ARTICLE IN PRESS
0020-7489/$ - se
doi:10.1016/j.ijn
�Tel.: +44 01
E-mail addr
International Journal of Nursing Studies 45 (2008) 191–202
www.elsevier.com/locate/ijnurstu
Electroconvulsive therapy and the work of mental healthnurses: A grounded theory study
John Gass�
School of Nursing and Midwifery, Faculty of Health and Social Care, The Robert Gordon University, Garthdee Campus, Garthdee Road,
Aberdeen, AB10 7QG, UK
Received 13 March 2006; received in revised form 17 August 2006; accepted 19 August 2006
Abstract
Background: There is a long history of nursing practice in the area of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). Opinions on the
involvement of nurses in this treatment reflect the wider debate on its use in the professional and popular media. There
is extensive literature on the issues raised by this particular treatment but little research into what nurses actually do
when working with patients receiving ECT.
Objectives: The research question was: How do mental health nurses work with patients having electroconvulsive therapy?
Design: This was a Grounded Theory adopting a ‘hybrid’ approach to the methodology influenced by the differing
perspectives of both co-originators, Glaser and Strauss.
Settings: The research took place in wards and ECT departments in two hospitals in Scotland.
Participants: Twenty-four mental health nurses, including 4 students working in National Health Service hospitals in
Scotland were accessed through purposive, then theoretical sampling. This included non-participant observation of
nurses in their work with patients throughout the treatment period and unstructured interviews.
Methods: Analysis was based upon the constant comparative approach with open coding of data that was examined
and compared for similarities and differences. This determined further data collection and theoretical development with
regard to their properties and relationships to other codes until the point of saturation.
Results: Nurses’ actions in ECT characteristically involve two role groups: relational roles and treatment roles and two
dilemmas: uncertain role and uncertain relationships. The core category ’being there’ comprising ’engaged’, ’present’
and ‘detached’ accounts for nurses’ actions in the ECT drama, approaches to difficulties encountered, and,
paradoxically, how such actions contributes to this. Slipping is postulated as the basic social psychological process
enabling nurses to manage their contact with the patient.
r 2006 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Keywords: Electroconvulsive therapy; Mental health nurses; Grounded theory; Being there; Roles; Relationships
What is already known about the topic?
�
The nurses’ role and responsibilities are well docu-mented in respect of electroconvulsive therapy
(ECT).
e front matter r 2006 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
urstu.2006.08.011
224 262645
ess: [email protected].
�
Systematic audits and surveys have questioned the stan-dard of nursing support in the administration of ECT.
What this paper adds
�
How nurses enact their roles in caring for patientstreated with ECT.
ARTICLE IN PRESSJ. Gass / International Journal of Nursing Studies 45 (2008) 191–202192
�
Demonstrates the challenges encountered by nursesin their work with patients and colleagues when
involved in ECT.
�
How nurses handle their contact with the patient andcolleagues during ECT.
1. Introduction
The terms nurse(s) and ECT nurse(s) are synonymous
with psychiatric-mental health nurse(s) within the text.
They also distinguish between those who have a specific
role in ECT treatment settings and nurses working
primarily in hospital wards or departments.
Nurses have participated in the administration of
electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) since its earliest beginning
in Europe, North America and the UK. ECT evokes
strong opinion within the nursing (Jones and Baldwin,
1993, Dawson, 1997), and medical (Masson, 1988;
Breggin, 1993; Freidberg, 1977) professions, and amongst
the general public and users of mental health services. ECT
remains a debatable treatment (Coppock and Hopton,
2000; Johnstone, 2000, p. 185) considers ‘‘ECT is one of
the most controversial treatments in psychiatry’’.
Nursing objectors in the UK to administering ECT
have been severely dealt with through dismissal (Bailey,
1983). Even so, the debate over nursing objections to its
use continues. Clarke (1995) suggests that if it is against
their conscience nurses should be able to refuse to
participate in ECT. Coombes (2000) reporting on a
Nursing Times survey suggested 68% of respondents
wanted an extension to existing opt-out clauses in place
for abortion and in vitro fertilisation procedures to
include ECT. Keen (2000) supports opting out suggest-
ing that it is a question of to who nurses should be
accountable but recognises the restrictions placed upon
nurses through the assumption that nursing is subordi-
nate to psychiatry. Parsons (2000) disagrees, arguing
that ECT is a proven treatment and refusing to assist is
an abandonment of the nurse’s duty to care.
NICE (2003, p. 5) recommends ECT in those with
severe depressive illness, catatonia and prolonged or
severe manic episode to achieve short-term, rapid
improvement of severe symptoms after adequate trials
of other treatments have proven ineffective, or when the
patient’s condition is potentially life threatening.
However, Johnstone (2000) recognises official and
unofficial views remain divided with ECT seen as safe
and effective or as a destructive process. Pedler’s (2001, p.
16) survey of people’s experiences of ECT confirmed
similar problems with some respondents positive to it and
others against it. The most commonly reported permanent
side-effect was memory loss and problems in concentrat-
ing. Of those who had received ECT within the preceding
two years, 40.5% reported permanent loss of previous
memories and 36% reported difficulty in concentration.
A survey of nurses who worked in ECT clinics within
the UK reported by Mahoney (1998) identified respon-
dent frustrations. Half functioning as ECT coordinators
had no job description, a quarter received no specific
training and given previous audits of ECT services in
England (Pippard and Ellam, 1981, Pippard, 1992),
questions about the quality and standard of nursing
support for the administration of ECT are raised.
Similarly in Australia, Munday et al. (2003) identified
knowledge limitations in important aspects of ECT in
nurses who had key responsibilities for care. More
recently new standards for the practice of nursing with
patients receiving ECT from the National Association of
Lead Nurses in ECT focus on clinical and emotional
support Chatterjee (2005). The work of professional
groups, for example SEAN (2004) has done much to
enhance the quality of ECT services. Guidelines on the
nursing role and procedures involved in the administra-
tion of ECT (Bray, 2003; Halsall et al., 1995; Ritter,
1989) are helpful but little research exists about what
nurses actually do when working in the complex
situation with patients having ECT. A point illustrated
when examining the references for a review of literature
on ECT by Challiner and Griffiths (2000) and in North
America where Froimson et al. (1995) record that
between 1966 and 1994 only 19 publications in Amer-
ican nursing journals focused on nursing and ECT. The
research reported here provides a Scottish perspective
intended to fill this gap and further inform nurses in this
area of practice.
