Safer Wards: reducing violence on older people's mental health wards


  
  BMJ Quality Improvement Reports 2015; u207447.w2977 doi: 10.1136/bmjquality.u207447.w2977 

Safer Wards: reducing violence on older people's mental health wards

Juliette Brown, Waleed Fawzi, Cathy McCarthy, Carmel Stevenson, Solomon Kwesi, Maggie Joyce, Jenny Dusoye, Yasin Mohamudbucus,
Amar Shah
East London NHS Foundation Trust

Abstract

Through the Safer Wards project we aimed to reduce the number of incidents of physical violence on older people’s mental health wards. This
was done using quality improvement methods and supported by the Trust’s extensive programme of quality improvement, including training
provided by the Institute for Healthcare Improvement. Violence can be an indicator of unmet needs in this patient population, with a negative
effect on patient care and staff morale. Reducing harm to patients and staff is a strategic aim of our Trust.

We established a multi-disciplinary group who led on the project on each ward and used a Pareto diagram to establish the focus of our work.
We established a dashboard of measures based on our incident reporting system Datix, including number of incidents of violence, days
between incidents, days of staff sickness, days between staff injury, use of restraint, and use of rapid tranquilisation (the last two being
balancing measures in the reduction of violence). Each team identified factors driving physical violence on the wards, under headings of unmet
patient needs, staff needs and staff awareness, which included lack of activity and a safe and therapeutic environment.

Using driver diagrams, we identified change ideas that included hourly rounding (proactive checks on patient well-being), the addition of
sensory rooms, flexible leave for patients, and a structured activity programme. We also introduced exercise to music, therapeutic groups led
by patients, and focused on discharge planning and pet therapy, each of which starting sequentially over the course of a one year period from
late 2013 and subject to a cycle of iterative learning using PDSA methods.

The specific aim was a 20% decrease in violent incidents on three wards in City and Hackney, and Newham. Following our interventions, days
between violent incidents increased from an average of three to an average of six. Days between staff injury due to physical violence rose
from an average of eight (one violent incident resulting in staff injury every eight days) to 22 (one incident every 22 days). Incidents of physical
violence reduced from 63 in 2013 to 39 in 2014. We were also able to quantify reduced costs associated with reduction in violence.

The success of this project in our view lay in the involvement of ward staff in understanding the problems and generating local solutions which
were also broadly evidenced based. Patients were also closely involved in generating ideas. We are currently incorporating much of this work
into routine practice in order to sustain improvement, as well as continuing to generate new ideas for further improvement while using the skills
learnt in this process to address other problems.

Problem

The project was based across three older adult’s mental health
wards in East London; two continuing care wards in Hackney and
Newham, and an acute functional mental illness ward in Hackney.
According to the Index of Multiple Deprivation 2010 averages, the
two boroughs are the second and third most deprived local
authorities of 354 local authorities in England.

The wards included in this work are home to 50 inpatient beds.
Larch Lodge is a 14 bedded admission unit for adults over 65 years
of age experiencing psychotic illness, anxiety, major depression, or
personality disorders. Larch Lodge has an average number of 80
admissions per year. Approximately one quarter are admitted under
a section of the Mental Health Act 1983 as amended in 2007. Sally
Sherman ward in Newham and Cedar Lodge in Hackney are
continuing care wards for patients with severe dementia which is
complicated by challenging behaviour that cannot be managed in
other care environments.

The three wards are staffed by multi-disciplinary teams comprising
mental health nurses, occupational therapists, psychologists,
healthcare assistants and psychiatrists, working closely with
community mental health teams and intermediate care teams.
Studies have noted that with a shift toward community treatment,
inpatient units now house patients with greater needs.[8]

The aim of the project was to address the problem of physical
violence on the wards. Risk factors for violence in adults with
mental illness include active psychotic symptoms, use of
substances, a history of violence, and co-morbid personality
disorders. In addition to these, there is also a group of older people
with organic mental illness at high risk of violence.[3]

Background

Violence on older adults’ mental health wards may relate to active
symptoms or to underlying issues, including unmet needs. It affects
the physical health and wellbeing of patients and staff. The negative
impact on staff morale has been extensively documented, as has

  Page 1 of 4

© 2015, Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.

 o
n
 A

p
ril 5

, 2
0

2
1

 b
y g

u
e
st. P

ro
te

cte
d
 b

y co
p
yrig

h
t.

h
ttp

://b
m

jo
p

e
n
q

u
a
lity.b

m
j.co

m
/

B
M

J Q
u

a
l Im

p
ro

v R
e

p
o

rt: first p
u

b
lish

e
d

 a
s 1

0
.1

1
3

6
/b

m
jq

u
a

lity.u
2

0
7

4
4

7
.w

2
9
7
7
 o

n
 9

 Ju
n
e
 2

0
1
5
. D

o
w

n
lo

a
d
e
d
 fro

m
 

http://bmjopenquality.bmj.com/


the effect on the ward environment.

