Ethical issues of prison nursing: A qualitative study in Northern Italy

Abstract

Background:

Prisons are contexts where nurses are required to have specific skills to ensure that, in a setting designed for the expiation of crime, prisoners receive the same type of care as anyone else. But this is not always the case, giving rise to ethical issues.

Research questions:

‘How do correctional nurses describe their working experience in prisons? What issues emerged?’

Methodology:

This is a qualitative descriptive study. Following purposive sampling, we conducted five focus groups. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the data.

Participants and research context:

Our sample included 31 correctional nurses in seven prisons in Northern Italy.

Ethical considerations:

The scientific merit of this study was recognized by the Academic Board of the University of Genoa. Approval to conduct the study was obtained from the Liguria Regional Government that funded this study and from the Local Health Authority that was the prison nurses’ employer. Formal consent was obtained from all the nurses who volunteered to participate in this study.

Findings:

Five themes emerged from the focus groups: (1) prisoners’ healthcare needs, (2) negotiation between custody and care, (3) satisfaction of working in prisons, (4) obstacles to quality care and (5) safety. ‘Manipulation’ was a transversal theme that emerged from all the focus groups.

Discussion:

The problems generated by the clash between prison security and nursing care priorities did not enable nurses to practice autonomously and provide the best possible to care prisoners, giving rise to ethical issues and moral distress. This in turn causes high nursing turnover rates that negatively impact continuum of care.

Conclusion:

In Italy, correctional nurses urgently require specific education interventions with the participation of all those who work in prisons. Interventions based on the post-modern concept of restorative nursing could offer prison nurses the opportunity to both resolve ethical issues and reduce moral distress.

Keywords

Ethical issues manipulation moral distress prison nursing relational interspace relational narrative restorative nursing

Introduction

Prison organization in Europe

International reformers recommend that the provision of healthcare to prisoners should be part of the public health service,¹ and the World Health Organization Regional Office Europe calls for acceptance of ‘internationally recommended standards for prison health; providing professional care with the same adherence to professional ethics as in other health services, and … promoting the health and wellbeing of those in custody’.²

In some European countries, such as the United Kingdom, the ‘integration of prison health care between custody and the community is moving fast, but has been an aspiration for other countries’.³ In Italy, Penitentiary Medicine affairs were transferred to the National Health Service in June 2008, giving rise to a discipline that constitutes a very specific branch of Public Health and has important social and healthcare implications for the public. Although this discipline does not involve many healthcare workers, it does involve large numbers of prisoners and overcrowding is a serious problem in many European countries.⁴ In fact, across Europe in 2013 there were 1,679,217 prisoners, with an average prison population rate of 140 inmates per 100,000 inhabitants; overcrowding was critical in 21 out of 50 European prison administrations. With regard to spending per inmate, European prisons spent on average €97 per inmate per day.⁴ In Italy, there are 52,636 prisoners in 197 penitentiaries, where the regular number of places available is 49,605; of the total number of prisoners in Italy, about one-third (n = 17,387) are not Italian.⁵

Healthcare in European prisons

Health issues for prisoners are substantially related to communicable diseases, substance abuse and mental health.⁶ According to the Report of the WHO Regional Office for Europe, in most European countries, rates of HIV infection are higher among prisoners than the outside population. Due to overcrowding and poor nutrition, especially in many Eastern European countries, tuberculosis in prisons has been reported since the 1990s with rates up to 81 times higher than in the outside population.⁷ Another serious health problem in prisons is the high rate of illicit drug use between 16% in Romania and 79% in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, entailing a high risk of transmitting HIV and hepatitis.

Women constitute a very small proportion of the prison population. In Europe, women in prison range between 3.20% in Poland and 7.62% in Spain,⁸ but these numbers are rapidly increasing. Most incarcerated women in Europe have mental problems due to traumatic experiences in their childhood, and at least 75% have problems with drug and alcohol use. Consequently, women prisoners are more likely to commit suicide than male prisoners.

According to the provisions of the Council of Europe regarding the number of healthcare personnel in prisons, this ‘should be such as to enable regular pharmacological, psychotherapeutic and occupational therapy programmes to be carried out’.⁹ Despite the provisions of the European Prison Rules, according to the European Prison Observatory, healthcare services in prisons are scarce in all European countries and demand often exceeds the capacity to deliver care, even in France, Italy and UK where national Ministries of Health are responsible for the delivery of care in prisons.⁸ Similar conditions are described in Canada¹⁰ and in the United States.¹¹

This study

In the Liguria Region, where this study was conducted, there are seven penitentiaries and 1349 prisoners (regular places available n = 1159), and of these over 50% (729) are not Italian. The majority are from Morocco, followed by Romania, Albania and South America. Prisoners in Liguria are mainly men.⁵ Women prisoners are present only in the prison of Pontedecimo. Marassi Prison was the only one that had a dedicated clinical ward where patients could be appropriately treated. With regard to the prisoners’ most common health conditions in the prisons included in this study, 88% were affected by psychiatric disorders and 30% were drug addicted.

