Former Inpatient Psychiatric Patients' Past Experiences With Traditional Frontline Staff and Their Thoughts on the Benefits of Peers as Part of Frontline Staff.
Morgan C Shields, Nhi-Ha T Trinh, Christina P C Borba and 3 others
PMID 34590985WHAT IT FOUND
Eighteen former psychiatric inpatients reported more negative than positive staff experiences, including withheld information and dehumanization.
They overwhelmingly said peers on frontline staff could humanize care, reduce judgment, help navigate systems, and validate patients.
Key findings
01Participants generally reported more negative past experiences with traditional frontline staff than positive, including themes of not sharing information, being inattentive, not providing agency, dehumanizing or disrespectful treatment, incompetency, escalating situations, and apathy.
02Participants overwhelmingly supported the use of peers as frontline staff and expected benefits including humanizing care, nonjudgmental interaction, believing in patients' abilities, helping patients navigate the mental health care system, disrupting power structures, and validating feelings and experiences.
03Only two participants expressed hesitation about peers as frontline staff, citing concern about a symptomatic peer and the need for more than one peer to prevent ostracizing.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for RNs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
Participants were recruited by convenience sampling from social media, flyers, and email lists, not purposefully, so selection bias is possible. The study included 18 adults, and most were White, female, and half had a college degree, though many had low income and public insurance; these experiences may not represent all former inpatient psychiatric patients. The interviews asked broad questions about staff experiences and peer opinions, but did not probe specific factors under those questions, so the themes reflect what participants chose to emphasize. This is qualitative work about past experiences and opinions, not evidence that peer staff improve care outcomes. The analysis was done by one author, with team checking, which may still shape the themes.
Declared interests
The authors disclosed no potential conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read this as evidence that adding peer staff improves psychiatric inpatient care. The study reports 18 former patients' opinions and past experiences, not outcomes after peer integration.