The National Audit of Violence 2006–2007 found a greater
likelihood of assault on staff working on wards for older people with
organic mental illness than in any other psychiatric in-patient site.[7]

O’Callaghan et al (2010) note the results of this audit in which "64%
of nurses working in older people’s services had been physically
assaulted on an in-patient unit, compared with 46% of nurses in
adult services."[6] The audit also found lack of access to physical
activities. Other factors noted by O’Callaghan’s review were noise,
lack of activity, overcrowding, inadequate staff attention, poor
communication between staff and service user, conflicts between
staff and carers, and weak clinical leadership. Violence was
associated with care tasks in an earlier study.[9]

Totman et al (2011) have noted the value of increasing meaningful
activities for patients and in improving the physical environment,
particularly access to outdoor space.[8] Improvements to the
physical environment convey a message that staff and patients are
valued. Staff involved in qualitative studies have also noted the
importance of having their voice heard by those managing services.

Drawing on work by Algase et al (1996) and Kitwood & Bredin
(1992), Livingston et al (2014) have said of those with dementia that
"behaviours arise from need and occur when care is task-driven not
person-centred."[1,4,5] They go on to note that needs may include
"physical discomfort or need for stimulation, emotional comfort or
communication." Their systematic review of interventions to address
agitation found benefits for an increase in activities, music therapy,
sensory interventions, and person-centred care.

Baseline measurement

We opted to use existing processes for reporting data on incidents
of violence, namely the Datix system, to establish a baseline of
measures. Prior to starting work on the project we encouraged full
use of reporting incidents, raising awareness of the importance of
accurate data and addressing concerns about the potential to under-
report incidents. We also collected baseline data on sickness
absence on the wards, and use of restraint and rapid tranquilisation,
all of which is routinely collected by the Trust as part of assurance
processes.

The core project team analysed the baseline data to consider where
best to focus the work. We used Pareto charts to determine where
incidents were most common.

On the wards with most violent incidents we found that on average
there was an incident of physical violence every three days and a
staff injury due to violence every eight days. There were 177 days
of staff absence across the three wards per month at the beginning
of the process.

See supplementary files: ‘Pareto chart’

See supplementary file: ds5018.pptx - “Pareto chart showing
incidents of violence”

Design

Local teams were established across the two sites, including a
majority of frontline staff, with the support of the Trust’s Quality
Improvement team. The design of the project used the model for
improvement, developed by Associates in Process Improvement
and the adopted method of the Institute for Healthcare
Improvement. Project leads attended Improvement Science in
Action training to gain skills in the model. Having established the
multi-disciplinary teams, gained opportunities to involve patients
and carers in our plans, and created a regular meeting time and
date, we put together a driver diagram to reveal the relevant factors
we needed to address to meet our aim.

We used available data on violent incidents to set a target for
reduction. We generated change ideas with the use of divergent
and convergent decision-making tools. Change ideas included
intentional rounding (a system of proactively checking on the well-
being of our patients), use of a dynamic risk assessment tool, daily
access to meaningful activities, and increasing our understanding of
the factors leading to specific violent incidents.

Strategy

Our motivated and enthusiastic ward staff embraced the design of
the project. The strategy for implementation of change ideas was
based on the PDSA cycle. We were supported to structure each set
of changes via a PDSA ramp, and to use statistical process charts
to track the impact of our work.

The first tests, centred on one site, were on intentional rounding,
which we trialled with a small group of patients in each ward. The
purpose of rounding is to proactively engage with our patients and
assess their well-being and state of mind, aiming to identify any
outstanding issues that could lead to aggressive behaviour before it
escalates. We outlined the objectives of the test using a PDSA
template, including exactly how it would take place. We made
predictions on what would happen. We were able to collect real-
time information on the impact of these tests. We adjusted our
practice according to patient feedback - when patients felt that
hourly rounding was too intrusive we adjusted the plan to two
hourly.

