Sustaining a therapeutic environment within mental health in-patient settings during COVID-19. Results of a Delphi study.
Kevin McKenna, Lene Lauge Berring, Roland van de Sande and 2 others
PMID 37423678WHAT IT FOUND
Experts rated a new framework for balancing infection control with person-centred care in mental health wards as relevant, simple, and clear.
It provides templates to guide ethical decisions and tiered interventions, though it lacks patient input.
Key findings
01Panel members rated the framework highly for relevance, simplicity, and clarity on a 0-100 scale.
02The framework produces two templates to help services apply ethical principles and practical tiered interventions locally.
03A key weakness identified is the limited engagement with service users during the framework's development.
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
The framework was developed without direct input from service users (patients), which the authors acknowledge as a weakness. The expert panel for the final rating was small (15 people), limiting the generalisability of the consensus. The framework has not been tested in practice to see if it actually improves patient outcomes or reduces conflict.
Declared interests
The authors declared no competing interests. The research did not receive specific funding.
The easy way to misread this
Do not treat this as evidence that the framework improves patient outcomes or reduces aggression. The study only reports expert ratings of the framework's clarity and relevance. No patients were treated, and no clinical effects were measured.