2. Method
Using a grounded theory approach (Glaser and
Strauss, 1967; Strauss and Corbin, 1990), nurses’ work
with patients having ECT was explored. The differences
between the co-originators’ views upon the method have
been well documented (Glaser, 1992) and the researcher
acknowledges that this influenced his methodology. The
style adopted was in the general spirit of grounded theory
but did not adhere to one specific approach. Utilising
elements of both Glaserian and Straussian (Stern, 1994,
pp. 219–221) approaches to grounded theory resulted in
elements of the descriptive character of the Straussian
method and the emergent theoretical style of Glaser
(1992, 1998) being evident. Such an approach to
grounded theory development has been considered as
moving beyond the original methodological boundaries
(Cutcliffe, 2005), who argues this is better described as a
modified grounded theory.
The research question was:
How do mental health nurses work with patients
having electroconvulsive therapy? This included an
exploration of nurses’ roles in the context of ECT and
how they were enacted.
ARTICLE IN PRESSJ. Gass / International Journal of Nursing Studies 45 (2008) 191–202 193
2.1. Participants
These were qualified nurses (20) comprising ward
managers, staff nurses and enrolled nurses and students
(4) on a mental health branch programme in years 2 and
3 of their course who had received classroom-based
preparation for ECT. All participants were working in
two hospitals within a Scottish Health Board practising
in an adult or old age mental health setting where ECT
was provided on a twice weekly basis. Selection was
based on: willingness to participate; direct experience of
working with patients receiving ECT and on theoretical
grounds.
The first participant was chosen purposively in one of
the hospitals and thereafter through theoretical sam-
pling (Glaser and Strauss, 1967; Glaser, 1992, 1998)
where such concerns directed further sampling. There-
fore, participants were included on the basis of the
emerging theory with the researcher going to where the
person was practising or following up a potential key
informant on the basis of information provided in the
field.
2.2. Data collection
Data was obtained through non-participant observa-
tion and unstructured interviews consistent with multi-
method routes of data collection in qualitative research
(Smith and Biley, 1997, p. 21). This countered the
potential for flaws in the subsequent analysis when
based upon a single data source (Hammersley and
Atkinson, 1983). Through observation the researcher
was able to directly access the area of interest,
particularly nurses interactions with patients and others
prior to, during and after the patient’s treatment. This
involved collecting data on wards, travelling to treat-
ment, during treatment, returning to wards and during
the patient’s continued recovery. During periods of
observation the researcher did not take a direct role in
activities. Observation notes were sometimes made as
events were unfolding and when this was not possible
as quickly afterwards to retain as much information as
possible.
Coupled with observation in most instances, 24
interviews were made in the participant’s place of work,
in accordance with the approach discussed by Wimpen-
ny and Gass (2000). The researcher used unstructured
formal interviews which were tape recorded and
transcribed as quickly after the event as possible, and
informal interviewing during observation. In the tape
recorded interviews the researcher sought to bring as
little structure as possible, adopting an open-ended
stance (Rennie, 1996) but focused on the research
question. Initially, field notes and spontaneous informal
questioning from observations revealed substantive
areas and questions for comparison. Thereafter, a
general opening question was offered at the beginning
of the interview; for example: ‘could you tell me of your
experience of working with the patient having ECT?’ In
total 78 h of observation and 21 h of interview data were
collected.
2.3. Data analysis
By comparing incident with incident, patterns identi-
fied were given a conceptual name (Glaser, 1992); this
determined further data collection and theoretical
development regarding properties and relationships to
other codes until the point of saturation. For example
very quickly it became apparent that nurses’ involve-
ment in ECT was important and this led to exploration
of this issue in different locations and with mental health
nurses acting in different roles such as ECT nurse or
ward nurse. Theoretical coding was supported by
writing memos and theorising about ideas as they
emerged whilst coding for categories, properties
and theoretical codes (Glaser, 1992; p. 108) at the
time they occurred. For example Selling ECT was
categorised as an important phase of the ECT drama
and, therefore, the researcher questioned the data in
the following manner: what gets the patient to treat-
ment? How do nurses handle the treatment situation?
This led to further theoretical sampling about nurses’
roles with patients. This movement to a more selective
coding served to delimit the emerging theory (Glaser
1998, p. 50) and focus on the core category. The core
question had become ‘how do nurses handle their
relationship when working with the patient?’ It had
become apparent that nurses had no control over
whether they would be involved in ECT and subse-
quently only control over their relationship with the
patient. Therefore, this aspect of how nurses controlled
their relationship through the interaction with the
patient directed the latter stages of theoretical sampling
and the emerging theory.
There are strengths and weaknesses in this research.
The findings are grounded in data elicited from
participants who had personal involvement in the
phenomenon. In addition an audit trail (Parahoo,
1997) recording the researcher’s thinking and actions
was used showing how analytic decisions were made
(Guba and Lincoln, 1981, 1989). Peer review of the data
(Field and Morse, 1992, p. 121) and examining emergent
trends occurred through discussions with colleagues and
this coupled with returning to some participants to
discuss the emergent theory supports the credibility of
the findings. Limitations include the small size, limited
geographical coverage and potential researcher bias due
to a single researcher data collecting, analysing and
interpreting the findings. However, with respect to bias
some (Shipman, 1997, Morse, 1998; Cutcliffe and
McKenna, 2002) recognise there is a necessary bias in
ARTICLE IN PRESSJ. Gass / International Journal of Nursing Studies 45 (2008) 191–202194
such research and would not attribute significance to
this.
2.4. Ethical considerations
Ethical approval was obtained from an NHS Scotland
regional research ethics committee and permission for
access by writing to directors responsible for nursing
services. Participation was entirely voluntary with
informed consent obtained in writing from nurses
following a verbal and written explanation. Patients
who were not the focus of the study were provided with
a verbal and written explanation that the nurse working/
accompanying them was being studied. All patients
having treatment during periods of observation gave
consent to this. Any participant could withdraw their
consent at any stage in the study. To ensure confidenti-
ality no person was identified in the data from field notes
or interview recordings.
3. Findings
Consistent with the hybrid methodology the findings
presented up to the core category include a combination of
theory and description. Nurses’ working relationships with
patients having ECT can be set in a context of gaining the
patient’s acceptance of treatment (selling ECT), attending
the treatment (getting there) and receiving treatment and
recovering (treatment–recovery). Such a context is likened
to a drama with patients and mental health nurses playing
their respective roles. For nurses there were four contextual
properties to this drama:
(1) images of ECT: where opinions were polarised,
some positive others doubtful, considering ECT inap-
propriate and unnecessary; (2) involvement: this was
considered inevitable with little or no choice for the
nurses; (3) perceived patient category: including ‘reg-
ulars’, ‘first-timers’, ‘worriers’, ‘typical cases’ and
‘refuser–resisters’; and (4) relationships: considered
central to the nurses’ activity. It is within this context
that nurses act in two characteristic roles.
