“I just can’t, I am frightened for my safety, I don’t know how to work with her” Practitioners’ experiences of client violence and recommendations for future practice

To what extent is the therapist-client relationship damaged following client perpetuated violence and what steps can we take to diminish its impact? Much of the information we have on client violence comes from multiple mental health disciplines in the US and the UK over the last 20-30 years and has formed a useful, though sometimes dated and sporadic, quantitative baseline to delineate a range of issues. However, there is limited systematic research on how practitioner psychologists process the violence in the course of their everyday practice and how this impacts the therapist-client dynamic. Using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA), we explored seven therapists’ experiences of client violence across a range of work sites – acute psychiatric hospital wards, forensic hospital wards and community mental health teams. Three main themes were documented: processing the moment-to-moment experience of client violence; professional vulnerabilities and needs as a result of client violence; and the ruptured therapeutic relationship. Strategies for supporting practicing psychologists and providing continuing professional care for clients include challenging self-doubt and re-energizing professional competencies as well as repairing ourselves and repairing the therapeutic relationship. Recommendations for credentialing and regulatory bodies in relation to client violence are also highlighted.

Conspicuous by their abstinence: the limited engagement of heroin users in English and Welsh Drug Recovery Wings

Background In recent years, an abstinence-focused, ‘recovery’ agenda has emerged in UK drug policy, largely in response to the perception that many opioid users had been ‘parked indefinitely’ on Opioid Substitution Therapy (OST). The introduction of ten pilot ‘Drug Recovery Wings’ (DRWs) in 2011 represents the application of this recovery agenda to prisons. This paper describes the DRWs’ operational models, the place of opiate dependent prisoners within them, and the challenges of delivering ‘recovery’ in prison. Methods In 2013, the implementation and operational models of all ten pilot DRWs were rapidly assessed. Up to three days were spent in each DRW, undertaking semi-structured interviews with a sample of 94 DRW staff and 102 DRW residents. Interviews were fully transcribed, and coded using grounded theory. Findings from the nine adult prisons are presented here. Results Four types of DRW were identified, distinguished by their size and selection criteria. Strikingly, no mid- or large-sized units regularly supported OST recipients through detoxification. Type A were large units whose residents were mostly on OST with long criminal records and few social or personal resources. Detoxification was rare, and medication reduction slow. Type B's mid-sized DRW was developed as a psychosocial support service for OST clients seeking detoxification. However, staff struggled to find such prisoners, and detoxification again proved rare. Type C DRWs focused on abstinence from all drugs, including OST. Though OST clients were not intentionally excluded, very few applied to these wings. Only Type D DRWs, offering intensive treatment on very small wings, regularly recruited OST recipients into abstinence-focused interventions. Conclusion Prison units wishing to support OST recipients in making greater progress towards abstinence may need to be small, intensive and take a stepped approach based on preparatory motivational work and extensive preparation for release. However, concerns about post-release deaths will remain.

Are mental health services getting better at responding to abuse, assault and neglect?

Objective To determine whether staff responses to abuse disclosures had improved since the introduction of a trauma policy and training programme. Method The files of 250 clients attending four New Zealand mental health centres were audited. Results There was a significant improvement, compared to an audit prior to the introduction of the policy and training, in the proportion of abuse cases included in formulations, and, to a lesser extent, in treatment plans. There was no significant improvement in the proportion referred for relevant treatment, which remained at less than 25% across abuse categories. The proportion of neglect disclosures responded to was significantly lower than for abuse cases. Fifty percent of the files in which abuse/neglect was recorded noted whether the client had been asked about previous disclosure, and 22% noted whether the client thought there was any connection between the abuse/neglect and their current problems. Less than 1% of cases were reported to legal authorities. People diagnosed with a psychotic disorder were significantly less likely to be responded to appropriately. Conclusion Future training may need to focus on responding well to neglect and people diagnosed with psychosis, on making treatment referrals, and on initiating discussions about reporting to authorities.

Assessing and Reporting the Adverse Effects of Antipsychotic Medication: A Systematic Review of Clinical Studies, and Prospective, Retrospective, and Cross-Sectional Research

Objective: Adverse effects (AEs) of antipsychotic medication have important implications for patients and prescribers in terms of wellbeing, treatment adherence and quality of life. This review summarises strategies for collecting and reporting AE data across a representative literature sample to ascertain their rigour and comprehensiveness. Methods: A PsycINFO search, following PRISMA Statement guidelines, was conducted in English-language journals (1980–July 2014) using the following search string: (antipsychotic* OR neuroleptic*) AND (subjective effect OR subjective experience OR subjective response OR subjective mental alterations OR subjective tolerability OR subjective wellbeing OR patient perspective OR self-rated effects OR adverse effects OR side-effects). Of 7,825 articles, 384 were retained that reported quantified results for AEs of typical or atypical antipsychotics amongst transdiagnostic adult, adolescent, and child populations. Information extracted included: types of AEs reported; how AEs were assessed; assessment duration; assessment of the global impact of antipsychotic consumption on wellbeing; and conflict of interest due to industry sponsorship. Results: Neurological, metabolic, and sedation-related cognitive effects were reported most systematically relative to affective, anticholinergic, autonomic, cutaneous, hormonal, miscellaneous, and non-sedative cognitive effects. The impact of AEs on patient wellbeing was poorly assessed. Cross-sectional and prospective research designs yielded more comprehensive data about AE severity and prevalence than clinical or observational retrospective studies. 3 Conclusions: AE detection and classification can be improved through the use of standardised assessment instruments and consideration of subjective patient impact. Observational research can supplement information from clinical trials to improve the ecological validity of AE data.