We identified the need for a therapeutic space for patients at high
risk of violence and introduced a sensory room. On the Newham
continuing care ward we began with a test on structured leave
which was extended following the success of the initial trial. We
initially planned structured leave with a single patient. The benefit of
using a small test of change was to build in support for the practice
among staff and patients by demonstrating a positive effect.

We introduced a number of tests centred on the impact and
acceptability of a range of new activities on the ward, including the
sensory room, pet therapy, and increased activities (including
exercise to music) during the week. In these tests we focused on
documenting benefits to individual patients in order to adapt the
available options to form an individualised care plan. The process

  Page 2 of 4

© 2015, Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.

 o
n
 A

p
ril 5

, 2
0

2
1

 b
y g

u
e
st. P

ro
te

cte
d
 b

y co
p
yrig

h
t.

h
ttp

://b
m

jo
p

e
n
q

u
a
lity.b

m
j.co

m
/

B
M

J Q
u

a
l Im

p
ro

v R
e

p
o

rt: first p
u

b
lish

e
d

 a
s 1

0
.1

1
3

6
/b

m
jq

u
a

lity.u
2

0
7

4
4

7
.w

2
9
7
7
 o

n
 9

 Ju
n
e
 2

0
1
5
. D

o
w

n
lo

a
d
e
d
 fro

m
 

http://bmjopenquality.bmj.com/


helped our staff to focus attention on observing the impact of their
interventions on individual patients.

We ran awareness sessions for staff, patients, and carers
concurrently with the other PDSA cycles in order to ensure
understanding of the project and continued to meet weekly to
review progress and track impact on control charts.

Results

Shortly after the team was formed, we experienced a period of
increased violence on one of the wards. This may have helped to
focus the team on the value of the project, but may also have been
due to increased awareness about physical violence resulting from
this project. It was not until March 2014 that we began to see data
suggesting special cause variation, with a run of eight consecutive
points above the centre-line. By November 2014 it was clear that
there was a sustained impact on the main outcome measure of
days between incidents of physical violence. Staff injury due to
violence began to reduce almost immediately after the team was
formed. A downward direction of staff absence shifted the mean to
114 days per month over the three wards by June 2014.

See supplementary file: ‘Control chart’.

In 2015 we conducted a financial analysis of the impact of the work.
We engaged staff to model the financial implications of the work in
terms of savings due to reduced staff absence, and injury. We
found that a reduction in number of incidents by 36% led to a
reduction in the cost associated with violence of 49%. Direct costs
due to physical violence reduced from £119,988 during the six
months prior to the improvement project to £61,376 during the post-
implementation period - a reduction of £58,612 in costs due to
physical violence on the wards. This is balanced with the very
limited costs of environmental improvements, which amounted to no
more than £2000.

See supplementary file: ds5019.pptx - “Outcome measure - days
between incidents of physical violence on 3 older adult mental
health wards”

Lessons and limitations

We appreciated the need for a specific, measurable, achievable
and realistic aim, with clear understanding of drivers contributing to
the process. We addressed a problem that was important to staff
and patients alike, and the skills mix of the team allowed us to
generate an effective strategy. The team was enthusiastic about
testing ideas without prejudice. We had strategic support for the
project and for the incorporation of improvement initiatives into our
work, and the technical and methodological support of the quality
improvement team. Since we based our project on accessible data
we then had ready access to a set of baseline measures, reducing
the amount of additional data collection and allowing teams to focus
on the more creative PDSA process.

We were also able to demonstrate change more easily with the

benefit of accessible data and relate interventions to data. We
continued to be aware of areas that need ongoing work. Having
seen a reduction in violent incidents and injury due to violence, we
have incorporated change ideas into local practice. We enabled
staff to have access to improvement resources and we have
involved all our staff in reporting the project back to governors,
executive and non-executive directors, external stakeholders,
management teams, and other clinical teams.

We are continuing to trial new ideas to reduce violence. As part of
this work we are taking steps to engage patients and carers more
actively in the work. Patients were involved most closely in the
development of a therapeutic group. We are now working on spin-
off projects relating to noise reduction that are co-led by a carer,
and on involving patients in self-management and coping with
emotional dysregulation.

We have learnt that the use of improvement methods can also yield
significant cost savings.

Conclusion

The problem identified in this project was violence across inpatient
older adults’ psychiatric wards housing patients with functional and
organic illness. The problem was one clearly articulated in research,
and was of concern strategically, and to staff and patients, with a
significant negative impact on both. We used improvement methods
and resources provided by IHI and East London NHS Foundation
Trusts’ quality improvement programme and benefited from an
enthusiastic, motivated, and creative team. The use of existing
measures allowed the team to focus on the more creative elements
of the project.