3.1. Relational roles
In their relationship with patients the nurse develops
roles of ‘information-giver’, ‘persuader’ and ‘supporter’;
where sustaining the relationship is viewed as an
essential part of their work. This involves providing
details about the ECT process and responding to
patients’ questions and concerns; the ECT nurse has a
primary role here but this function is supported by the
actions of other nurses:
I see everybody before ECT and explain to them
what’s going to happen to them.
Judging what the patient can accommodate; e.g. ’first-
timers’ means keeping the details simple, breaking
information giving into small packages:
It’s hard for them to perceive why it’s happening
especially if it’s the first time it’s happened so you’re
trying to break it down into chunks.
When seeking consent or when patients have doubts
persuading is important; obtaining the patient’s agree-
ment is always preferable:
You would hope to get someone to agree, first and
foremost or like you’ve got to go through a section.
Persuading can take the form of information-giving
and backing up offers of ECT from the psychiatrist:
Some patients can like let things go in one ear and
out the other they’re just not receptive enough, they
need that back up from, from the nursing staff.
Some patients are unreceptive to the offer of ECT and
become distressed at the thought of it, here additional
details and support may influence the patient’s decision
to accept treatment:
When they hear the words ECT sort of thing you
often do have to go in afterwards and pick up the
pieces.
This illustrates the links between giving information,
persuasion and support. Persuasion is coupled with
support in ‘picking up the pieces’ after the initial shock
experienced by the patient at the prospect of ECT.
Sometimes the persuasion occurs at a critical point e.g.
immediately before treatment:
They have had patients refuse ECT at the last minute
and I’ve been able to go and sit with them and talk
them through it.
The period of waiting for treatment is a crucial time
and supporting, for example by distraction by nurses
can be helpful. This includes talking about anything,
bringing humour into the situation or focussing on
positive aspects of ECT to reduce tension:
You’ll read out the jokes and have a laugh and it
seems to like pass the time quickly.
Tell them how much better they’re doing since
they’ve had their ECT or just anything to keep them
poised.
These interventions are established within the rela-
tionship with the patient where sensitivity to her or his
feelings is essential:
If you know somebody well you can go on how
anxious they are, so to actually say to somebody
what they might be feeling is a great relief to them.
ARTICLE IN PRESSJ. Gass / International Journal of Nursing Studies 45 (2008) 191–202 195
3.2. Treatment roles
The ECT nurse’s supporting role to medical staff as
anaesthetic helper and treatment assistant involving
‘theatre work’ and ‘gatekeeping’ contrasts with other
colleagues who do not have the same type of function.
However, a role common to both groups is that of
‘forcing’, in which case the ECT nurse’s actions are
usually limited to the treatment environment. The ECT
nurse is distinguished from ward-based colleagues by a
skill profile which provides role clarity in the treatment
setting.
She’s involved with erm drawing up different things,
sometimes with the oxygen, bagging people with the
oxygen and things like that.
I think they view me differently because I’m the ECT
nurse.
Setting up for treatment requires specific knowledge
closely linked to the anaesthetist’s requirements invol-
ving work in organising the environment, checking
equipment and sometimes preparing anaesthetic agents:
In the treatment room the nurse draws up syringes of
suxemethonium, anaesthetic agents.
I do more than some of the junior doctors.
This specialist technical and supportive role enhances
the differences between the ECT nurse and other nursing
colleagues. The nurse’s relationship with the patient
focuses on ‘getting there’ receiving the treatment and
returning to the ward. However, ECT nurses are the
gatekeepers for this process, controlling access to and
egress from the treatment subject to the authority of
medical staff. Establishing the patient’s consent is
crucial:
If somebody came through the door and erm, er, they
disagreed they would get sent back to the ward.
This ‘gatekeeping’ role may result in conflict when a
nurse’s desire to return to the ward with the patient is
not immediately met by the ECT nurse controlling this
process:
I’ve had a student quite angry because I’ve not let
them take the patient back to the ward.
There are occasions when nurses become involved in
forcing treatment usually when persuasion, inevitable
resistance and further persuasion has failed. The
patient’s inability to recognise her or his predicament
and accept treatment, coupled with a view that the
situation is severe and life threatening is important for
nurses when considering ‘forcing’:
I can appreciate why they’ve been made to have
ECT; maybe they’re so psychotic or so depressed and
they’re unfit to make the decision.
The decision to treat with the support of the multi-
disciplinary team is medical, but nurses make it happen,
albeit acting in a subordinate role to medical authority.
In some cases their separation from the decision to give
ECT contrasts with the requirement for them to make
the patient comply:
Although the rest of the team agreed with it, they
would never have to do all the hard work to get him
there; they wouldn’t have had to listen to him
screaming ’no’, they were the ones that were too
uncaring.
Forcing may occur with or without direct physical
contact involving restraint; the absence of physical
resistance is less distressing, however, when ‘forcing’
requires physical restraint the event becomes more
distressing for those concerned:
He was so angry he spat on us the whole way to ECT
Modern practice requires the patient to be given the
treatment in purpose-built units (Freeman, 1995; Scot-
tish Office, 1997). A consequence is that ‘forcing’
treatment can be a public drama where the patient and
those ‘forcing’ are apparent to others, and embarrass-
ment and a sense of indignity for the patient is not an
uncommon experience:
There’s visitors floating about in the corridor and it’s
just horrible you know.
This act is contrary to popular images of caring
professionals. Forcible treatment, for example with
medication does occur in the restricted environment
(behind closed doors) in psychiatric hospital wards. But,
in the case of ‘forcing’ ECT, it may be a more public
affair and as such more stressful for the nurses involved.
3.3. Dilemmas
Two emerged for the participants; the first was
‘uncertain role’. Transferring patients over for treatment
is the focal point for this dilemma. Until this point
nurses have played a significant role in ‘selling ECT’ and
‘getting there’, however, after this opportunities for
involvement in the treatment setting are limited. The
lack of activity and a sense of not belonging for nurses
could be like being on stage with no lines to say or
without any direction:
I think sometimes you are made to sort of, feel a bit
uncomfortable sometimes and as though you’re a bit
of an inconvenience you know.
A perception of being superfluous to requirements
because their skill profile does not help inclusion in
activities taking place:
ARTICLE IN PRESS
ENGAGED
PRESENT
DETACHED
Fig. 1. Being there.
