Implementing positive behavioural support in a forensic psychiatric intensive care unit: addressing the barriers
Intended for healthcare professionals
Evidence and practice    

Implementing positive behavioural support in a forensic psychiatric intensive care unit: addressing the barriers

Bronwen Davies Clinical psychologist, Learning disabilities psychology, Aneurin Bevan University Health Board, Gwent, Wales
Jamie Hughes Community mental health nurse, Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Health Board, Swansea, Wales
Katheryn Sayce Charge nurse, Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Health Board, Swansea, Wales
Joanne Sullivan Clinical nurse specialist, Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Health Board, Swansea, Wales
Daniel Wilcox Groups coordinator, Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Health Board, Swansea, Wales

Positive behavioural support (PBS) is a non-aversive, preventive approach to behavioural management. The use of proactive approaches such as PBS has been suggested for multiple contexts and client groups as part of the restraint-reduction, ‘positive-and-safe’ agenda in the UK. PBS was introduced into a psychiatric intensive care unit (PICU) in a south Wales forensic service. However, the approach employed needed to be adapted to improve ‘goodness of fit’ for the PICU setting. This article describes the actions taken in the service to improve the fit of PBS in the PICU.

The aims of this paper are to outline some of the barriers to effective implementation of PBS experienced in the PICU and describe what was done to improve implementation and fidelity to the model in this setting.

The goodness of fit of PBS in PICU can be improved with some simple adaptations. The value of the PBS model is its flexibility but further evaluation of PBS approaches in PICUs are needed.

Mental Health Practice. doi: 10.7748/mhp.2018.e1281

Citation

Davies B, Hughes J, Sayce K et al (2018) Implementing positive behavioural support in a forensic psychiatric intensive care unit: addressing the barriers. Mental Health Practice. doi: 10.7748/mhp.2018.e1281

Peer review

This article has been subject to external double-blind review and checked for plagiarism using automated software

Correspondence

Bronwen.Davies2@wales.nhs.uk

Conflict of interest

None declared

Published online: 17 July 2018

Want to read more?

Already subscribed? Log in

OR

Unlock full access to RCNi Plus today

Save over 50% on your first 3 months

Your subscription package includes:
  • Unlimited online access to all 10 RCNi Journals and their archives
  • Customisable dashboard featuring 200+ topics
  • RCNi Learning featuring 180+ RCN accredited learning modules
  • RCNi Portfolio to build evidence for revalidation
  • Personalised newsletters tailored to your interests
Subscribe
RCN student member? Try Nursing Standard Student

Alternatively, you can purchase access to this article for the next seven days. Buy now

Or