Accepted author manuscript, 352 KB, PDF document
Available under license: CC BY-NC-ND: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License
Final published version
Licence: CC BY-NC-ND: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License
Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Review article › peer-review
Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Review article › peer-review
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - A systematic review of policy and clinical guidelines on positive risk management
AU - Just, Daniela
AU - Tai, Sara
AU - Palmier-Claus, Jasper
PY - 2023/2/28
Y1 - 2023/2/28
N2 - BackgroundNational policies and guidelines advocate that mental health practitioners employ positive risk management in clinical practice. However, there is currently a lack of clear guidance and definitions around this technique. Policy reviews can clarify complex issues by qualitatively synthesising common themes in the literature.AimsTo review and thematically analyse national policy and guidelines on positive risk management to understand how it is conceptualised and defined.MethodThe authors completed a systematic review (PROSPERO: CRD42019122322) of grey literature databases (NICE, NHS England, UK Government) to identify policies and guidelines published between 1980 and April 2019. They analysed the results using thematic analysis.ResultsThe authors screened 4999 documents, identifying 7 eligible policies and 19 guidelines. Qualitative synthesis resulted in three main themes: i) the conflicting aims of positive risk management; ii) conditional positive risk management; and iii) responsible positive risk management.ConclusionsAnalysis highlighted discrepancies and tensions in the conceptualisation of positive risk management both within and between policies. Documents described positive risk management in different and contradictory terms, making it challenging to identify what it is, when it should be employed, and by whom. Five policies offered only very limited definitions of positive risk management.
AB - BackgroundNational policies and guidelines advocate that mental health practitioners employ positive risk management in clinical practice. However, there is currently a lack of clear guidance and definitions around this technique. Policy reviews can clarify complex issues by qualitatively synthesising common themes in the literature.AimsTo review and thematically analyse national policy and guidelines on positive risk management to understand how it is conceptualised and defined.MethodThe authors completed a systematic review (PROSPERO: CRD42019122322) of grey literature databases (NICE, NHS England, UK Government) to identify policies and guidelines published between 1980 and April 2019. They analysed the results using thematic analysis.ResultsThe authors screened 4999 documents, identifying 7 eligible policies and 19 guidelines. Qualitative synthesis resulted in three main themes: i) the conflicting aims of positive risk management; ii) conditional positive risk management; and iii) responsible positive risk management.ConclusionsAnalysis highlighted discrepancies and tensions in the conceptualisation of positive risk management both within and between policies. Documents described positive risk management in different and contradictory terms, making it challenging to identify what it is, when it should be employed, and by whom. Five policies offered only very limited definitions of positive risk management.
KW - Positive risk management
KW - risk management
KW - policy review
KW - policy analysis
KW - thematic synthesis
KW - thematic analysis
U2 - 10.1080/09638237.2021.1922643
DO - 10.1080/09638237.2021.1922643
M3 - Review article
VL - 32
SP - 329
EP - 340
JO - Journal of Mental Health
JF - Journal of Mental Health
SN - 0963-8237
IS - 1
ER -