J. Gass / International Journal of Nursing Studies 45 (2008) 191–202196
Because of all the paraphernalia you sort of get
elbowed out of the way for the machinery
There may be difficulty in responding to technical
requests regarding the treatment but some ECT nurses
perceive their colleagues do not seek involvement and
abdicate their responsibilities to the patient:
I sometimes feel that you’re sort of left reassuring the
patient plus directing everything else and I do think
the ward staff should take a more active role.
In contrast, some nurses perceive they are excluded
and liken it to being passive observers as the drama
unfolds:
Well, it used to be very pro-active and you used to
have a, have a role and now it’s on the sidelines just
stand back.
Although nurses are required to attend treatment
with the patient establishing a role is difficult within
the ‘treatment culture’ of the ECT environment. The
distinctions between nurses are heightened by the
strength of professional bonds between the ECT nurse
and anaesthetist. Some nurses perceived they were
excluded within this environment; inhibiting their
actions towards the patient and subsequently ‘opting
out’ from this part of the treatment process.
Uncertain relationships: the second dilemma is role
dissonance when forcing treatment. This can be distres-
sing and in some cases results in the breakdown of the
nurse–patient relationship:
It makes you feel terrible because you’re physically
manhandling somebody.
Offers of comfort by the nurse in a ‘supporter’ role are
combined with forcing, sometimes physically restraining
the patient. The contradictory messages conveyed
(comfort and support coupled with physical restraint)
may negate any potential benefits that may be derived
from the attempts at supportive interaction with the
patient.
It’s you’re going to be ok, we’re not going to hurt you
but yet we were holding him; verbal reassurance was
sort of counteracted with the physical restraint.
Consequently, nurses find themselves acting in simul-
taneous, but contradictory roles and cannot respond in a
manner that ’listens to the patient’. The resulting
dilemma forces self-reflection and subsequent doubts:
If I was to speculate and put myself in a patient’s
shoes and how I’d be prior to ECT I would be
thinking, well the nursing staff’s supposed to be
helping me and here’s me terrified.
For some, the dilemma is recognising that forcible
intervention is wrong but that nothing can be done
about it. There is no control of the situation; the
prescription of the treatment is a medical and multi-
disciplinary team matter and nurses are required to get
the patient to the treatment. Not only does the patient
experience powerlessness in this situation but so does the
nurse:
I know deep down in my gut my feeling is that ECT is
wrong no question but you still go through with it.
3.4. Being there
The core category ‘being there’ is dimensional and
comprises three sub-categories: ‘engaged’, ‘present’ and
‘detached’. These inform our understanding of nurses’
work with patients treated with ECT. ‘Being there’
extends along a continuum from a closeness between the
nurse and patient exemplified by a humanistic relation-
ship at one end, to a distant, unresponsive relationship
state at the other end. In between these two extremes is a
position whereby the nurse is ‘present’. As with any
dimension a subject may be located at any point upon
it hence the potential for variability (Fig. 1). This
dimension is analogous to a spherical structure compris-
ing an inner core, a middle layer and an outer layer and
surface. In ‘being there’, the case of ‘detached’ can be
understood as an inner core that reveals little of the
person buried deep within. The middle layer, being
‘present’ has the person within, closer to the surface
revealing more of the individual. The outer layer equates
to being ‘engaged’ with the person who is the nurse
exposed and visible at the surface.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Fig. 2. Nurses’ work with patients having ECT’.
J. Gass / International Journal of Nursing Studies 45 (2008) 191–202 197
These sub-categories illustrate the nurse–patient
relationship and how nurses act in the ECT drama.
Thus, the nurse’s actions in relational roles (informa-
tion-giver, persuader and supporter) and treatment roles
(theatre work, gatekeeper and forcing) are influenced by
the state of ‘being there’. Fig. 2 illustrates the
hypothesized relationship between the major categories.
3.4.1. Engaged
Nurses who are ‘engaged’ develop awareness of the
patient’s knowledge and experience focused on under-
standing the patient’s feelings and concerns. Such
qualities were evident either in descriptions of working
with patients or in their actions where being ‘engaged’
means coming to know and understand the patient’s
world.
Attempting to put yourself in their position, how
would you be feeling if it was you.
The patient feels I can talk to this person you know, I
can get these things off my chest.
‘Engaged’ nurses empathise with the patient’s experi-
ence, not merely her or his illness but of their treatment.
Me being with somebody, not just physically being with
somebody but being with somebody in your head.
This resonates with the practical or clinical work
Taylor (1994) refers to; where the quality of what she
describes as ‘being with’ is expressed. This example of
the nurse–patient relationship is interesting, particularly
in an environment circumscribed by the use of somatic
treatment approaches. Although these interventions are
under the authority of the psychiatric profession,
‘engaged’ nurses endeavour to continue to practise in a
manner that is consistent with a humanistic perspective.
Actions directed towards seeking understanding and
meaning in the patient’s experience of her or his illness
through empathising and focused towards change are,
on this occasion, centred upon the patient’s experience
of having ECT.
However, putting themselves in the patients’ position,
seeking to understand their experience evokes strong
feelings; particularly when nurses become cognisant of
their own feelings about the patients’ existential state.
She would become quite tearful and things and it
kinda, you know what I mean, ’god what am I doing
to this poor lassie’, you know?
For ‘engaged’ nurses, recognising and being open
about one’s feelings is important. Sometimes they may
not verbalise feelings about what is happening to
patients, but nevertheless they are evident to others.
I could see it was probably hurting the staff nurse as
much as it was the patient you know, to go through
that.
In this instance, the patient’s pain at being made to
have ECT was equally apparent for the nurse who,
under these circumstances was simultaneously an
instrument of coercion.
When ‘forcing’ treatment occurs there is the prospect
of contradictory actions by the nurse; typically a
response which echoes confirmation of the patient’s
feelings followed by the opposite action of making the
patient have treatment. One nurse describes how she
wanted to be less distant and professional in her actions
with a patient forced to have ECT.
I wanted to be more empathic and easy going and,
you know, more like a friend, if you like, type of
thing.
In considering this statement two observations can be
made. Firstly, whilst the emphasis is humanistic, the
interaction is a compromise. A compromise between the
ideal as espoused (humanism) and the reality of a
coercive role (in this instance social control), and is
rooted in the overarching power of medical authority
and the necessity for the nurse to comply with her
employment status. Secondly, there is a sense in which
the nurse adopts the trappings of humanism, but this
becomes incorporated into the coercive actions to
follow. This nurse wanted to be considered as an equal
at the same level (the position espoused in being
‘engaged’), but the reality of the situation meant that
she could not. Under these circumstances she was always
going to be in a position of authority in her role in
relation to the patient.
