search.noResults

search.searching

dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
Security measures


Case study: Devon Partnership NHS Trust BACKGROUND


Devon Partnership NHS Trust provides a range of specialist mental health and learning disability services for the people of Devon, the wider South West region, and nationally. With low, medium, and high secure inpatient units, the Trust provides a range of mental health services designed specifically to deliver high quality rehabilitative care in a safe environment for patients, staff, and visitors. The searching of patients for items that might cause harm is a necessary part of maintaining a safe environment in this facility. Many of the secure units maintain a list of restricted items that have been deemed dangerous for entry. Patients, based on a risk assessment and with consent, may be subject to search prior to access. Traditionally, searching by the Trust’s staff had included a detailed personal search and the use of a hand-held metal detector to identify concealed items.


While the hand-held detector was easy to use and required little training, it was also a tool that required close personal contact with patients, and therefore the risk behaviour escalation. As for its effectiveness, the recent study in Medicine, Science and the Law3 uncovered such equipment’s limitations in terms of detection of restricted items. According to the study, hand-held metal detectors


vulnerable to smuggled-in weapons. This can sometimes be attributed to perceived complacency among administrators, who should be doing more. All facilities have a desire to balance security with a calming, therapeutic environment. Security options such as conspicuous walk-through metal detectors, uniformed security guards (armed or unarmed), and pat-downs or screens with hand- held wands, can create a prison-like, institutional feel – the opposite of a healing atmosphere. Patients’ emotional and psychological states are sensitive, and sometimes an unintentional slight can trigger violent behaviour. There is a fine line to walk between security and patient comfort, and that has created the scepticism about being able to screen effectively without upsetting patients – but that’s because many facilities, and administrations, are only familiar with the older, more traditional, screening technologies and processes.


A MORE EFFECTIVE SOLUTION There is a better way to ensure that patients and staff are kept safe, via a screening practice that is both effective and unobtrusive – the use of a ferromagnetic detection systems (FMDS). In the most basic terms, FMDS technology uses passive sensors that evaluate disturbances in the Earth’s magnetic field made by something magnetic moving through its detection zone. Everything else is invisible to it; it doesn’t see people, clothing, backpacks, purses, etc. Nothing can be used to shield the contraband or ferrous metal item, because FMDS doesn’t detect metallic mass; it detects a magnetic signature, down to a millionth of the Earth’s magnetic field.


At Metrasens, a global magnetic detection technology company, we have built a screening solution using FMDS designed with patient- centered care in mind. In mental health facilities, Metrasens’ Proscreen 200 is utilised to screen for restricted or illicit items that other methods cannot effectively detect – small razor blades, lighters, syringes, and knives, for example. It can also detect dangerous items that patients have


34 THE NETWORK OCTOBER 2018


have an effective detection rate of 5% of concealed restricted items. As a result, Devon Partnership NHS Trust set out on a two-fold task – to review safety procedures, and to assess new, more effective technologies.


THE SOLUTION A team at the Trust had chosen to evaluate the Proscreen 200 due to its recognised use as a screening tool specifically for mental health facilities. During evaluation, the Proscreen 200 demonstrated greater sensitivity in locating the presence of restricted items such as mobile phones, knives, lighters, and razor blades. The Trust team was pleased not only with its performance, but also with its versatility, given that it is portable and has a low-profile design. The signal from ferrous metal cannot be concealed from detection by a Proscreen 200, making it more effective at detecting internalised items and items concealed in areas difficult to discover during a personal search. Among the benefits of using the Proscreen 200 reported by the


Trust are: l Faster patient searches. l A noted improvement in patient experience. l Increased staff, patient, and visitor confidence.


FMDS screening technology, specifically Proscreen 200, has proven to have an exceptionally high success rate of detection


internalised or swallowed in order to self-harm. The Proscreen 200 provides a scan of the


entire body without requiring staff to touch or come within the personal space of a patient. It is designed to be run by anybody, because it is not based on an intrusive procedure like a pat-down or screening by a hand wand, and staff do not require extensive training. The system runs on batteries – there is no need for an electricity source, as with a walk-through detector. It is small and unobtrusive, and can be placed on just about any form factor (a wall, a pole, a stand, etc.).


This solution has applications for every type of mental health facility. It provides security screening for patients checking in for the first time, as well as those with day-pass privileges returning to the facility. Its portability allows staff to perform searches wherever needed, in just seconds. FMDS screening technology, specifically


Proscreen 200, has proven to have an exceptionally high success rate of detection. In the study from Medicine, Science and the Law previously referred to it was found that while hand wands detect just five per cent of restricted items, FMDS demonstrated a 100 percent detection of small, concealed metal contraband items.


A NEW SECURITY PARADIGM Due to increasing patient populations and complexities of care, inpatient, outpatient and residential facilities all face security and safety risks, and the need for proper security technology to reduce these threats will continue to increase. With threats of violence and attacks on behavioural healthcare staff now all too common, it is time to look at security differently to embrace safety while maintaining a patient-


friendly environment. The Proscreen 200 provides effective security screening capabilities while reinforcing behavioural or mental health institutions’ goal of creating a calming, therapeutic environment. FMDS closes the security gap for mental health facilities, while protecting patient dignity with a tool that minimises behaviour escalation while safely screening for both contraband and weapons – keeping both staff and patients safe, and giving everyone peace of mind.


REFERENCES 1 Whitman E. Quelling a storm of violence in healthcare settings. Modern Healthcare online. March 11, 2017. [www.tinyurl.com/y9sb3bzr].


2 Phillips JP. Workplace violence against health care workers in the United States. N Engl J Med 2016; 374 (17): 1661-9.


3 Searching for prohibited items in mental- health hospitals: A randomised controlled trial of two metal-detecting technologies Laidlaw J, Dix R, Slack P et al. Med Sci Law 2017; 57 (4): 167-74


Nick Jordan


Nick Jordan is currently director of International Sales at Metrasens, providing commercial leadership and business development in a wide range of physical security end markets, including mental health. Prior to joining the company, he held positions with increasing responsibility in sales and territory management at Bayer, Johnson & Johnson, DePuy Synthes, and Healthcare 21 Group. He is a veteran of the British Army, having served for 11 years in deployments across the world.


n


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36