↓ Skip to main content

Staff and patient experiences of decision-making about continuous observation in psychiatric hospitals

Overview of attention for article published in Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
105 Mendeley
Title
Staff and patient experiences of decision-making about continuous observation in psychiatric hospitals
Published in
Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, February 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00127-017-1338-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kirsten Barnicot, Bryony Insua-Summerhayes, Emily Plummer, Alice Hart, Chris Barker, Stefan Priebe

Abstract

Continuous observation of psychiatric inpatients aims to protect those who pose an acute risk of harm to self or others, but involves intrusive privacy restrictions. Initiating, conducting and ending continuous observation requires complex decision-making about keeping patients safe whilst protecting their privacy. There is little published guidance about how to balance privacy and safety concerns, and how staff and patients negotiate this in practice is unknown. To inform best practice, the present study, therefore, aimed to understand how staff and patients experience negotiating the balance between privacy and safety during decision-making about continuous observation. Thematic analysis of qualitative interviews with thirty-one inpatient psychiatric staff and twenty-eight inpatients. Most patients struggled with the lack of privacy but valued feeling safe during continuous observation. Staff and patients linked good decision-making to using continuous observation for short periods and taking positive risks, understanding and collaborating with the patient, and working together as a supportive staff team. Poor decision-making was linked to insufficient consideration of observation's iatrogenic potential, insufficient collaboration with patients, and the stressful impact on staff of conducting observations and managing risk. Best practice in decision-making about continuous observation may be facilitated by making decisions in collaboration with patients, and by staff supporting each-other in positive risk-taking. To achieve truly patient-centred decision-making, decisions about observation should not be influenced by staff's own stress levels. To address the negative impact of staff stress on decision-making, it may be helpful to improve staff training, education and support structures.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 105 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 105 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 13 12%
Student > Master 12 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 10%
Researcher 9 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 8%
Other 19 18%
Unknown 33 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 26 25%
Psychology 15 14%
Social Sciences 7 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Other 11 10%
Unknown 37 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 July 2020.
All research outputs
#4,717,911
of 23,794,258 outputs
Outputs from Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology
#885
of 2,534 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#95,272
of 424,294 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology
#20
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,794,258 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,534 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 424,294 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.