ARTICLE IN PRESSJ. Gass / International Journal of Nursing Studies 45 (2008) 191–202198
A conflict of allegiance may happen when being
‘engaged’ contradicts the actions that the nurse has to
take in practice.
The dilemma’s you’re no sure if it works but you’re
saying to folk well, aye it does work, you know what
I mean, that it can work you know.
This nurse indicates he cannot be as honest as he
would like. It appears that his own experience contra-
dicts what he is able to convey to the patient about the
treatment. In this way he covers up or masks his own
beliefs about what may happen. Unable to be authentic
he presents an image suggesting otherwise to the patient.
A reality of ECT contrary to his own experience is
presented undermining the basis of the humanism
implicit in being ‘engaged’. The patient is unaware of
this, but all the same the deception undermines the core
attitude of genuineness (being a real human being—
honest and true (La Monica, 1979, p. 3)) espoused for
humanistic relationships.
Covering up like this is an example of how the state of
being ‘engaged’ slips this time into the state of being
‘present’, with a professional aura. ‘Slipping’ is a
compensatory basic social-psychological process en-
abling a nurse, who has been ‘engaged’ to function
within the ECT drama and meet the demands made by
virtue of the roles required to be played. However, the
consequences for the relationship with the patient may
be significant.
I expected the trust to have gone, well what little trust
was there really I expected it to have gone and it had.
She didn’t want to speak to me, she didn’t trust me.
3.4.2. Present
In being ‘present’ nurses’ actions are consistent with
an adjunct role to the psychiatrist in providing treat-
ment. It is characterised by the distancing technique
adopted by professionals aware of the potential emo-
tional difficulties of getting too close to the patient.
These nurses act in a manner that avoids internalising
feelings from the patient. It is an instrumental state,
where the relationship is essential for the successful
performance of the nurse’s roles in the ECT drama
where enabling treatment to take place is the priority.
Unlike being ‘engaged’, the attention of the nurse who is
‘present’ is directed towards the process of treatment
rather than the patient’s experience. This suggests that
whilst the relationship is the central focus, it is
orientated towards an agenda created by the nurse
rather than with the patient. It is an agenda that is
explicitly governed by the ECT script.
Well you just try and try and try to get them to come
round to your way of thinking but you know what’s
best, to try it, give it a shot give it a try.
The nurse who is ‘present’ carries out his or her role in
a professional manner exemplified by attention to the
patient’s needs for comfort and support during the
treatment process.
In the lift it feels cold and the patient appears to
shiver and the nurse comments about this. She places
her hands on his shoulders and makes a point about
the cold saying ‘where’s the blanket?’
This illustrates the distinction between ‘present’ and
‘engaged’. In the latter, the statement would have been
qualified and the nurse’s response addressed directly to
the patient. Whereas in this case it was an appeal to
others present. This reluctance to relate to the patient’s
experience was apparent when a nurse chose not to
respond to the patient’s concern about her memory.
Almost immediately the next patient arrives along
with a nurse who asks her to take a seat whilst she
places the notes in the anteroom. On return the
patient says to the nurse that she finds it hard to
remember what day it is, there is no response from
the nurse.
Here the nurse avoids being drawn into an interaction
focused upon the patient’s experience of ECT and her
concerns and thus avoids placing the patient and her
experience at the centre of the nurse’s activity. Action is
focused on the process of ‘getting treatment’.
I know it’s, I’ve done this, it’s a procedure to go
through and it’s not very nice but I think maybe it’s
just how I’d like it to be done if I was having ECT.
This is an egocentric interpretation of the experience,
rather than seeing it through the eyes of the patient. The
focus is upon control and is congruent with using the
relationship.
Maintain that relationship with them because they
might not want to go, sometimes it’s been used as
consent to treatment.
The nurse who is ‘present’ acknowledges this instru-
mental function. It is suggestive of a strategy where the
nurse, by cultivating the relationship, uses this as a
means of insurance for possible difficulties in the future.
The relationship is used to secure treatment and
‘present’ is synonymous for how the nurse is expected
to act in both relational and treatment roles within the
drama. It is the state that is most consistent with the
patient ‘getting treatment’ and is likely to achieve this
with the least amount of difficulty for the nurse
involved.
3.4.3. Detached
The ‘detached’ nurse’s distance from the patient
extends beyond any therapeutic distance associated with
ARTICLE IN PRESSJ. Gass / International Journal of Nursing Studies 45 (2008) 191–202 199
being ‘present’ and occurs under two circumstances.
Firstly, the nurse engages in activity with others, usually
hospital staff, and does not attend to the patient as a
person. This does not extend to nursing activities such a
liaising with colleagues or conveying relevant informa-
tion associated with the patient’s care. Secondly, the
nurse is unresponsive to the patient’s verbal or non-
verbal cues which may indicate anxiety or concern.
The patient looks restless and is sitting in the
wheelchair. Both nurses meantime are chatting away
they talk about the television, what was on last night
and who had been seeing who.
Here the patient exists as a commodity not to be
engaged with. Another nurse also pointed towards this
type of behaviour:
I found that the patients were just left in the room
and when ECT was due just went up and gave them a
shout to rise.
The significance of the perception of the patient being
different, contrasts with the actions of the nurse who is
‘engaged’ or ‘present’. In the former, the nurse will seek
interaction with the patient and in the latter will focus
on the treatment process.
The unresponsiveness of being ‘detached’ extends not
only to the patient but other members of the treatment
team. Here the patient is to be given intravenous
anaesthetic medication
The patient finds this uncomfortable, muted reassur-
ance from the anaesthetist who says she is sorry.
Again unsuccessful, the ward nurse doesn’t move, the
consultant looks in her direction, it seems as though
he is trying to make contact with her but there is no
change.
In this example, the inertia of the nurse contrasts with
the discomfort of her patient and the activity taking
place around her, centred upon treatment. The beha-
viour expected by others in the situation appeared to be
in accordance with being ‘present’ to act in a profes-
sional manner and help the patient to accept the actions
of the treatment team. Quite openly, the nurse acted
outside of the expected script, by not following the cue
presented by the psychiatrist to act in a supportive role
exemplified by being ‘present’ whilst the anaesthetist
inserted a cannula in the patient’s vein. In this case being
‘detached’ may be seen as a means for managing contact
not only with the patient but also the treatment team as
well.
In a different situation (waiting room) the distance
between the nurse and patient is evident.
The nurse plays with his plastic staff identity badge
for a couple of minutes, thumbing it through his
hands. He seems a bit uncomfortable and fidgety,
eventually he relaxes a little and puts his large feet
upon the coffee table, stretches and yawns but saying
nothing to the patient who remains silent sitting
slightly forward on her chair.
Here the nurse could be considered completely
disengaged preventing him from confronting not only
the patient’s but also his own experience in the ECT
drama.
4. Discussion
The sub-categories of ‘being there’, and, in particular
‘engaged’ have some resonance with Barker et al. (1999)
who identified three sub-categories (Ordinary Me);
(Pseudo Ordinary or Engineered Me); and (Professional
Me) to the core of ‘Knowing you, Knowing me’ in a
study exploring psychiatric nursing practice. The ‘en-
gaged’ nurse’s relationship is compatible with, a
humanistic ideology centred on being rather than doing
(Watkins, 2001), with empathic qualities analogous to
those outlined by Zderad (1969, p. 659) who views such
relationships in terms of: ‘‘I am with the other but I
know I am not the other’’. Being ‘engaged’ means
developing an understanding of the patient’s experience.
However, the actions of nurses who are ‘engaged’ with
their patient in the ECT drama cannot be considered to
be therapeutic in the manner described by Peplau (1952,
1962, 1994), Travelbee (1971), Taylor (1994), Horsfall
(1997) or Reynolds and Scott (1999). The nurse’s
circumscribed role within the ECT drama, geared
towards ‘getting treatment’, cannot be construed as
focusing upon the type of therapeutic objective asso-
ciated with the above. However, this does not mean that
the nurse’s interaction with the patient does not seek to
realise the therapeutic potential afforded by the time
spent with the patient.
The feelings evoked in the nurse by the patient’s
experience appear consistent with Peplau’s description
(1994) of empathic observation. Here the nurse’s
discomfort within her or himself is evoked by the
patient’s anxiety. Empathised anxiety from the patient
in distressing situations involving ECT can be difficult
for the nurse leading to self-questioning and doubt.
Consequently, the boundary typical of a professional
distance (a feature of being ‘present’) could in these
instances be lowered.
Peplau (1987) describes the capacity to feel or
experience the same feelings as other(s) in the same
situation as ‘empathic linkages’. Such feelings can, in
turn, be transmitted by the nurse non-verbally to the
patient. It is possible that ‘engaged’ nurses may develop
such (potentially therapeutic) linkages with patients.
However, in the context of forcing the patient empathic
linkage can present difficulties. Simultaneously, the
ARTICLE IN PRESSJ. Gass / International Journal of Nursing Studies 45 (2008) 191–202200
patient’s anxiety and the nurse’s distaste at what is being
done are made apparent. In this context the states of
‘present’ and ‘detached’ can be viewed as conditions that
prevent such empathic linkage occurring and therefore
role dissonance for the nurse.
Therefore, a nurse who seeks to be ‘engaged’ when they
have a prescribed role of ‘forcing’ is problematic. Hopton
(1997) identifies such difficulties when nurses espouse the
use of person-centred methods within services required to
apply prevailing mental health legislation. Similarly,
Tennant (1997) argues that the obstacles to therapeutic
nurse–patient interaction have existed for years within
acute in-patient facilities because of tensions between the
nurses’ responsibilities as custodian and any therapeutic
ambitions that they might have. Higgins et al (1999)
recognise this dilemma and the tensions between these two
approaches rooted in differing ideologies. This is indicative
of the limitations of the one-to-one nurse–patient
approach espousing holism and humanistic values identi-
fied by Evans (2001), who suggests that beyond acknowl-
edging the feelings of the patient there is little else that can
be said in this context.
In the circumstance of ECT, when it is impossible for
the nurse to make her or his perceptions transparent,
‘slipping’ is the psychosocial process that enables the
nurse to handle the situation. The difficulty for
‘engaged’ nurses is one of authenticity in their relation-
ship with the patient. By slipping to being ‘present’ e.g in
a forcing situation will enable the ‘job’ to be done, but at
a cost to the nurse and patient. For whilst it enables the
nurse to fulfill the role required in the drama, there will
be a personal dilemma (uncertain relationships) experi-
enced as a result of playing this role.
In contrast, by being ‘present’ the nurse avoids
empathic links (Peplau, 1994) or what Zderad (1969)
described as part of the internalization phase in the
process of clinical empathizing. In this case, the
emotional overtones of both the patient’s and the
nurse’s situation can be kept at a distance. This is
reminiscent of Towell (1975) who noted how nurses
emphasised the importance of a good patient relation-
ship but in some instances were driven by a desire to
retain control. Here control relates to the manner by
which medical servicing with the administration of ECT
is ensured; and, the primacy of the psychiatric model
over the nurse–patient relationship is accepted in
practice (Sullivan, 1998). Thus being ‘present’ enables
the nurse to undertake such roles as ‘information-giver’,
‘persuader’, ‘supporter’ and sometimes ‘forcer’ without
the dilemmas of those who are ‘engaged’. This
acceptance by adaptation to the prevailing biomedical
ideology (Strauss et al., 1964) is consistent with
Morrall’s (1998) view that nurses should embrace the
social control function associated with their degree of
contact with the patient and their historical connection
to the psychiatric profession.
The ‘detached’ nurse’s relationship is typified by a
mechanistic but unresponsive presence. McKie and
Swinton (2000, p. 38), examine the virtue of ‘care’ and
out of four possible meanings of care, Blustein (1991)
identified, it is ‘‘to have care of (responsibility)’’ that
they consider may provide the focus for a ‘‘detached,
professional model of nursing’’. Such a focus might view
responsibility for getting the job done, delivering the
patient as the caring action of the nurse. The inadequacy
of this mechanistic approach to care is well documented
in adult mental health services within the field of ‘special
observation’ in patients with suicidal intent (Reid and
Long, 1993; Duffy, 1995; Barker and Cutcliffe, 1999;
Cutcliffe and Barker, 2002; Scottish Executive, 2002).
The phenomenon of ‘detached’ may be explained on the
grounds of distancing as a means of defence (Menzies
Lyth, 1961; Handy, 1991) where distance provides security
for the nurse from the anxieties occurring when exposed to
the patient’s emotional turmoil. In this context there is no
necessity for a relationship between the nurse and patient
but merely the acceptance that in order to provide support
and comfort the nurse should be familiar to the patient. By
evading contact with the patient being ‘detached’ can be
understood as an extension of the professional distance of
being ‘present’ or; an extreme form of detachment Menzies
Lyth (1961) within the context of a socially constructed
defence mechanism. However, unlike the fragmentary
contact with the patient in Menzies’ analysis, contempor-
ary care is patient-centred where the relationship between
the user and practitioner is the ‘core element of mental
health nursing’ (Scottish Executive, 2006, p. 20). Therefore
given the difference in environmental contexts the presence
of ‘detached’ nurses should be a cause for concern.
