Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorHumphries, Christopher
dc.contributor.authorkelly, Anthony
dc.contributor.authorSadik, Aws
dc.contributor.authorWalker, Alison
dc.contributor.authorSmith, Jason
dc.date.accessioned2024-03-18T17:53:39Z
dc.date.available2024-03-18T17:53:39Z
dc.date.issued2023-09-22
dc.identifier.citationHumphries, C., et al., 2023. Consensus on acute behavioural disturbance in the UK: a multidisciplinary modified Delphi study to determine what it is and how it should be managed. Emergency Medicine Journal, 0, 1-9.en_US
dc.identifier.issn1472-0213
dc.identifier.issn1472-0205
dc.identifier.doi10.1136/emermed-2023-213335
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12417/1704
dc.description.abstractBackground Acute behavioural disturbance (ABD) is a term used in law enforcement and healthcare, but there is a lack of clarity regarding its meaning. Common language should be used across staff groups to support the identification, prioritisation and delivery of care to this group of patients. The terminology currently used is inconsistent and confusing. This study aimed to reach a consensus on the criteria for identification and management of ABD, and to agree when other care pathways or guidelines might be more appropriately used. Methods A modified Delphi study with participation from stakeholder organisation representatives was conducted in January–April 2023 online. In round 1, statements were generated by participants in response to broad questions. Participants then rated their level of agreement with statements in subsequent rounds, with statements achieving a consensus removed for inclusion in the final derived consensus statement. Non-consensus statement responses were assessed for stability. Results Of 430 unique statements presented for rating, 266 achieved a consensus among 30 participants representing eight stakeholder organisations. A derived consensus statement was generated from these statements. The median group response to statements which failed to achieve a consensus was reliable (Krippendorff’s alpha=0·67). Conclusions There is a consensus across stakeholder organisations that ABD is not a separate entity to agitation, and guidance should instead be altered to address the full range of presentations of agitation. While the features of concern in this severely agitated group of patients can be described, the advice for recognition may vary depending on staff group. Criteria for recognition are provided and potential new terminology is described. https://emj.bmj.com/content/41/1/4 This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.subjectEmergency Medical Servicesen_US
dc.subjectTerminologyen_US
dc.subjectAgitationen_US
dc.subjectDelphi Techniqueen_US
dc.subjectCritical Pathwaysen_US
dc.titleConsensus on acute behavioural disturbance in the UK: a multidisciplinary modified Delphi study to determine what it is and how it should be manageden_US
dc.source.journaltitleEmergency Medicine Journalen_US
dcterms.dateAccepted2024-02-22
rioxxterms.versionNAen_US
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2024-02-22
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen_US
refterms.panelUnspecifieden_US
refterms.dateFirstOnline2023-12-22
html.description.abstractBackground Acute behavioural disturbance (ABD) is a term used in law enforcement and healthcare, but there is a lack of clarity regarding its meaning. Common language should be used across staff groups to support the identification, prioritisation and delivery of care to this group of patients. The terminology currently used is inconsistent and confusing. This study aimed to reach a consensus on the criteria for identification and management of ABD, and to agree when other care pathways or guidelines might be more appropriately used. Methods A modified Delphi study with participation from stakeholder organisation representatives was conducted in January–April 2023 online. In round 1, statements were generated by participants in response to broad questions. Participants then rated their level of agreement with statements in subsequent rounds, with statements achieving a consensus removed for inclusion in the final derived consensus statement. Non-consensus statement responses were assessed for stability. Results Of 430 unique statements presented for rating, 266 achieved a consensus among 30 participants representing eight stakeholder organisations. A derived consensus statement was generated from these statements. The median group response to statements which failed to achieve a consensus was reliable (Krippendorff’s alpha=0·67). Conclusions There is a consensus across stakeholder organisations that ABD is not a separate entity to agitation, and guidance should instead be altered to address the full range of presentations of agitation. While the features of concern in this severely agitated group of patients can be described, the advice for recognition may vary depending on staff group. Criteria for recognition are provided and potential new terminology is described. https://emj.bmj.com/content/41/1/4 This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/en_US


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record