Safewards: An integrative review of the literature within inpatient and forensic mental health units

Mental health inpatient units are complex and challenging environments for care and treatment. Two imperatives in these settings are to minimize restrictive practices such as seclusion and restraint and to provide recovery‐oriented care. Safewards is a model and a set of ten interventions aiming to improve safety by understanding the relationship between conflict and containment as a means of reducing restrictive practices. To date, the research into Safewards has largely focused on its impact on measures of restrictive practices with limited exploration of consumer perspectives. There is a need to review the current knowledge and understanding around Safewards and its impact on consumer safety. This paper describes a mixed‐methods integrative literature review of Safewards within inpatient and forensic mental health units. The aim of this review was to synthesize the current knowledge and understanding about Safewards in terms of its implementation, acceptability, effectiveness and how it meets the needs of consumers. A systematic database search using Medline, CINAHL, Embase and PsychInfo databases was followed by screening and data extraction of findings from 19 articles. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) was used to assess the quality of empirical articles, and the Johanna Brigg’s Institute (JBI’s) Narrative, Opinion, Text‐Assessment and Review Instrument (NOTARI) was used to undertake a critical appraisal of discussion articles. A constant comparative approach was taken to analysing the data and six key categories were identified: training, implementation strategy, staff acceptability, fidelity, effectiveness and consumer perspectives. The success of implementing Safewards was variously determined by a measured reduction of restrictive practices and conflict events, high fidelity and staff acceptability. The results highlighted that Safewards can be effective in reducing containment and conflict within inpatient mental health and forensic mental health units, although this outcome varied across the literature. This review also revealed the limitations of fidelity measures and the importance of involving staff in the implementation. A major gap in the literature to date is the lack of consumer perspectives on the Safewards model, with only two papers to date focusing on the consumers point of view. This is an important area that requires more research to align the Safewards model with the consumer experience and improved recovery orientation.