St John of God Hospital, Stillorgan, Co Dublin
Cluain Mhuire Family Centre, Blackrock, Co Dublin
Dublin County Stress Clinic, St John of God Hospital, Stillorgan, Co Dublin, email: abbie.lane{at}sjog.ie
|
|
|---|
This study looked at patient aggressive behaviour on an Irish psychiatric intensive care unit, and whether it was related to diagnosis, patients insight and symptomatology. Each aggressive incident was recorded throughout the patients stay using the Staff-Observed Aggression Scale.
RESULTS
Ninety-nine individuals were admitted to the unit during the study. We recorded 82 aggressive incidents, with most occurring during the daytime and on weekdays. There was no statistical difference in BPRS scores between the aggressive and non-aggressive groups. The aggressive patient group had a lower insight score than the non-aggressive group (P<0.05) as measured on the Schedule of the Assessment of Insight. However, when gender and verbal aggression only were included in the analysis, the difference in insight was less significant (P=0.07).
CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS
Aggression is common on a psychiatric intensive care unit. Low levels of insight in patients may increase the risk of aggression.
|
|
|---|
Individuals with schizophrenia who commit violent acts have deficits of insight, including insight into their illness and awareness of the legal implications of their behaviour (Buckley et al, 2004). The relationship between lack of insight and illness in such individuals is important, but under-researched.
Psychiatric intensive care is for in-patients compulsorily detained, usually in secure units, who are in an acutely disturbed phase of a serious mental disorder. The loss of capacity for self-control, which increases risk, does not allow for safe treatment on an open general ward. Length of stay on an intensive care ward would not ordinarily exceed 8 weeks (Department of Health, 2002). Although factors related to in-patient aggression have been extensively studied, there is little specific information about violence in psychiatric intensive care units (Saverimuttu et al, 2000). Research on the prevalence and causes of in-patient aggression in general has been hindered by the use of different methods for measuring aggression (Nijman et al, 1997). Many studies have focused on specific groups of in-patients, such as forensic or first episode psychosis subgroups. Insight assessment of violent in-patients so far has also been completed largely on forensic in-patients only. We prospectively assessed the incidence, insight and clinical correlates of all individuals, irrespective of diagnosis, admitted to a psychiatric intensive care unit over a 10-week period.
|
|
|---|
On admission to the unit, the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS; Overall et al, 1962) and Schedule for the Assessment of Insight (SAI; David, 1990) were completed on each individual by the doctor on duty, and biographical data such as age, gender, marital status and previous admissions were recorded. The five BPRS subscales (hostile/suspiciousness, anxious/depressed, withdrawn/retarded, agitated/excited, thinking disturbance) were also used in the analysis. The SAI examines insight for illness, treatment and psychotic phenomena. As many individuals were not psychotic, insight scores were only examined for illness and treatment.
Each verbal and non-verbal aggressive incident was recorded throughout the
persons stay by nursing staff using the Staff-Observed Aggression Scale
Revised (Nijman et al,
1999,
2005). The scale measures
verbal and physical aggression, including the target of the aggression, the
consequences of the act on the target and measures taken to stop the
aggression. Before the study commenced, all staff were trained in the use of
these instruments and achieved appropriate levels of interrater reliability
(Cronbachs
=0.69). All diagnoses were recorded using DSM-IV
criteria by examination of case notes.
The study was approved by the St John of God Provincial Ethics Committee. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 15.0 for Windows.
|
|
|---|
![]() View larger version (16K): [in a new window] [as a PowerPoint slide] |
Fig. 1. Age and gender profile of patients.
|
|
View this table: [in a new window] | Table 1. Diagnostic categories |
Aggressive incidents
Eighty-two aggressive incidents were recorded during the study period,
including incidents against 26 patients. The majority of patients involved in
the incidents were involved in only one (n=10) or two (n=8).
Most incidents happened between Monday and Thursday (75%), with just 25%
between Friday and Sunday. Only 7% of incidents happened between 11pm and 7am.
Men and women were involved in a similar number of aggressive incidents (26%
v. 27% respectively), although men were more likely to use physical
aggression (22% v.14% respectively; Table
2).
|
View this table: [in a new window] | Table 2. Group and gender |
Triggers for the aggression were often unclear, with no understandable provocation in 63% of aggressive incidents. Staffs denial of patients requests was the next most common trigger at 21%, and 11% of incidents happened because the person was provoked by fellow patient(s). In 4% of incidents, the reason was staff requesting the patient to take medication.
Verbal aggression occurred in 83% of incidents and physical aggression (e.g. kicking, hitting, throwing objects) in 45% of incidents. Aggression (whether verbal or physical) was mostly directed against ward staff (63%) and other patients (36%). Auto-aggression was present in just 2% of incidents. Oral or intramuscular medication was required in 21% of incidents. In 26% of cases, patients were removed from the general ward area, with 13% placed in a time-out area (unlocked room) and 16% placed in seclusion (locked room). Only 6% of incidents resulted in a patient being physically restrained.
