Georgia Hunt

When clinical services aspire to quality improvement, creative and innovative approaches to old problems are needed to drive such change. Whilst new ef orts should be applauded, information on this topic can be somewhat grey from an ethical and research point of view. Within the mental health profession there is currently an expectation to routinely evaluate care and disseminate i ndings. The notion of service enhancements under the guise of routine practice is an interesting and untested ethical issue. Should clinical innovation continue to enjoy such impunity as patient autonomy is often compromised as they are often compelled to accept treatment under the coercion of mental health legislation? We believe that it should not. All involvement in any form of research is voluntary, thus patients should also have the right to decline participation in quality projects if they wish to do so.

Locked inpatient units are an increasing phenomenon, introduced in response to unforseen abscondences and suicides of patients. This paper identifies some value issues concerning the practice of locked psychiatric inpatient units. Broad strategies, practicalities and ethical matters that must be considered in inpatient mental health services are also explored. The authors draw on the published research and commentary to derive relevant information to provide to patients and staff regarding the aims and rationales of locked units. Further debate is warranted in relation to best practice. Inpatient staff need to be aware of their practice values, be able to access education and supervision and negotiate apparent contradictions. Further patient/clinician focused enquiry is necessary to mitigate the negative and stigmatising effects of locked mental health units.