Problems linked to the setting were mainly overcrowding, the lack of dedicated clinical wards, high turnover rates, high numbers of foreign prisoners affected by diseases that had never been treated, cultural differences and language barriers. Due to the latter, the names and identities of non-Italian prisoners were easily mistaken by our nurses, who reported that all these aspects raised not only practical but also ethical issues in nurses making it even more difficult for them to provide care appropriately in an already difficult context like prisons, as confirmed in the literature.^{3,12

–18}

In our experience, the difficulties experienced by the correctional nurses were linked to important issues such high nursing staff turnover rates, poor job satisfaction, the lack of specific education and competences, which did not enable them to provide equal and high-quality care to prisoners, with the potential to raise ethical issues. In addition, this difficult situation, where prison security is considered to be more important than healthcare,³ was exacerbated by the conflict between the concept of punishment and that of caring, as also widely described in the literature.^{13,16,19

–34}

Ethically speaking, any type of patient problem in prison is important, but those particularly needful of nursing were drug addicts, who require specific pharmacological treatment, and psychiatric patients, who require special assistance and monitoring, even by prison officers due to the high risk of self-harm and suicide.^{12,31

–35}

Every single contact with a prisoner should be considered as a good occasion to observe and assess the prisoner’s problems, even when the patient does not openly express them; therefore, also prison officers’ reports should be taken into account.^{23,29,32,35,36}

Despite this evidence, in our study, correctional nurses reported that key nursing activities like ‘observing’ and ‘talking’ to their patients in prison were considered as a ‘waste’ of time by prison officers, who did not see this sort of activity as essential for nurses as health professionals. Therefore, this study was needed to analyse nurses’ experience in prisons and identify the most critical factors that generate ethical issues. This will form an evidence base for future interventions designed to resolve the most critical factors of correctional nursing and consequently also the ethical issues associated with them.

Aim

The main purpose of this study was to describe the main factors that gave rise to ethical issues experienced by correctional nurses in Liguria, to provide a basis that in the future would enable to design studies and interventions to resolve the issues identified. The research questions were ‘How do correctional nurses describe their working experience in prisons? What issues emerged?’

Materials and methods

Design

This study consists of two parts: (1) a quantitative part, which used the questionnaire developed by Doran and Almost,¹⁷ and the Measure of Job Satisfaction by Traynor and Wade,³⁷ to explore correctional nurses’ work-life issues and measure their level of job satisfaction, and (2) qualitative part consisting of five focus groups, to explore the prison nurses’ daily experience when caring for patients in prison.

The quantitative part of the study substantially confirmed the correctional nurses’ work-life issues linked to the difficulties in prison mentioned above and their intention to leave due to the low levels of job satisfaction, therefore justifying the need to conduct the second part of the study, based on more in-depth analysis using a qualitative methodology.

The focus groups

This article reports only on the qualitative part of this study, which uses a qualitative descriptive design, also referred as generic qualitative research,^38
–40 because this was also the part that produced the most interesting results in terms of ethical issues. The focus group methodology was chosen for this study because it enables to conduct a ‘planned series of discussions to obtain perceptions in a defined area of interest in a permissive and non-threatening environment’.⁴¹ In addition, focus groups enable to collect reliable and valid data that take participants’ values and needs into consideration, with the potential to reduce conflicts and provide leadership to decision-makers.⁴² In fact, in this study, we needed correctional nurses to share and talk about their perceptions regarding their experience in prisons to address any issues and collect data to help decision-makers to implement actions that would resolve the identified conflicts and issues.

Participants and context

The sample of this study consisted of 31 correctional nurses who freely volunteered and gave their consent to participate in this study following a brief presentation and a question and answer session. The participants included nurses and some of their coordinators working in the Penitentiary Medicine Units of the Liguria Health Agencies and a few nurses who had previously worked in these facilities. With regard to the characteristics of our sample, it was interesting to note that in general 77% had worked in prisons for less than 5 years. On the other hand, the nurses having a longer forensic experience and who used to work for the Ministry of Justice were only two. Instead, with regard to those working in the current prison, 83.8% had worked there for less than 5 years, and of these the great majority had been working there only for a few months (Table 1).

Table 1.

Characteristics of the 31 correctional nurses who participated in the five focus groups.

Age	25–30 years	31.4%
	31–35 years and 41–45 years	15.3%
	36–40 years	10.4%
	46–50 years	32.4%
	56–60 years	6.0%
	51–55 years	4.5%
Education	Regional diploma	40.5%
	University diploma	4.0%
	Bachelor’s degree	40.5%
	Master’s degree	15.0%
Experience as registered nurses	<5 years	29.4%
	5–10 years	16.2%
	16–20 years	14.7%
	10–15 years	10.3%
	>20 years	29.4%
Type of working contract	Full time	83.8%
Type of working contract	Part-time	16.2%
Years of experience in prisons	<5 years	77.0%
	5–10 years	16.2%
	11–15 years	1.4%
	16–20 years	1.4%
	>20 years	4.0%
Years of experience in current prison	<5 years	83.0%
	5–10 years	12.2%
	11–15 years	1.6%
	16–20 years	1.4%
	>20 years	1.0%

