Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Mellan frihet och trygghet: personalgemensamt förhållningssätt i psykiatrisk omvårdnad
Umeå University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Nursing.
2012 (Swedish)Doctoral thesis, comprehensive summary (Other academic)Alternative title
Between freedom and safety : common staff approach in psychiatric care (English)
Abstract [en]

Background: The common staff approach in psychiatric care has not been studied explicitly before. Earlier studies in related areas of social processes in psychiatric care highlight the importance of the interaction between the patient and the carer to understanding communication patterns and attitudes. Other studies on social order and power in psychiatric care shows carers and patients as taking part in a hierarchical system in which patients are subordinate to carers.

Aim: The overall aim of this thesis is to study the phenomenon of the common staff approach in psychiatric care, how it emerges, and how it is used and experienced by both carers and patients.

Method: In the first study, grounded theory was applied to data from observations and interviews carried out with carers and clients in two psychiatric care group dwellings. In the second and third studies, a phenomenological hermeneutic method was used to analyse narrative interviews conducted with nine careers working on psychiatric wards and nine patients with experience of psychiatric in-care, respectively. In the fourth study, qualitative content analysis was used to analyse data obtained by a vignette method from interviews with 13 carers with experience of working in psychiatric in-care.

Results: A common staff approach can be understood as a social process in municipality-level group dwellings and psychiatric in-care, imposed by carers on clients or patients with the aim of restoring a predetermined order desired by the carers. When the order is disturbed the carers try to restore it by adopting a common and consistent approach towards the single patient perceived as the threat to order.

Barriers to the success of a common staff approach, from the point of view of the carers, include the likelihood that colleagues will interpret situations differently, the chance that patients might succeed in dividing carers into “good” and “bad” camps, and the knowledge that the patient suffers under a common staff approach.

The patients’ experiences partly confirm those of the carers – the dominant picture is that the patient feels persecuted and suffers under a common staff approach. However in some situations, patients can perceived the common approach as supportive and aimed to promote their recovery.

Carers’ ethical reasoning about the common staff approach is usually applied on an individual basis; it can change depending upon the patient, the situation, and the proposed approach, as well as upon how the approach might affect other patients, staff members, or the carers themselves.

Conclusions: The overall results from the four studies show that the common staff approach may meet carers’ needs, which under the approach take precedence over those of patients, but that the approach is more an exercise in asserting power and maintaining control than it is a therapeutic technique; that it is a difficult choice for the single carer to choose between the interests of the patient and the approval of colleagues; that the patient often suffers when a common staff approach is used; and that carers are seldom aware of the suffering experienced by the patient being managed by such an approach. A common staff approach has no part in a care-strategy; it is not an intentional care-plan; instead it appears to be a way for carers who feel vulnerable and under pressure to maintain order by controlling particular patients.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Umeå: Umeå universitet , 2012. , 79 p.
Series
Umeå University medical dissertations, ISSN 0346-6612 ; 1480
Keyword [en]
common staff approach, psychiatric care, social process, power, experience, grounded theory, phenomenological research, content analysis, vignettet method
Keyword [sv]
personalgemensamt förhållningssätt, psykiatrisk omvårdnad, sociala processer, makt, upplevelser, grounded theory, fenomenologisk hermeneutik, innehållsanalys, vinjettmetod
National Category
Nursing
Research subject
omvårdnadsforskning med samhällsvetenskaplig inriktning; Caring Sciences
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-54573ISBN: 978-91-7459-370-9 (print)OAI: oai:DiVA.org:umu-54573DiVA: diva2:524270
Public defence
2012-05-25, Aulan, Vårdvetarhuset, Umeå Universitet, Umeå, 09:00 (Swedish)
Opponent
Supervisors
Available from: 2012-05-04 Created: 2012-04-30 Last updated: 2012-05-04Bibliographically approved
List of papers
1. The preservation of order: the use of common approach among staff toward clients in long-term psychiatric care
Open this publication in new window or tab >>The preservation of order: the use of common approach among staff toward clients in long-term psychiatric care
2007 (English)In: Qualitative Health Research, ISSN 1049-7323, E-ISSN 1552-7557, Vol. 17, no 6, 718-729 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

The authors performed this grounded theory study to gain a deeper understanding of the kinds of social processes that lead to a need among psychiatric nursing staff to reach a common approach on how to act toward individual clients in long-term psychiatric care. They present a theory about the development of such common approaches among staff. The main findings were that in psychiatric group dwellings, when the internal order is perceived as having been disturbed, the staff preserve or restore the internal order by formulating and reaching a common approach. The staff negotiated with each other to achieve an agreement on how to act and behave toward the individual client. The authors isolate and describe different types of order-disturbing incidents and the common approaches taken by the staff in dealing with them. However, their data also show that staff often had difficulties in maintaining a common approach over time.

