Article Text

Download PDFPDF

PROGRESS: the PROMISE governance framework to decrease coercion in mental healthcare
  1. Chiara Lombardo1,2,
  2. Tine Van Bortel2,3,
  3. Adam P Wagner3,4,
  4. Emma Kaminskiy5,
  5. Ceri Wilson6,
  6. Theeba Krishnamoorthy2,
  7. Sarah Rae1,
  8. Lorna Rouse7,
  9. Peter Brian Jones3,8,
  10. Manaan Kar Ray1,9
  1. 1Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust, Fulbourn Hospital, Cambridge, UK
  2. 2Institute for Health and Human Development, University of East London, London, UK
  3. 3National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care East of England, Cambridge, UK
  4. 4Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
  5. 5Department of Psychology, Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge, UK
  6. 6Faculty of Health, Social Care and Education, Department of Adult and Mental Health Nursing, Anglia Ruskin University, Chelmsford, UK
  7. 7Faculty of Wellbeing, Education & Language Studies, The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK
  8. 8Department of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
  9. 9Addictions and Mental Health Services, Princes Alexandra Hospital, Metro South Health, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
  1. Correspondence to Dr Manaan Kar Ray; Manaan.KarRay{at}health.qld.gov.au

Abstract

Reducing physical intervention in mental health inpatient care is a global priority. It is extremely distressing both to patients and staff. PROactive Management of Integrated Services and Environments (PROMISE) was developed within Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust (CPFT) to bring about culture change to decrease coercion in care. This study evaluates the changes in physical intervention numbers and patient experience metrics and proposes an easy-to-adopt and adapt governance framework for complex interventions.

PROMISE was based on three core values of: providing a caring response to all distress; courage to challenge the status quo; and coproduction of novel solutions. It sought to transform daily front-line interactions related to risk-based restrictive practice that often leads to physical interventions. PROactive Governance of Recovery Settings and Services, a five-step governance framework (Report, Reflect, Review, Rethink and Refresh), was developed in an iterative and organic fashion to oversee the improvement journey and effectively translate information into knowledge, learning and actions.

Overall physical interventions reduced from 328 to 241and210 across consecutive years (2014, 2015–2016 and 2016–2017, respectively). Indeed, the 2016–2017 total would have been further reduced to 126 were it not for the perceived substantial care needs of one patient. Prone restraints reduced from 82 to 32 (2015–2016 and 2016–2017, respectively). During 2016–2017, each ward had a continuous 3-month period of no restraints and 4 months without prone restrains. Patient experience surveys (n=4591) for 2014–2017 rated overall satisfaction with care at 87%.

CPFT reported fewer physical interventions and maintained high patient experience scores when using a five-pronged governance approach. It has a summative function to define where a team or an organisation is relative to goals and is formative in setting up the next steps relating to action, learning and future planning.

  • patient satisfaction
  • patient safety
  • quality improvement methodologies
  • mental health
  • governance

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Footnotes

  • TVB and APW contributed equally.

  • Contributors All authors have made substantial contributions to either the conception or design of the work, or the acquisition, analysis or interpretation of data for the work. They have all been involved in drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content and have given final approval of the version to be published. They all agree to to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. CL developed and submitted the manuscript. TVB, EK and CW contributed to the content of manuscript. APW was responsible for statistical support and data analysis and contributed to the content of manuscript. TK assisted with data analysis. SR provided patient perspective through the course of the whole project. LR and PBJ contributed to the content of manuscript. MKR conceived and designed PROGRESS and is responsible for the overall content.

  • Funding This is a summary of independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) East of England (EoE) Programme.

  • Disclaimer The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent Not required.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.