To recruit participants, we adopted a purposive sampling strategy. Since this was a qualitative research, the significance of the data is not related to the size of the sample but to saturation, which means that researchers have collected all the possible available data to gain a clear idea of a phenomenon.^43,44 The inclusion criteria were having professional experience in prisons, being aware of healthcare issues in prisons and voluntary participation in the study. No fixed time was set because participants were free to discuss and compare their own views with the other focus group participants as long as they needed; however, on average, each focus group was attended by six participants and lasted approximately 90 min. All the focus groups were conducted in a relaxed atmosphere in the meeting rooms of five penitentiaries in Liguria: La Spezia, Savona, Genova Marassi and Pontedecimo, and Sanremo. All the focus groups were conducted in the month of March 2014. The focus group moderators were experienced members of the research team and authors of this study.

Data collection

The moderator prompted and guided the semi-structured discussion within each focus group by asking the following open-ended questions, which were previously identified by our research team following a narrative review of the literature: (1) How do you identify the prisoners’ health needs and which prisoners do you think are mostly in need of care? (2) How would you describe the difference between working in a hospital and working in your setting? (3) What do you think is needed to do your work? (4) Which aspects of your work give you satisfaction? and (5) What are the barriers that prevent you from providing a good service?

After identifying the questions, the focus group was successfully piloted with five correctional nurses who did not participate in the subsequent phases of this study.

Following a brief introduction by the moderator, each question was projected on a large screen so that all participants could clearly see the question while they talked and in this way it was easier both for participants and the moderator to guide the discussions. All the focus group discussions were audio recorded and another member of the research team took notes, and summarized the main points on a flip board at the end of the discussion of each question, so that also the participants could confirm that what they had said had been clearly understood.

At the end of each focus group, another member of the research team who had not taken part in the focus group discussions verbatim transcribed the audio recordings. At the end of the five focus groups, a total of 500 significant statements were collected.

Thematic analysis

In conformity to the qualitative data analysis methodology,⁴⁵ and bearing in mind the research question of this study (i.e. ‘How do correctional nurses describe their working experience in prisons? What issues emerged?’), two members of our research team independently conducted a thematic analysis. They started by carefully reading and analysing line-by-line the verbatim transcripts underlining the most significant words and sentences and coded them. Then according to the common patterns that emerged from the codes, the two researchers independently grouped the codes and identified potential themes. NVivo (Version 10) software was employed to facilitate data management. The codes and the potential themes independently identified by the two researchers were then compared and analysed again with the rest of the research team members until consensus was reached on the codes and the respective themes. At the end of the data analysis, the transcriptions, the final codes and themes were then shared with the focus group participants to see if they agreed and add scientific rigour to the final results.^40,46

Validity and reliability

To ensure validity and reliability of the qualitative data, we adopted Lincoln and Guba’s⁴⁷ four criteria: credibility, confirmability, transferability and dependability.

Credibility was ensured through the length and number of the codes representing the opinions of the correctional nurses, which ensure data completeness, and through independent analysis.⁴⁸ At the end of the qualitative data analysis, the researchers offered participants the possibility to revise the transcriptions, codes and themes that emerged from their discussions.

Sampling variation, which included nurses from all the prisons in the Liguria Region, ensured the confirmability of the conclusions.

Reliability was confirmed by the code and theme negotiation process conducted by the two researchers.

Finally, the themes that emerged from the transcripts were discussed with other members of the research team who did not attend the focus group and shared with the participants, enabling to confirm the transferability of the results.

Ethical considerations

The scientific merit of this study was recognized by the Academic Scientific Committee of the University of Genoa. Approval to conduct the study was obtained on 21 February 2014 from the Liguria Regional Government that funded this study (Approval number: DGR 193) and from the Local Health Authority that was the prison nurses’ employer. All participants were informed about the purpose of the study, that discussions during the focus groups would be recorded and notes taken and that they could withdraw at any time. In addition, we informed participants that their names would not be revealed in any phase of the study and that all the recorded and written data would be stored in a safe place to ensure confidentiality. Formal consent was obtained from all the participants.

Findings

From the thematic analysis of the data collected from the five focus groups emerged the following themes regarding the correctional nurses’ experience and the issues linked to their work in prisons compared to working in a normal hospital setting: (1) prisoners’ healthcare needs, (2) negotiation between custody and care, (3) satisfaction of working in prisons, (4) obstacles to quality care and (5) safety. In addition, the transversal theme of ‘manipulation’ adopted by prisoners emerged from all the focus groups.

Theme 1: prisoners’ healthcare needs

Compared to patients who are not in prison, prisoners’ healthcare needs are different due to their detention in prison. Therefore, correctional nurses have to adapt their practice to the specific needs of prisoners (box 1).

Box 1

Adapting to prisoners' healthcare needs

‘Talking about my experience as a nurse, I do all those things I would have done in any hospital, only that here (in prison) you have to adapt them to a completely different person’.

