Author
Listed:
- Brenda Happell
- Stefan Koehn
Abstract
Background. The use of seclusion in mental health services is controversial, and recent Government policy has identified the reduction and, if possible, elimination of seclusion as a national safety priority. As the professional group most likely to initiate seclusion, the attitudes of nurses will influence the extent to which policy translates to practice. Design. The Survey of Nurses’ Attitudes to Seclusion Survey was completed by nurses (n = 123) from eight mental health services from Queensland, Australia. Methods. Data were analysed using SPSS to provide descriptive statistics for nurses’ attitudes according to the scale. Correlation analysis was used to examine associations between demographic variables and attitudes towards seclusion. Results. Participants recognised the negative impact of seclusion on consumers; however, they continue to support its use, particularly in cases of threatened or actual violence to staff and other consumers. The impact of seclusion room on consumers was viewed as significant and yet most participants did not recommend changes other than painting the room for a calming effect. Demographic factors had limited impact on attitudes. Conclusions. The continued support of the use of seclusion despite acknowledgement of its detrimental effects appears to reflect a lack of alternative approaches to the management of consumer behaviours such as violence and aggression. Relevance to clinical practice. While nurses continue to view seclusion as a necessary intervention, the success of strategies aimed at reducing its use will be limited. The implementation and evaluation of alternative approaches to the care of consumers is necessary to reduce reliance and seclusion and introduce changes to practice.
Suggested Citation
Brenda Happell & Stefan Koehn, 2010.
"Attitudes to the use of seclusion: has contemporary mental health policy made a difference?,"
Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(21‐22), pages 3208-3217, November.
Handle:
RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:19:y:2010:i:21-22:p:3208-3217
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2010.03286.x
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:19:y:2010:i:21-22:p:3208-3217. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.