Clinical correlates of aggression with symptomatology and insight
For the purpose of analysis, patients were divided by gender into
aggressive and non-aggressive groups. During their stay in the psychiatric
intensive care unit, 26% of patients were aggressive and 74% were not. Initial
statistical analysis revealed a significant difference between SAI levels of
insight for illness and treatment in the two groups (maximum score 10 for no
insight, 0 for full insight), with lower insight scores in the aggressive
group (4.34 v. 6.11, P<0.05). Mean BPRS scores between
these two groups (46.7 v. 43.8, P=0.35) were not
statistically significant.
Recent research shows that although verbal aggression is common, it is not indicative of levels of physical aggression (Foley et al, 2005). Taking this into consideration, the aggressive group was further divided into two groups who displayed either verbal aggression only or physical aggression (Table 2). Using univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA), P-values were calculated by group and gender for BPRS total and subscale scores, and SAI scores. The significant difference between aggressive and non-aggressive groups insight scores was diminished when gender difference and the verbally aggressive group were accounted for in the analysis. However, there was lower insight in the physically aggressive group (P=0.07).
Differences between gender and group for the BPRS total scores were not statistically significant, but significant results were recorded in the anxious/depression subscales (P<0.05) with a higher mean score for the non-aggressive group. The non-aggressive group had a much lower mean score than the aggressive group on the hostile/suspiciousness subscale (P<0.05). Men in the aggressive group had higher mean scores than women on the hostile/suspiciousness and agitation/excitement subscales (P<0.05 for both subscales).
|
|
|---|
Our study shows, in line with other studies (Shah et al, 1991; Nijman et al, 1997), that aggression is common on a psychiatric intensive care unit and that the target is likely to be a member of staff (63%) or a fellow patient (36%). Many incidents involved multiple targets. Men were more likely than women to engage in physically aggressive behaviour. Few incidents resulted in injury with just 2% requiring minor treatment. This is consistent with other studies (Steinert et al, 1999; Foley et al, 2005). Aggressive incidents were more likely to occur on weekdays and during the day, possibly because the ward was busier at that time, resulting in a more disruptive environment for potentially volatile patients.
Physical aggression appeared to be less common than in other studies (45% in our study v. 60% of incidents reported in Shah et al, 1991; Nijman et al, 1997; El-Badri & Mellsop, 2006). Staff reported no clear understandable provocation in 63% of aggressive incidents, a much higher number than in previous studies (Nijman et al, 1997). Otherwise, staff denial of patient requests was the next most common trigger at 21%, with 11% of incidents provoked by fellow patients. This is more consistent with previous studies (Nijman et al, 1997).
Admission criteria to a psychiatric intensive care unit commonly include:
Such criteria many account for patients unlikely to display aggression admitted to a psychiatric intensive care unit. Such low-risk patients may be exposed to assaults by a minority of aggressive patients. This study points clearly to that risk, given that 74% of patients did not display aggressive behaviour, yet the target of aggression in 36% of incidents were other patients.
Other studies have reported that most patients exhibiting aggressive behaviour were secluded at some point and that physical restraint was required for a third of individuals (El-Badri & Mellsop, 2006). In this study, 46% of patients were secluded and only 6% required physical restraint.
Literature on insight deficits remains sparse
(Buckley et al, 2004).
Previous studies have focused exclusively on individuals with schizophrenia.
This is the first study which has looked at insight in a general group of
patients while looking at aggression and showed acceptable levels of
interrater reliability (Cronbachs
=0.69). Insight deficits
prevailed in the physically aggressive group, which suggests that they may be
predictive of aggression. Further work may reveal insight deficits in
aggressive patients in larger sample sizes of diagnostic groups.
The study provides an easy-to-repeat format and promotes multidisciplinary involvement of nursing and medical staff in research. It is possible that aggressive incidents were under-reported by staff. There are many reasons for this, including acceptance as part of routine work, gender of the staff involved and bureaucratic structures that lead to under-reporting (Ferns, 2006). As this was a prospective study from the time of admission, it did not include pre-admission aggression, which may have led to underestimating aggression further.
Given that insight levels were lower in the aggressive group, improved communication with patients about their care and treatment should take place from the outset in formal care planning of patients with lower levels of insight. Aggression remains common in therapeutic environments and staff are commonly the target, as shown by this and other studies. Recent changes in workplace legislation in the UK, for example, have put the onus on employers and management to provide a safe working environment. Clearly staff training and experience remain crucial in managing potentially volatile situations. Devising a more accessible reporting system so that proper levels of aggression can be easily recorded would also be beneficial. Bearing in mind that the life experiences of individual staff play a significant role in how they react to violence in the clinical area (Ferns, 2006), providing support for staff in the immediate aftermath of an incident and in the longer term should also be considered. Future research could focus on management of patients and support of staff.
|
|
|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||