In prison, the therapeutic relationship between nurses and patients is essential because most of the patients suffer from mental health disorders and drug addiction and are non-European immigrants. However, in prisons, the physical and virtual iron bars between prisoners and nurses do not permit nurses to establish an appropriate therapeutic relationship with their patients, giving rise to ethical issues (box 2).

Box 2

Difficulty establishing a therapeutic relationship to meet healthcare needs

‘The rules here are different, there are solid barriers between us and the prisoners’.

‘Here direct contacts are forbidden, and everything becomes very complicated if there is a contact, because this is immediately misinterpreted. At the beginning you think you can be the same nurse as used to be in hospital, but then you realize that you can’t, because here you can’t behave in the same way as you did with an old lady in the hospital’.

The prison setting in our study presented issues that are not found in hospitals outside prisons, including as manipulation. This was found to impede the development of therapeutic relationships, which ultimately affect every aspect of healthcare in prison (box 3).²⁴

Box 3

Through manipulation prisoners exhibit fake healthcare needs

‘If someone is hospitalized, it is because that person has a problem with his/her health. Instead in prison, often patients are drug-addicted and they tend to manipulate you simply because they need more attention than the others’.

Manipulation also compromises effective communication, the passage of correct information, listening to patients needs and generates a condition of ‘othering’ that produces alienation, marginalization and stigmatization (box 4).²⁴

Box 4

Manipulation compromises the way healthcare needs are met

‘In prison you can’t behave like you would do in a hospital, because 70–80% of the patients in prisons try to manipulate you by being friendly with, so that they can take advantage of you’.

Some nurses reported that prisoners’ requests for their healthcare needs are related to the type of behaviour and attitude a health professional exhibits. In addition, nurses must learn to listen without judging their patients, but this requires time and very often nurses reported that they do not have enough time for everyone, giving rise to the ethical issue of being unable to provide equal care to everyone (box 5).

Box 5

Not enough time to meet prisoners' healthcare needs

‘In hospitals an older patient can freely talk to you about his life and you can talk about your own life. Instead, here in prison patients mainly talk about their problems with justice and you have to be quiet and just listen’.

‘You have to limit yourself to listening, you cannot talk about your own things as you would do with a patient in hospital’.

Therefore, participants reported that advanced competencies are needed to correctly assess healthcare needs of prisoners because some prisoners may not be honest when they express their needs and ask to be seen by specialists exhibiting fake symptoms. Most of our participants reported that the majority of their patients in prison were affected by mental health disorders. In some prisons, our nurses were particularly concerned and morally distressed⁴⁹ about the fact that they could not address all mental health cases, as they should due to the lack of time and understaffing.

Theme 2: negotiation between custody and care

Nurses working in prisons described their work environment as being completely different from other healthcare settings because of the great number of prisoners to care for and the priority of security over patient safety. Indeed, these nurses had more patients to take care of, and timetables seemed to be dictated more by security demands than by healthcare priorities (box 6).

Box 6

Patient Safety (care) versus Prison Security (custody)

‘We as prison nurses do not have the autonomy to plan our work, our work depends on the particular situation linked to security and on our collaboration with the prison officers, because whatever we have to do we have to ask to see the prisoner, to examine them, we do not know if some prisoners are not allowed to meet for juridical reasons. To organize even a simple procedure we have to check with the prison officers if it is the right time to do it always for security reasons. We cannot autonomously decide to change the time of an injection because we have to ask the prison officers if the new time is ok for security reasons, so as a consequence all our work depends on the security priorities’.

‘The difficulty is establishing whether the priority is security or health’.

‘When you are in a hospital, the priority is the patient’s health (patient safety), instead here it is security’.

From the focus groups emerged that nurses perceived professional autonomy and consequently responsibility as being greater in prisons than in the usual hospital setting, but in prisons, nurses’ major autonomy is limited by a culture of security based on order, control and discipline that takes precedence over patient safety and nurses’ authority and therefore nurses’ professional autonomy (box 7).

Box 7

Nurses' autonomy is limited by the culture of security

‘Work in this setting is always linked to security, which can cause organizational problems: where everything is always related to the concession of authorizations, such as delivering drugs, logistics, and collecting special waste’.

‘I think you should try to provide the same type of care you would in a hospital, despite the limitations you face in terms of means, logistics, and always bearing well in mind the security factor, which inside a prison is fundamental’.

Nurses’ feelings of powerlessness to care for their patients are a major cause of frustration and moral distress,^21,49,50 and this was confirmed also in our study, especially when it came to dealing with complicated issues such as manipulation, which require nurses to act in full autonomy to attend to these prisoners’ special need for attention (box 8).

Box 8

Nurses' powerlessness reduced ability to deal with manipulation

‘In prisons, you often deal with drug-addicts, who often try to manipulate you simply because they need more of your attention than other patients in prison’.

Theme 3: satisfaction of working in prisons

Job satisfaction is very important, especially in correctional nurses, because this has direct impact on their intention to leave and turnover rates.¹⁵ Aspects of satisfaction are related not only to the human and professional enrichment provided by the multidisciplinary nature of the work and the multicultural nature of the setting but also to the relationship of trust that can be built over time. Indeed, some participants stated that building a relationship of trust between prisoners and nurses, whether it was the result of convenience or true mutual respect, was a reason for satisfaction (box 9).

