Premium
Physical intervention: a review of the literature on its use, staff and patient views, and the impact of training
Author(s) -
STUBBS B.,
LEADBETTER D.,
PATERSON B.,
YORSTON G.,
KNIGHT C.,
DAVIS S.
Publication year - 2009
Publication title -
journal of psychiatric and mental health nursing
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.69
H-Index - 63
eISSN - 1365-2850
pISSN - 1351-0126
DOI - 10.1111/j.1365-2850.2008.01335.x
Subject(s) - intervention (counseling) , nursing , patient safety , principal (computer security) , psychology , training (meteorology) , medicine , control (management) , applied psychology , health care , political science , computer security , physics , management , meteorology , computer science , law , economics
As a principal control measure, physical intervention is intended to be a skilled manual, or hands‐on, method of physical restraint implemented by trained individuals, with the intention of controlling the aggressive patient, to restore safety in the clinical environment. Physical intervention is however a contentious practice. There have been reports in the literature of negative psychological views from staff and patients on the procedure. Although formal structured training was introduced in response to concerns around patient safety during restraint, concerns remain that PI is sometimes construed as a stand‐alone violence prevention initiative. Its potential for misuse, and overuse, in corrupted cultures of care has emerged as a social policy issue. The following paper critically explores the literature on training in physical intervention in the United Kingdom.