A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Using the Theoretical Domain Framework to understand what helps and hinders the use of different sensory approaches in Australian psychiatric units: A survey of mental health clinicians. | LitMetric

Background/aim: Although sensory approaches are recommended to relieve distress and agitation and reduce the use of seclusion and restraint, many Australian psychiatric units have struggled to sustain their practice. The aim of this study was to investigate the barriers and enablers influencing the use of different sensory approaches across one health region in Australia and to obtain recommendations for strategies to improve their use.

Method: This cross-sectional survey was informed by the Theoretical Domain Framework. Likert scale questions considered barriers and enablers to the use of non-weighted sensory interventions, weighted modalities, sensory rooms, and sensory assessments/plans. Open-ended questions explored participant concerns and recommendations to improve the use of sensory approaches.

Results: Participants (n = 211) were from nursing, allied health, medical, and peer support staff across inpatient psychiatric units. Factors most frequently identified as enablers for using sensory approaches were beliefs of positive benefits to consumers (e.g. decreasing distress and agitation); belief it was within the staff's role; and knowledge of the approaches. Limited time was the most common identified barrier. Factors statistically associated with more frequent use were knowledge, skills, confidence, availability, and easy access to sensory tools/equipment. Only 30% of participants were concerned about potential risks of sensory approaches, with this risk mitigated through adequate supervision and thorough risk assessment. Recommendations to improve practice included improved access to, and maintenance of, equipment, more training, and increased staffing.

Conclusion: This study revealed how barriers and enablers vary for different sensory approaches and how these factors impact their frequency of use in psychiatric units. It provides insights into staff recommendations to improve the use of sensory approaches in one health region in Australia. This knowledge will lead to the development of implementation strategies to address identified barriers and improve the use of sensory approaches in psychiatric units.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1440-1630.12889DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

sensory approaches
32
psychiatric units
20
sensory
13
barriers enablers
12
recommendations improve
12
improve sensory
12
approaches
9
theoretical domain
8
domain framework
8
australian psychiatric
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!