Box 9

Aspects of job satisfaction

Multicultural dimension: ‘Caring for Chinese, Albanian, Moroccan patients in prison is enriching from a cultural point of view, very often we talk about religion, their culture and habits’.

Psychological support: ‘They see us as someone who can provide support in various ways, such as having someone who does not wear a uniform to whom they can talk; someone who gives them a feeling of safety, provides a contact with the external world, in the sense that nurses are people who move in and out of prison’.

Multidisciplinary skills: ‘In prisons, nurses have to be skilled as psychologists to work well, instead nurses are often seen as someone who simply gives medicines to patients and that’s it. This is a conception that prison administrators have always had of nurses, as if nurses had no other skills, competencies or knowledge, which they think only physicians have’.

A factor linked to non-satisfaction was ‘marginalization’. This is an important finding because the lack of job satisfaction, in addition to affecting turnover rates, raises ethical issues related to poor working conditions and interprofessional collaboration that do not enable correctional nurses to provide the best possible care in abidance to their code of conduct (box 10).⁵¹

Box 10

Aspects of non-satisfaction

Marginalization by other staff: ‘… physicians see patients in prison for two minutes, they tell us nurses what to do and then they go away. They don’t understand what it means to be with prisoners 24 hours a day. Prison officers are there, but they say that we are the health professionals and leave us alone to resolve the prisoners’ health problems’.

Marginalization linked to the setting: ‘We often end up doing double shifts and spending long hours behind the bars, with very little time off we feel depressed and as if we were prisoners too’.

In prisons, the role of the nurse is also that of an outside professional who can provide support and reassurance. Nevertheless, some respondents expressed their awareness that the friendliness exhibited by some prisoners was often actually aimed at obtaining favours (box 11).

Box 11

Manipulative friendliness and feelings of satisfaction

1. Taking advantage: ‘When people are admitted to a hospital, it is because they have a health problem, instead here we do not have a truly healthcare setting; drug-addicted patients tend to manipulate you either because they have more need for attention or want to ask to do something illegal (for instance, call someone, bring something); they try to be friendly so that they may take advantage of you’.

2. Manipulation and satisfaction: ‘If a prisoner says thank you, you feel satisfied, although he may say it to try to manipulate you, but we try to be contented with it’.

Theme 4: obstacles to quality care

The professional autonomy of correctional nurses is limited by the fact that they have to abide by rules dictated by security requirements rather than healthcare needs and patient safety. Obstacles to the provision of high-quality care raise ethical issues related to nurses’ impossibility to provide optimal care.

Another limiting factor is related to the image of the nurse that prison administrators have traditionally had. Indeed, nurses have been seen as mere administrators of medication, with no independent thought, professional autonomy, skills or competences (box 12).

Box 12

Impact of nurses' negative image on the quality of care

Unskilled workers: ‘A nurse is often seen as someone who simply gives medicines to patients and that’s it. This is a conception that prison administrators have always had of nurses, as if nurses had no other skills, competences or knowledge, which they think only physicians have’.

Poor collaboration with prison officers. ‘You enter one of the prison sections and you immediately realize who of the prison officers is on duty that day. Prison officers are supposed to collaborate with you but this spirit of collaboration is very difficult to see; sometimes we are united, instead on other occasions there is a wall between the prison officers and us. This has negative consequences on prison patients and they get grumpy and this obliges you to reach again the right balance between patient and prisoner, especially if they are young and drug addicted. In these cases, we need to spend more time with these young people, and some prison officers let you have the time you need, whereas other don’t, so you have to go back again to the same section to be able to see them and ask them to come down. In the end all this makes it more difficult to provide proper care’.

Consequently, prison administrators tend to view physicians as the only recognized health professionals. Therefore, nurses’ relationship with the prison officers can sometimes be conflicting and lead to moral distress.²¹ Prison officers are mostly very young and are often disinclined to view the prisoner as a person in need of healthcare; an inappropriate approach may cause rioting, and therefore security problems, upsetting the desired balance.

In some prisons, nurses come from private nursing cooperatives and staff turnover rates were perceived as somewhat high. Our participants identified this as an obstacle to the continuity of care. Moreover, high staff turnover often hinders the consolidation of the skills required to provide good-quality care in this setting, to deal with complicated issues like manipulation or the risk of suicide, and reduces the possibility to develop a relationship of trust both between nurses and prisoners and between nurses and prison officers (box 13).

Box 13

High turnover rates

‘As before, we have a very high turnover rate of nurses and every three months prison officers have to interact with a new nurse and as a nurse you have to start all over again, because you are new’.

The obstacles to providing a good quality of care are exacerbated by communication difficulties with prison officers, whose chief objective is instead security.

Theme 5: safety

In the prison setting, the need for safety is the priority and it regards the personal safety of both nurses and prisoners. Mindful of the particular nature of this environment, prison nurses, in collaboration with prison staff, are required to exercise great caution in the management of drugs and sharp objects (box 14).

Box 14

Caution with drugs and sharps

‘Unlike when we are in hospitals, I noticed that in prisons we are not relaxed and tend to pay more attention to ourselves. The prison officer may happen to be distracted, and when we have drugs and sharps in our hands, we necessarily have to be very careful’.

However, the fact that nurses had to cope with an excessively heavy workload jeopardized the safety of both nurses themselves and prisoners (box 15).²⁰

Box 15

Impact of understaffing on safety

‘There are days when various things happen almost at the same time, prisoners who try to hang themselves, others who cut themselves: we can’t be everywhere at the same time.

In addition, nurses are forced to set priorities in their interventions whenever several critical events arise simultaneously in prison facilities that are far from one another. Moreover, the concept of safety involves not only the legal controversies that can spring from the improper management of the nurse–prisoner relationship but also the perceived lack of system safeguards, which do not always function adequately (box 16).

Box 16

Safety and legal issues

‘In a hospital everything is much easier: I have a patient, I see, I examine, and resolve a series of problems; in a hospital you manage to find the time you need, here instead everything is linked to the requirements of the section, of the prison officers, and often also to your own, because during your shift you are on your own’.

‘Safety means also avoiding any form of controversy between nurses and prisoners, because if anything happens to the prisoner, this is perceived and interpreted as the inability of the system (and therefore also of the nurses) to protect the prisoners. Each prisoner has a lawyer ready to exploit any flaw in the system’.

The concept of safety, linked to the roles of nurses and prison officers, was strongly underlined by some of our participants: on one hand, healthcare safety and, on the other, physical safety or custody, which is to be guaranteed by the prison officers (box 17).

Box 17

Safety linked to different roles

‘We didn’t know what to do, for instance with the creams, the prison officers told me off because the prisoner had a tube of cream’.

‘Our job is to ensure healthcare safety, whereas the prison officers’ job is to ensure our physical safety. Sometimes things go smoothly, but sometimes you just can’t cope with it’.

Here emerges a paradox around the purpose of ensuring safety because the nurses’ purpose in prisons is to foster patient safety and health, but in the end their role is limited by the prison’s security priorities. In fact, one of our participants compared the safety–health dichotomy⁵² to ‘… two giants that try to pass together through a door large enough only for one. Who should pass first, patient health or security?’ In our view, this metaphor effectively synthesizes the issue of safety in prisons, where it becomes a paradox, raising many ethical issues, because nurses are there to ensure patient safety but at the same time they cannot always ensure patient safety because their autonomy is limited by the custodians’ different way of ensuring safety founded on the priorities of prison security, such as discipline, order and control.

Patient safety is also compromised by the nurses’ difficulty to perform all those activities that enable them to provide the best possible care, and by obstacles generated by the prison setting, and the behaviours of prison officers and prisoners themselves.

Discussion

The ‘manipulative’ scheme adopted by prisoners emerged from all our focus groups and contributed to exacerbate the already difficult and complex working conditions which nurses had to face in prisons often raising major ethical issues.

The processes of manipulation in penitentiaries have been widely reported in the literature.^13,20,30 In prisons, nurses undoubtedly have a very different relationship with prisoners than prison officers do, who are more concerned about the need to ensure control and security. Indeed, many hardened criminals have refined their ability to lie and to enact other manipulative behaviours, and some of their interactions may be aimed at taking advantage of the therapeutic relationship.⁵³

Prisoners who adopt manipulative schemes are careful observers of human nature; they seek out a vulnerable target, whether among prison officers or other staff members, and observe and test their potential victims over a long period of time. They are also careful observers of body language. A nurse who appears insecure, indecisive, weak or lacking in self-esteem may be an easy prey for a manipulative prisoner. On the other hand, as also confirmed in the literature,^53,54 in our study correctional nurses reported to have higher levels of job satisfaction when they managed to establish a good relationship with their patients in prison. However, nurses were also aware that there was the risk prisoners could manipulate and blackmail this good relationship.

Prisoners with manipulative intentions look out for staff members who are untidily dressed, who sleep on duty, watch television or engage in other inappropriate activities during their work shifts.^20,53,54 We found that many prisoners are also good listeners, and when nurses did establish a good relationship with their patients in prison they were more tempted to reveal personal information This could then be exploited by the prisoner to obtain trust and manipulate the relationship or take advantage from a weakness. No personal information must therefore be revealed during conversation with prisoners or during their hearing. Therefore, prison nurses must always be prepared to manage and keep under control potential manipulation by prisoners and maintain only a nurse–patient therapeutic relationship.⁵⁴

We found that in nurses, being manipulated gave rise to frustration and ultimately compromised the ethical value of nurse–patient therapeutic relationship. In the literature, there is evidence that this sort of situation can led to ethical dilemmas⁵⁵ and subsequently generate moral distress in prison nurses because the deceiving behaviour of their patients compromises the ethical principle of beneficence and non-maleficence.^18,54 Nurses working in prisons must therefore be prepared to immediately recognize a manipulative approach and deal with it appropriately.

Some of the nurses who took part in our study said that their attitude and approach conditioned the prisoners’ requests for care (box 3). In this regard, to build a relational narrative,¹⁶ correctional nurses have to be prepared to listen without judging, but this requires time, and as we found in our study prison officers often did not allow nurses to do this because they considered listening and talking to prisoners as a waste of time (box 18).

Box 18

Prison officers pushing my trolley away

‘The prison officer tells me to hurry up while I am administering a drug and pushes my trolley away, and I have to be careful to make sure that I am giving the right drug to the right patient, and make sure that they take their medicines and talk to them so that they know what to do. But the prison officer keeps saying “Hurry up! Hurry up!” so I just can’t do my job properly’.

Once again this role conflict between nurses and prison officers was another aspect that could lead to moral distress.^21,49 Moral distress is described as ‘the psychological, emotional, and physiological suffering that may be experienced when we act in ways that are inconsistent with deeply held ethical values, principles or moral commitments’.⁴⁹

Another important aspect of this study was that participants often recognized that they needed specific education and be highly skilled to assess their prisoners’ healthcare needs because some prisoners can exaggerate their symptoms or exhibit false symptoms to obtain a specialist examination. This caused ethical issues because correctional nurses often felt they could provide better care if they had a more advanced education.

In addition, many correctional nurses claimed that there was a lack of recognition of the specific skills that prison nurses need to work in the prison setting. Indeed, while nurses are key healthcare providers in Italian prisons, there is little evidence of the skilled work they do to meet the healthcare needs of prisoners.

We found that nurses were often unable to conduct an appropriate assessment because their practice was constantly limited by several aspects typical of the prison setting: overcrowding and large numbers of prisoners requiring care; time constraints that did not allow to dedicate sufficient time to drug-addicted and psychiatric patients, which moreover were the majority; poor patient collaboration and sometimes also of the prison officers; nurses obliged to be more vigilant with prison patients because they could get hold of medicines and sharps thus distracting nurses’ attention from care; and finally, the lack of specially dedicated wards for sick patients limited nurses’ professional autonomy, since this made it difficult for nurses to build a therapeutic relationship with the patient in prison behind the bars.

From this situation emerged the prison nurses’ frequent impossibility to be in the condition to comply with the ethical principles of their code of conduct. In addition, all the limitations described above made prison nurses feel as if they were prisoners too because their professional freedom was limited by the virtual bars of the prison system; a complicated and ethically burdensome situation that resulted in the lack of professional satisfaction, high turnover rates and a strong desire to leave.

Conclusion

More work needs to be done in collaboration with other prison health professionals as well as prison administrators to resolve the issues identified in this study, which give rise to moral dilemmas and ethical issues. In this study, the most significant consequences of the contradiction between custody and healthcare and which caused major ethical issues were ‘manipulation’ and the ‘safety paradox’. To resolve this contradiction, it could be useful to consider manipulation as a normal response to imprisonment, and therefore to treat it as a form of pathological behaviour, unique to prison healthcare and that Gadow²¹ described as ‘oppositional practice’.

We believe that the ethos of healthcare for prisoners, as identified by Willmott⁵⁶ would need to be further developed, but this requires prison nurses to gain a better understanding of concepts such as ‘Spiritual Nursing Care,⁵⁷ ‘Restorative Nursing’²¹ and ‘Correctional Nursing’,¹⁸ integrate these into their clinical practice, but also disseminate these concepts among prison staff and administrators to change the way prison nursing is viewed.

Some nurses in our study rightly stressed the need for specific education and training that would help them manage conflicts, including ethical issues.⁵⁸ Specific training underlines the peculiarity of correctional nursing.

In our view, the concrete development of this study lies precisely in the objective of planning specific training for prison nurses building around the concept of restorative nursing, starting from the ethical implications that arose from this study. Moreover, these data revealed the need for a cultural change, where ‘punishment’ is conceptualized and a correctional process of reintegration into the community in which prison nurses, or better correctional nurses, play a crucial role through the care they provide. This would enable to maintain the integrity of nursing practice and ensure the safety of both nurses and patients in the prison setting.¹⁴ In addition, based on our findings, we would suggest psychological support for correctional nurses in Italy because working in isolation produces emotional solitude, which can be overcome by promoting team spirit, so that health professionals support each other when taking difficult decisions or dealing with complicated situations.

Limitations

We think that the main limitation of this study was to conduct the focus group only with the nurses and exclude the other health professionals who also worked in the same prisons. The involvement of the other health professionals in the focus groups, in addition to providing a wider perspective, would have offered to occasion to develop a spirit of collaboration among the various health professionals working in the same prisons.