Following a series of interventions aimed at addressing unmet
needs, making more sensitive risk assessments, providing a more
therapeutic environment, and creating a suite of meaningful
structured activities for our patients that were all adjusted according
to PDSA testing, we were able to see a reduction in physical
violence on the wards of 50%. Days between staff injury due to
physical violence rose from an average of an injury every 11 days
to an injury on average every 30 days. The project not only resulted
in a reduction in harm caused by violence, but changes in the
physical environment on the ward improved staff morale. Staff
members involved in the project were empowered to make
meaningful changes and to recognise the impact they have made.

We are embedding many of the interventions we tested into daily
practice and continuing to generate new ideas for testing. Increased
skills, knowledge, and confidence in improvement work will be
carried forward to future projects.

References

1.  Algase D, Beck C, Whall A et al. Need-driven dementia-
compromised behavior: an alternative view of disruptive
behavior. Am J Alzheimers Dis Other Demen 1996; 11:
10-9.

  Page 3 of 4

© 2015, Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.

 o
n
 A

p
ril 5

, 2
0

2
1

 b
y g

u
e
st. P

ro
te

cte
d
 b

y co
p
yrig

h
t.

h
ttp

://b
m

jo
p

e
n
q

u
a
lity.b

m
j.co

m
/

B
M

J Q
u

a
l Im

p
ro

v R
e

p
o

rt: first p
u

b
lish

e
d

 a
s 1

0
.1

1
3

6
/b

m
jq

u
a

lity.u
2

0
7

4
4

7
.w

2
9
7
7
 o

n
 9

 Ju
n
e
 2

0
1
5
. D

o
w

n
lo

a
d
e
d
 fro

m
 

http://bmjopenquality.bmj.com/


2.  Chaplin R, McGeorge M, Hinchcliffe G, Shinkwin L.
Aggression on psychiatric inpatient units for older adults and
adults of working age. Int J Geriat Psychiat 2008, 23(8),
874-6.

3.  Flannery RB Jr, Peterson B, Walker AP. Precipitants of
elderly psychiatric patient assaults on staff: preliminary
empirical inquiry. Psychiatric Quarterly 2005
Summer;76(2):167-75.

4.  Kitwood T, Bredin K. Towards a theory of dementia care:
personhood and well-being. Ageing Soc 1992;12:269-87.

5.  Livingston, G.; Kelly, L.; Lewis-Holmes, E.; Baio, G.; Morris,
S. et al. Non-pharmacological interventions for agitation in
dementia: systematic review of randomised controlled trials.
The Br J Psychiat 2014;205(6):436-42.

6.  O’Callaghan C.E; Richman, A.V.; Majumdar, B. Violence in
older people with mental illness. Adv Psychiat Treat 2010
16:339-48.

7.  Royal College of Psychiatrists’ Centre for Quality
Improvement. The Healthcare Commission National Audit of
Violence 2006–7. Final Report – Older People’s Services.
Royal College of Psychiatrists, 2008.

8.  Totman, J, Lewando Hundt G, Wearn E et al. Factors
affecting staff morale on inpatient mental health wards in
England: a qualitative investigation. BMC psychiatry. 2011;
11, p.68.

9.  Ware CJG, Fairburn CG, Hope RA A community-based
study of aggressive behaviour in dementia. Int J Geriat
Psychiat 19905: 337–42.

Declaration of interests

No competing interests.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the staff at East London NHS Trust for their
contribution to this work, including Peter Daby, Felicity Bowden,
Leanne Smith, and Rosca Marange.

Ethical approval

This work met criteria for operational improvement activities exempt
from ethics review.

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

  Page 4 of 4

© 2015, Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.

 o
n
 A

p
ril 5

, 2
0

2
1

 b
y g

u
e
st. P

ro
te

cte
d
 b

y co
p
yrig

h
t.

h
ttp

://b
m

jo
p

e
n
q

u
a
lity.b

m
j.co

m
/

B
M

J Q
u

a
l Im

p
ro

v R
e

p
o

rt: first p
u

b
lish

e
d

 a
s 1

0
.1

1
3

6
/b

m
jq

u
a

lity.u
2

0
7

4
4

7
.w

2
9
7
7
 o

n
 9

 Ju
n
e
 2

0
1
5
. D

o
w

n
lo

a
d
e
d
 fro

m
 

http://www.tcpdf.org
http://bmjopenquality.bmj.com/