BACKGROUND: People who are agitated, confused or distressed seldom receive holistic care within acute general hospitals. Unmet needs relating to conditions such as mental illnesses, learning disabilities or dementia can contribute to patient behaviours which staff find challenging to manage (e.g. self-harm). Enhanced observation, involving one-to-one care and monitoring, is a restrictive intervention often used to manage these presentations. The characteristics and outcomes of high-quality enhanced observation in this setting remain ill-defined, compromising quality and safety. AIMS: To understand what constitutes high-quality, safe enhanced observation in an acute general hospital for patients presenting with agitated, confused or distressed behaviours. METHOD: A systematic review was performed, involving searches of five bibliographic databases, hand-searching, and forward and backward citation searching. Data describing the characteristics of high-quality, safe enhanced observation practice were eligible and included in a framework-based synthesis. Quality and safety outcomes were summarised thematically. Studies were appraised for quality, and data interpretation was shaped by lived experience experts. RESULTS: Fifty studies were included. Enhanced observation practice was influenced by individual staff members (e.g. attitudes), teams (e.g. teamwork fluency) and wider organisational factors (e.g. leadership, organisational culture). The quality and safety problems identified included self-harm, aggression and staff neglect of caring responsibilities during enhanced observation. CONCLUSIONS: Findings on the characteristics and outcomes of high-quality, safe enhanced observation provision should inform the development of evidence-based guidance to support improved, standardised practice in acute general hospitals. Evidence gaps with respect to patient experiences of enhanced observation and trauma-informed approaches to its delivery warrant urgent attention.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Averill et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: