DESIGN IN MENTAL HEALTH CONFERENCE 2019
Update on joint testing guidance initiative
Concerned about the lack of clear standards for products used in mental health settings, and of guidance and consensus on how to test them, the Design in Mental Health Network has been working with built environment consultancy, BRE, since 2014 to establish standards for testing key performance characteristics for products used in such settings to enable meaningful comparison and aid selection. At May’s Design in Mental Health 2019 Conference, Philip Ross, who leads the Network’s Testing and Innovation workstream, updated delegates on progress.
Philip Ross’s presentation on the DiMHN and BRE’s (the Building Research Establishment’s) joint work to develop test standards and guidance for some of the most widely used products in mental healthcare settings was the first keynote speech of this year’s Design in Mental Health conference at Coventry’s Ricoh Arena. Titled ‘Design with confidence – comprehensive test methods for products in mental health environments’, it followed a short welcome address from the DiMHN’s chair, Jenny Gill, who explained that the new product testing guidance will be the latest in a series of authoritative and well- researched guidance documents produced by, or on behalf of, the DiMHN over the past 3-4 years. These include several ‘Design with People in Mind’ guides looking at topics such as the impact on those with mental ill health of sensory and environmental elements such as sound, access to nature, and sufficient personal space. All draw on existing evidence related to design and mental health, and such factors’ impact on recovery. Following last year’s publication of a guide focusing on acoustics and mental health, and a Stakeholder Engagement guide this year, DiMHN has this year published a new Design with People in Mind booklet, The Nature Issue (see also page 6), which was officially launched at the conference. Elements covered include ‘Nature and vitality’, ‘Therapeutic nature’, ‘Nature and design’, and ‘Healing, walking, and activities in nature’.
Guidance for PICU design The DiMHN’s’ joint working with NAPICU, the National Association of Psychiatric Intensive Care and Low Secure Units, had meanwhile, Jenny Gill explained, resulted in 2017’s publication of a booklet, Design Guidance for Psychiatric Intensive Care Units. Later this year the two organisations will publish further guidance, focusing specifically on seclusion facilities. Introducing Philip Ross, Jenny Gill said that while many would know him best as a director of Safehinge Primera, she knew him for all the hard work he put into the
THE NETWORK | JULY 2019
Jenny Gill welcomed delegates to the 2019 Design in Mental Health conference at the Ricoh Arena.
Design in Mental Health Network as a Board member. She told delegates: “Philip has been leading on and working with the BRE on testing and innovation. It is now my great pleasure to invite him to tell you more.”
Reasons for the product testing initiative
Philip Ross began: “Before getting into the world of testing, I’d like to share why the Network has invested so much time and effort in the product accreditation initiative for the past five years. Quite simply, our goal is to help people get better from mental ill health.” The speaker said everyone in the room had ‘a collective belief’ that good design is major part of that outcome – ‘good design that allows buildings to have a positive, rather than a negative, impact on a patient’s wellbeing, and creates safe spaces for therapeutic care, leading to better and more sustained recovery’. Good design, he added, created better staff working environments, and helped boost the development of trust between patients and clinicians, enabling more therapeutic interactions. It also helped address the staff retention challenges present across the UK’s mental health services. Philip Ross told delegates good healing and working environments could also ‘only happen with good products’.
Limitations with the current testing approach Against this backdrop, he said there were ‘a number of limitations’ with the current testing approach. He said: “If we start by looking at the robustness testing set out in the Department of Health’s 2011 Environmental Design Guide: Adult Medium Secure Services, it suggests the use of rubber mallets and paving mauls, and is pretty ambiguous. The problem comes in the variety of ways people implement these.” Philip Ross elaborated: “We have various different ways of interpretation – does the body ram hit the top of the door, and at which height and angle? You can see here,” he said, pointing to a slide, “that we have various different people of different strengths all allegedly representing the same test.”
DHF standard on anti-ligature hardware Turning to the Door and Hardware Federation’s TS 001; 2013 technical standard, Enhanced Requirements & Test Methods for Anti-Ligature Hardware, Philip Ross said it was ‘quite limited in scope and the product types it covers’, and only considered ‘the most basic’ of ligature events. He told delegates: “Then, thinking about what other criteria we have missed,
23
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 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40
