictive intervention was applied increased from 76.7% to 86.6%. Staff assigned higher triage ratings following the introduction of Safewards. There was a significant reduction in code grey events that used one restrictive intervention after implementing Safewards ED interventions (15.6% versus 7.2%; p=<0.001). Significantly fewer sedative medications were administered to manage behaviour on arrival (20.6% pre versus 9.8% post, p=<0.001).
CONCLUSION: The Safewards ED adaptation may have contributed to a reduction in the use of restrictive interventions in this high-risk subgroup of patients frequently subject to restrictive interventions in the ED. Further research is required to validate the findings from this subgroup analysis.
METHOD: A retrospective file audit was conducted using pre and post measures on the use of restrictive interventions following the implementation of Safewards. Demographic and restrictive interventions data were extracted from the hospital databases 12 months before and 6 months after Safewards was implemented. All patients transported to the ED by police for a mental health assessment were included in two regional emergency departments in Victoria, Australia, with over 122,000 presentations per year accredited by the Australasian College for Emergency Medicine.
RESULTS: There were 1379 pre and 543 post attendances accompanied by police. Of these, 85.5% pre and 99.1% post were transported to the hospital under Section 351 of the MHA (2014). Post implementation, there were fewer code grey events (clinical and security responses to unarmed threat) that required restrictive interventions including mechanical or chemical restraint. The number of code grey events in which no restrictive intervention was applied increased from 76.7% to 86.6%. Staff assigned higher triage ratings following the introduction of Safewards. There was a significant reduction in code grey events that used one restrictive intervention after implementing Safewards ED interventions (15.6% versus 7.2%; p=<0.001). Significantly fewer sedative medications were administered to manage behaviour on arrival (20.6% pre versus 9.8% post, p=<0.001).
CONCLUSION: The Safewards ED adaptation may have contributed to a reduction in the use of restrictive interventions in this high-risk subgroup of patients frequently subject to restrictive interventions in the ED. Further research is required to validate the findings from this subgroup analysis.