Personal Liberty in Psychiatric Care - Towards Service User Involvement

This study explores personal liberty in psychiatric care from a service user involvement perspective. The data were collected in four phases during the period 2000-2006 in psychiatric settings in Finland. Firstly, patient satisfaction and factors associated with user involvement were studied (n = 313). Secondly, patients’ experiences of deprivation of their liberty were explored (n = 51). Thirdly, an overview on patients’ options for lodging complaints was conducted, and all complaints (n = 4645) lodged in Finland from 2000 to 2004 were examined. Fourthly, the effects of different patient education methods on inpatients’ experiences of deprivation of liberty were tested (n = 311). It emerged that patients were quite satisfied, but reported dissatisfaction in restrictions, compulsory care and information dissemination. Patients experienced restrictions on leaving the ward and on communication, confiscation of property and coercive measures as deprivation of liberty. Patients’ experienced these interventions to be negative. In Finland, the patient complaint process is complicated and not easily accessible. In general, patient complaints increased considerably in Finland during the study period. In psychiatric care the number of complaints was quite stable and complaints led more seldom to consequences. An Internet-based patient education system was equivalent with traditional education and treatment as usual in supporting personal liberty during hospital care. This dissertation provides new information about the realization of patients' rights in psychiatric care. In order to improve patients' involvement, systematic methods to increase personal liberty during care need to be developed, the procedures for patients lodging complaints should be simplified, and patients' access to information needs to be ensured using multiple methods.

Asleep or not asleep? Evaluation of the Quality of Patients’ Sleep in Critical Care Nursing

Sleep is important for the recovery of a critically ill patient, as lack of sleep is known to influence negatively a person’s cardiovascular system, mood, orientation, and metabolic and immune function and thus, it may prolong patients’ intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital stay. Intubated and mechanically ventilated patients suffer from fragmented and light sleep. However, it is not known well how non-intubated patients sleep. The evaluation of the patients’ sleep may be compromised by their fatigue and still position with no indication if they are asleep or not. The purpose of this study was to evaluate ICU patients’ sleep evaluation methods, the quality of non-intubated patients’ sleep, and the sleep evaluations performed by ICU nurses. The aims were to develop recommendations of patients’ sleep evaluation for ICU nurses and to provide a description of the quality of non-intubated patients’ sleep. The literature review of ICU patients’ sleep evaluation methods was extended to the end of 2014. The evaluation of the quality of patients’ sleep was conducted with four data: A) the nurses’ narrative documentations of the quality of patients’ sleep (n=114), B) the nurses’ sleep evaluations (n=21) with a structured observation instrument C) the patients’ self-evaluations (n=114) with the Richards-Campbell Sleep Questionnaire, and D) polysomnographic evaluations of the quality of patients’ sleep (n=21). The correspondence of data A with data C (collected 4–8/2011), and data B with data D (collected 5–8/2009) were analysed. Content analysis was used for the nurses’ documentations and statistical analyses for all the other data. The quality of non-intubated patients’ sleep varied between individuals. In many patients, sleep was light, awakenings were frequent, and the amount of sleep was insufficient as compared to sleep in healthy people. However, some patients were able to sleep well. The patients evaluated the quality of their sleep on average neither high nor low. Sleep depth was evaluated to be the worst and the speed of falling asleep the best aspect of sleep, on a scale 0 (poor sleep) to 100 (good sleep). Nursing care was mostly performed while the patients were awake, and thus the disturbing effect was low. The instruments available for nurses to evaluate the quality of patients’ sleep were limited and measured mainly the quantity of sleep. Nurses’ structured observatory evaluations of the quality of patients’ sleep were correct for approximately two thirds of the cases, and only regarding total sleep time. Nurses’ narrative documentations of the patients’ sleep corresponded with patients’ self-evaluations in just over half of the cases. However, nurses documented several dimensions of sleep that are not included in the present sleep evaluation instruments. They could be classified according to the components of the nursing process: needs assessment, sleep assessment, intervention, and effect of intervention. Valid, more comprehensive sleep evaluation methods for nurses are needed to evaluate, document, improve and study patients’ quality of sleep.