Keyword
Attitude of Health Personnel, Decision Making, Hierarchy, Social, Humans, Long-Term Care/psychology, Mental Disorders/*nursing, Negotiating, Nurse-Patient Relations, Nursing Staff/psychology, Psychiatric Nursing/*methods, Qualitative Research, Sweden, Time Factors
National Category
Nursing
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-6862 (URN)10.1177/1049732307302668 (DOI)17582016 (PubMedID)
Available from: 2007-12-20 Created: 2007-12-20 Last updated: 2012-05-04Bibliographically approved
2. “Being good or evil”: applying a common staff approach when caring for patients with psychiatric disease
Open this publication in new window or tab >>“Being good or evil”: applying a common staff approach when caring for patients with psychiatric disease
2008 (English)In: International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-being, ISSN 1748-2623, E-ISSN 1748-2631, Vol. 3, no 4, 219-229 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

This study was performed to gain a deeper understanding of how psychiatric staff, when caring for patients with psychiatric disease, experience situations that include a common staff approach directed toward an individual client. Nine nurses were interviewed. The interviews were analyzed with a phenomenological-hermeneutic method in order to illuminate the lived experience of applying a common staff approach. The results revealed several meanings: shedding light on carers' mutual relationships; being deserted by nurse colleagues; being aware of one's own basis of evaluation, and that of others; being judged by the patient as good or evil; and becoming sensitive to the patient's suffering. The comprehensive understanding was that the nurse has a difficult choice—to focus on relations with one's colleagues or to focus on the situation of the patient, who seems to suffer when a common staff approach is used.

Keyword
Common staff approach; phenomenological; hermeneutic; nursing; psychiatry
National Category
Nursing
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-19083 (URN)10.1080/17482620802042297 (DOI)
Available from: 2009-03-04 Created: 2009-03-04 Last updated: 2017-12-13Bibliographically approved
3. "They can do whatever they want": meanings of receiving psychiatric care based on a common staff approach
Open this publication in new window or tab >>"They can do whatever they want": meanings of receiving psychiatric care based on a common staff approach
2011 (English)In: International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-being, ISSN 1748-2623, E-ISSN 1748-2631, Vol. 6, no 1, 5296- p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

This study deepens our understanding of how patients, when cared for in a psychiatric ward, experience situations that involve being handled according to a common staff approach. Interviews with nine former psychiatric in-patients were analyzed using a phenomenological-hermeneutic method to illuminate the lived experience of receiving care based on a common staff approach. The results revealed several meanings: discovering that you are as subjected to a common staff approach, becoming aware that no one cares, becoming aware that your freedom is restricted, being afflicted, becoming aware that a common staff approach is not applied by all staff, and feeling safe because someone else is responsible. The comprehensive understanding was that the patient's understanding of being cared for according to a common staff approach was to be seen and treated in accordance with others' beliefs and valuations, not in line with the patients' own self-image, while experiencing feelings of affliction.

Keyword
Common staff approach, phenomenological, hermeneutic, nursing, psychiatry
National Category
Nursing
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-40877 (URN)10.3402/qhw.v6i1.5296 (DOI)21383956 (PubMedID)
Available from: 2011-03-11 Created: 2011-03-11 Last updated: 2017-12-11Bibliographically approved
4. "There should be something gained": carers' ethical reasoning about using a common staff approach in psychiatric in-care
Open this publication in new window or tab >>"There should be something gained": carers' ethical reasoning about using a common staff approach in psychiatric in-care
(English)Manuscript (preprint) (Other academic)
Abstract [en]

Thirteen carers experienced in caring for psychiatric in-patients were interviewed about their ethical reasoning when using a common staff approach to restricting smoking for a psychiatric in-patient. A constructed case structure and a vignette method were used in the interviews, and manifest content analysis of the texts exposed five ethical positions (i.e. categories) adopted by the carers: “It is best for the person,” “It is best for the patient,” “It is best for people related to the person/patient,” “It is best for me as a carer,” and “It is best according to rules and regulations”. A second manifest content analysis of language showed 101 terms that expressed value judgments; 97 that concerned rights and obligations, mostly about responsibility and restricting other people’s actions; and 210 that concerned human actions, mainly in regard to personal experiences. Some carers argued at first from one ethical position, but when the question in the vignette was changed, abandoned their earlier position and argued from an opposite ethical position. These results may be understood in light of dialog philosophy; ethical reasoning during use of a common staff approach tends to focus either on relations with others or with oneself.

Keyword
ethics, nursing, common approach, psychiatry, content analysis, vignette
National Category
Nursing
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-54540 (URN)
Available from: 2012-04-30 Created: 2012-04-28 Last updated: 2012-05-04Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

fulltext(573 kB)1921 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT01.pdfFile size 573 kBChecksum SHA-512
6bdef74129631d6c96926da71976c20faaae5f098c12fc901c918cc9b9047ecad74aa28a0c47da6bf51c6eb623affd0adb51c1ed34af51f61c9e5316578bd1df
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Enarsson, Per
By organisation
Department of Nursing
Nursing

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 1921 downloads
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

isbn
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

isbn
urn-nbn
Total: 3931 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf