“Catching your tail and firefighting”: The impact of staffing levels on restraint minimization efforts

Introduction: Safe staffing and coercive practices are of pressing concern for mental health services. These are inter-dependent and the relationship is under-researched. Aim: To explore views on staffing levels in context of attempting to minimise physical restraint practices on mental health wards. Findings emerged from a wider dataset with the broader aim of exploring experiences of a restraint reduction initiative Methods: Thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews with staff (n=130) and service users (n=32). Results: Five themes were identified regarding how staffing levels impact experiences and complicate efforts to minimise physical restraint. We titled the themes – ‘insufficient staff to do the job’; ‘detriment to staff and service users’; ‘a paperwork exercise: the burden of non-clinical tasks’; ‘false economies’; and, ‘you can’t do these interventions’. Discussion: Tendencies detracting from relational aspects of care are not independent of insufficiencies in staffing. The relational, communicative, and organisational developments that would enable reductions in use of restraint are labour intensive and vulnerable to derailment by insufficient and poorly skilled staff. Implications for Practice: Restrictive practices are unlikely to be minimised unless wards are adequately staffed. Inadequate staffing is not independent of restrictive practices and reduces access to alternative interventions for reducing individuals’ distress

Contesting the psychiatric framing of ME / CFS

ME/CFS is a medically contested illness and its understanding, framing and treatment has been the subject of heated debate. This paper examines why framing the condition as a psychiatric issue—what we refer to as ‘psychiatrisation’—has been so heavily contested by patients and activists. We argue that this contestation is not simply about stigmatising mental health conditions, as some have suggested, but relates to how people diagnosed with mental illness are treated in society, psychiatry and the law. We highlight the potentially harmful consequences of psychiatrisation which can lead to people’s experiential knowledge being discredited. This stems, in part, from a psychiatric-specific form of ‘epistemic injustice’ which can result in unhelpful, unwanted and forced treatments. This understanding helps explain why the psychiatrisation of ME/CFS has become the focus of such bitter debate and why psychiatry itself has become such a significant field of contention, for both ME/CFS patients and mental health service users/survivors. Notwithstanding important differences, both reject the way psychiatry denies patient explanations and understandings, and therefore share a collective struggle for justice and legitimation. Reasons why this shared struggle has not resulted in alliances between ME and mental health activists are noted

Restraint minimisation in mental health care: legitimate or illegitimate force? An ethnographic study

Coercive practices, such as physical restraint, are used globally to respond to violent, aggressive and other behaviours displayed by mental health service users.1 A number of approaches have been designed to aid staff working within services to minimise the use of restraint and other restrictive practices. One such approach, the ‘REsTRAIN Yourself’ (RYS) initiative, has been evaluated in the UK. Rapid ethnography was used to explore the aspects of organisational culture and staff behaviour exhibited by teams of staff working within 14 acute admission mental health wards in the North West region of the English NHS. Findings comprise four core themes of space and place; legitimation; meaningful activity; and, therapeutic engagement that represent characteristics of daily life on the wards before and after implementation of the RYS intervention. Tensions between staff commitments to therapeutic relations and constraining factors were revealed in demarcations of ward space and limitations on availability of meaningful activities. The physical, relational and discursive means by which ward spaces are segregated prompts attention to the observed materialities of routine care. Legitimation was identified as a crucial discursive practice in the context of staff reliance upon coercion. Trauma‐informed care represents a potentially alternative legitimacy