5. Conclusion
‘Being there’ helps in understanding nurses’ relation-
ships with patients and their ‘relational’ and ‘treatment’
roles during ECT. The contradiction between the
espoused humanism of the nurse who is ‘engaged’ and
the requirement to make an unwilling or reluctant
patient have the treatment creates a dilemma with
respect to her or his relationship with the patient. Thus,
‘slipping’ postulated as a basic social psychological
process occurs shifting the balance of the nurse–patient
relationship in the direction of being ‘present’; any nurse
who remains ‘engaged’ in a situation where the
authenticity of this state of ‘being there’ is compromised
will experience role dissonance and stress.
Being ‘detached’ may be an indication of burn-out
and the need for professional support particularly in the
form of clinical supervision. Reviewing the ideology for
nursing practice would provide an opportunity to
examine the values that underpin the relationship
between nurses and patients and refocusing activities
ARTICLE IN PRESSJ. Gass / International Journal of Nursing Studies 45 (2008) 191–202 201
of nurses towards engagement rather than supervision
and custody may be possible.
The updating of technical skills of ward nurses
relevant to treatment and recovery areas is important
and the role of the ECT nurse is crucial to this and
should be strengthened to ensure consistent provision of
care. This could involve regular updating of ECT
practice and include the practical activities involved
when in the treatment and recovery areas.
Generalisation from these findings to other popula-
tions within the UK and internationally is not possible.
However, it is possible for ‘being there’ to be indicative
of nurses’ relationships not only ECT but other
nurse–patient contexts. It is, therefore, recommended
that the characteristics of the dimension of ‘being there’
be explored in these wider contexts.
References
Bailey, J., 1983. ECT or not ECT: that is the question. Nursing
Times 79 (9), 12–14.
Barker, P., Cutcliffe, J., 1999. Clinical risk: a need for engage-
ment not observation. Mental Health Practice 2 (8), 8–12.
Barker, P.J., Jackson, S., Stevenson, C., 1999. What are
psychiatric nurses needed for? Developing a theory of
essential nursing practice. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental
Health Nursing 6, 273–282.
Blustein, J., 1991. Care and Commitment: Taking the Personal
Point of View. Oxford University Press, New York.
Bray, J., 2003. The nurse’s role in the administration of ECT.
In: Barker, P. (Ed.), Psychiatric and Mental Health
Nursing. Arnold Publishers, London.
Breggin, P., 1993. Toxic Psychiatry. Harper Collins Publishers,
London (Chapter 9 pp. 227–267).
Challiner, V., Griffiths, L., 2000. Electroconvulsive therapy: a
review of the literature. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental
Health Nursing 7, 191–198.
Chatterjee, M., 2005. New guidance for ECT nurses. Nursing
Times 101 (20), 8.
Clarke, L., 1995. Psychiatric nursing and electroconvulsive
therapy. Nursing Ethics 2 (4), 321–331.
Coombes, R., 2000. Nurses call for extension of right to say no.
Nursing Times 96 (5), 13.
Coppock, V., Hopton, J., 2000. Critical Perspectives on Mental
Health. Routledge, London (Introduction, 8).
Cutcliffe, J.R., 2005. Adapt or adopt: developing and transgres-
sing the methodological boundaries of grounded theory.
Journal of Advanced Nursing 51 (4), 414–420.
Cutcliffe, J.R., Barker, P., 2002. Considering the case of the
suicidal client and the case for ‘engagement and inspiring
hope’ or ‘observation’. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental
Health Nursing 9, 611–621.
Cutcliffe, J.R., McKenna, H.P., 2002. When do we know what
we know? Considering the truth of research findings and the
craft of qualitative research. International Journal of
Nursing Studies 39, 611–618.
Dawson, P.J., 1997. A personal reflection on the nature of
somatic treatments and the implications for mental health
nursing. Journal of Advanced Nursing 26 (4), 744–750.
Duffy, D., 1995. Out of the shadows: a study of the special
observation of suicidal psychiatric in-patients. Journal of
Advanced Nursing 21, 944–950.
Evans, R., 2001. Therapeutic directions in acute inpatient
psychiatric nursing. Nursing Standard 16 (12), 33–36.
Field, P.A., Morse, J.M., 1992. Nursing Research: The
Application of Qualitative Approaches. Chapman & Hall,
London.
Freeman, C.P.L., 1995. The ECT Handbook. The Second
Report of the Royal College of Psychiatrists’ Special
Committee on ECT. Council Report CR39. Gaskell,
London (Chapter 6, pp. 18–21).
Freidberg, J., 1977. Shock treatment, brain damage and
memory loss: a neurological perspective. American Journal
of Psychiatry 134 (9), 1010–1014.
Froimson, L., Creed, P., Mathew, L., 1995. State of the art:
nursing knowledge and electroconvulsive therapy. Convul-
sive Therapy 11 (3), 205–211.
Glaser, B.G., 1992. Emergence vs Forcing: Basics of Grounded
Theory Analysis. Sociology Press, Mill Valley, CA.
Glaser, B.G., 1998. Doing Grounded Theory: Issues and
Discussions. Sociology Press, Mill Valley, CA.
Glaser, B.G., Strauss, A.L., 1967. The Discovery of Grounded
Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Aldine Publish-
ing Company, Chicago.
Guba, E.G., Lincoln, Y.S., 1981. Effective Evaluation. Jossey-
Bass, San Francisco.
Guba, E.G., Lincoln, Y.S., 1989. Fourth Generation Evalua-
tion. SAGE, Newbury Park, CA.
Halsall, S.M., Lock, T., Atkinson, A., 1995. Nursing guidelines
for ECT. In: Freeman, C.P.L. (Ed.), The ECT Handbook.
The Second Report of the Royal College of Psychiatrists’
Special Committee on ECT. 114-121. Council Report CR39.
Gaskell, London.
Hammersley, M., Atkinson, P., 1983. Ethnography Principles
in Practice. Tavistock, London.
Handy, J., 1991. Stress and contradiction in psychiatric nursing.
Human Relations 44 (1), 39–53.
Higgins, R., Hurst, K., Wistow, G., 1999. Psychiatric Nursing
Revisited: The Care Provided for Acute Psychiatric
Patients. Whurr Publications Ltd, London.
Hopton, J., 1997. Towards a critical theory of mental health
nursing. Journal of Advanced Nursing 25, 492–500.
Horsfall, J., 1997. Psychiatric nursing: epistemological contra-
dictions. Advances in Nursing Science 20 (1), 56–65.
Johnstone, L., 2000. Users and Abusers of Psychiatry, second
Ed. Routeledge, London (Chapter 8, p. 185).
Jones, Y., Baldwin, S., 1993. ECT: shock, lies and psychiatry.
International Journal of Psychology and Psychotherapy 10,
126–135.
Keen, T., 2000. Should nurses have the right to opt out of ECT
treatment? Yes. Nursing Times 96 (9), 18.
La Monica, E.L., 1979. Empathy in nursing practice. Issues in
Mental Health Nursing 2 (1), 1–13.
Mahoney, C., 1998. Current affairs. Nursing Times 94 (41),
12–13.
Masson, J.M., 1988. Against Therapy. Atheneum, New York.
McKie, A., Swinton, J., 2000. Community, culture and
character: the place of the virtues in psychiatric nursing
practice. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing
7 (1), 35–42.
ARTICLE IN PRESSJ. Gass / International Journal of Nursing Studies 45 (2008) 191–202202
Menzies Lyth, I., 1961. The Functioning of Social Systems as a
Defence Against Anxiety Tavistock Pamplet No. 3. Tavi-
stock Publications, London.
Morrall, P., 1998. Mental Health Nursing and Social Control.
Whurr Publishers Ltd, London.
Morse, J.M., 1998. Validity by Committee. Qualitative Health
Research 8 (4), 443–445.
Munday, J., Deans, C., Little, J., 2003. Effectiveness of a
training program for ECT nurses. Journal of Psychosocial
Nursing and Mental Health Services 41 (11), 20–26.
NICE, 2003. Technology Appraisal Guidance 59: Guidance on
the use of electroconvulsive therapy. National Institute for
Clinical Excellence London, www.nice.org.uk.
Parsons, S., 2000. Should nurses have the right to opt out of
ECT treatment? No. Nursing Times 96 (9), 18.
Parahoo, K., 1997. Nursing Research: Principles, Process and
Issues. Palgrave, Basingstoke, 310–337.
Pedler, M., 2001. Shock Treatment: A Survey of People’s
Experiences of Electro-Convulsive Therapy (ECT). MIND,
London.
Peplau, H.E., 1952. Interpersonal Relations in Nursing. G.P.
Putnam’s Sons, New York.
Peplau, H.E., 1962. Interpersonal Techniques: The Crux of
Psychiatric Nursing. American Journal of Nursing 62 (6),
50–54.
Peplau, H.E., 1987. Interpersonal Constructs for Nursing
Practice. Nurse Education Today 7 (5), 201–208.
Peplau, H.E., 1994. Interpersonal Relationships: The Purpose
and Characteristics of Professional Nursing. In: Werner
O’Toole, A., Roulslin Welt, S. (Eds.), Hildegard E. Peplau,
Selected Works. Macmillan, Basingstoke, pp. 42–55.
Pippard, J., 1992. Audit of electroconvulsive treatment in two
National Health Service Regions. British Journal of
Psychiatry 160, 621–637.
Pippard, J., Ellam, L., 1981. Electroconvulsive treatment
in Great Britain. British Journal of Psychiatry 139,
563–568.
Reid, W., Long, A., 1993. The role of the nurse providing
therapeutic care for the suicidal patient. Journal of
Advanced Nursing 18, 1369–1376.
Rennie, D.L., 1996. Fifteen years of doing qualitative research
on psychotherapy. British Journal of Guidance and
Counselling 24 (3), 317–327.
Reynolds, W.J., Scott, B., 1999. Empathy: a crucial component
of the helping relationship. Journal of Psychiatric and
Mental Health Nursing 6, 363–370.
Ritter, S., 1989. Manual of Clinical Psychiatric Nursing
Principles and Procedures. Bethlehem Royal and Maudsley
Hospital. Harper and Row Publishers, London.
Scottish Executive, 2002. Engaging People: Observation of
People with Acute Mental Health Problems A Good
Practice Statement. Clinical Resource and Audit Group
(CRAG). Edinburgh, NHS Scotland.
Scottish Executive, 2006. Rights, Relationships and Recovery:
The Report of the National Review of Mental Health
Nursing in Scotland Edinburgh
Scottish Office, 1997. Electroconvulsive Therapy (ECT): A
Good Practice Statement. Clinical Resource and Audit
Group (CRAG). Edinburgh, NHS Scotland.
SEAN, 2004. Scottish ECT Audit Network Report, http://
sean.org.uk.
Shipman, M., 1997. The Limitations of Social Research, fourth
ed. Addison Wesley Longman Ltd, Harlow.
Smith, K., Biley, F., 1997. Understanding grounded theory:
principles and evaluation. Nurse Researcher 4 (3), 17–30.
Stern, P.N., 1994. Eroding grounded theory. In: Morse, J.M.
(Ed.), Critical Issues in Qualitative Research Methods.
SAGE publications Inc, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Strauss, A.L., Corbin, J.M., 1990. Basics of Qualitative
Research. SAGE Publications Inc, Newbury Park, CA.
Strauss, A., Schatzman, L., Bucher, R., Erlich, D., Sabsin, M.,
1964. Psychiatric Ideologies and Institutions. The Free Press
of Glencoe, Collier MacMillan Ltd, London.
Sullivan, P., 1998. Therapeutic interaction and mental health
nursing. Nursing Standard 12 (45), 39–42.
Taylor, B.J., 1994. Being Human: Ordinariness in Nursing.
Churchill Livingstone, Melbourne.
Tennant, D., 1997. Therapeutic mental health nursing in the
acute in-patient setting: mission impossible? In: Tilley, S.
(Ed.), The Mental Health Nurse: Views of Practice and
Education. Blackwell Science, Oxford, pp. 137–151.
Towell, D., 1975. Understanding Psychiatric Nursing. Royal
College of Nursing, London.
Travelbee, J., 1971. Interpersonal Aspects of Nursing, second
Ed. F. A. Davis Company, Philadelphia.
Watkins, P., 2001. Mental health Nursing: The Art of
Compassionate Care. Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford.
Wimpenny, P., Gass, J.P., 2000. Interviewing in phenomenol-
ogy and grounded theory: is there a difference? Journal of
Advanced Nursing 31 (6), 1485–1492.
Zderad, L.T., 1969. Empathic Nursing: Realization of a Human
Capacity. Nursing Clinics of North America 4 (4), 655–662.
Recommended