Future developments

An interesting line of research for future studies on penitentiary nursing could include the investigation of moral distress using Corley et al.’s⁵⁰ Moral Distress Scale adapted to the prison setting. The moral distress experienced by correctional nurses could be resolved by creating specific education courses designed around the concept of restorative nursing. Restorative nursing is a philosophy based on a post-modern view of punishment, where prison nurses engage in an ‘ethical narrative’ in the attempt to help prisoners recover their participation in the community, which has been interrupted by punishment.¹⁰ Therefore, teaching techniques such as relational narrative to prison nurses could contribute to change current culture of punishment, so that it will then be conceived as a correctional process in which restorative nursing plays a key role.

Footnotes

Conflict of interest

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was funded by the Liguria Regional Government.

References

Coyle

Standards in prison health: the prisoner as a patient. In: Møller

Stöver

Jürgens

. (eds) Health in prisons: a WHO guide to the essentials in prison health. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office Europe, 2007, pp. 7–13.

Møller

Gatherer

Jürgens

. Health in prisons: a WHO guide to the essentials in prison health. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office Europe, 2007.

Powell

Harris

Condon

. Nursing care of prisoners: staff views and experiences. J Adv Nurs 2010; 66: 1257–1265.

Annual European Prison Statistics Report, http://www.humanrightseurope.org/2015/02/report-annual-european-prison-statistics/ (2015, accessed 9 December 2015).

Italian Ministry of Justice, Department of Penitentiary Administration Statistics, https://www.giustizia.it/giustizia/it/mg_1_14.wp?selectedNode=0_2 (accessed 9 December 2015).

Watson

Stimpson

Hostick

. Prison health care: a review of the literature. Int J Nurs Stud 2004; 41: 119–128.

WHO Regional Office for Europe. Report on Prison and Health, http://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/health-determinants/prisons-and-health/data-and-statistics (accessed 9 December 2015).

Maculan

Ronco

Vianello

. Prison in Europe: overview and trends. Rome: European Prison Observatory, 2013.

Lehtmets

Pont

. Prison Health care and medical ethics: a manual for health-care workers and other prison staff with responsibility for prisoners’ well-being. Strasbourg: Council of Europe, 2014, p. 30.

10.

Stamler

Yiu

. Community health nursing: a Canadian perspective. Toronto, ON, Canada: Pearson, 2012.

11.

American Nurses Association (ANA). Correctional nursing: scope and standards of practice. Silver Spring, MD: ANA, 2007.

12.

Darke

Williamson

Ross

. Borderline personality disorder, antisocial personality disorder and risk-taking among heroin users: findings from the Australian Treatment Outcome Study (ATOS). Drug Alcohol Depend 2004; 74: 77–83.

13.

Maroney

. Caring and custody: two faces of the same reality. J Correct Health Care 2005; 11(2): 157–169.

14.

Weiskopf

. Nurses’ experience of caring for inmate patients. J Adv Nurs 2005; 49: 336–343.

15.

Flanagan

. Testing the relationship between job stress and satisfaction in correctional nurses. Nurs Res 2006; 55: 316–327.

16.

Cashin

Newman

Eason

. An ethnographic study of forensic nursing culture in an Australian prison hospital. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs 2010; 17: 39–45.

17.

Doran

Almost

. Exploring worklife issues in provincial correctional settings. Final report to the Nursing Secretariat, Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, Lawrence S. Bloomberg Faculty of Nursing, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada, 30 June 2010.

18.

Schoenly

Knox

. Essentials of correctional nursing. New York: Springer, 2013.

19.

Mason

. Forensic psychiatric nursing: a literature review and thematic analysis of role tensions. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs 2002; 9: 511–520.

20.

Bowers

. Manipulation: searching for an understanding. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs 2003; 10: 329–334.

21.

Gadow

. Restorative nursing: toward a philosophy of postmodern punishment. Nurs Philos 2003; 4: 161–167.

22.

Granse

. Why should we even care? Hospice social work practice in a prison setting. Smith Coll Stud Soc Work 2003; 73(3): 359–376.

23.

Crawley

. Emotion and performance: prison officers and the presentation of self in prisons. Punishm Soc 2004; 6(4): 411–427.

24.

Peternelj-Taylor

. An exploration of othering in forensic psychiatric and correctional nursing. Can J Nurs Res 2004; 36: 130–146.

25.

Garland

McCarty

. Job satisfaction behind walls and fences: a study of prison health care staff. Crim Justice Policy Rev 2009; 20(2): 188–208.

26.

Walsh

. The emotional labor of nurses working in her Majesty’s (HM) prison service. J Forensic Nurs 2009; 5: 143–152.

27.

Walsh

Freshwater

. The mental well-being of prison nurses in England and Wales. J Res Nurs 2009; 14: 553–564.

28.

Ross

Liebling

Tait

. The relationships of prison climate to health service in correctional environments: inmate health care measurement, satisfaction and access in prisons. Howard J Crim Justice 2011; 50: 262–274.

29.

Jacob

. The rhetoric of therapy in forensic psychiatric nursing. J Forensic Nurs 2012; 8: 178–187.

30.

Mann

. Ageing child sex offenders in prison: denial, manipulation and community. Howard J Crim Justice 2012; 51: 345–358.

31.

Schoenly

Safety for the nurse and the patient: In: Schoenly

Knox

(eds) Essentials of correctional nursing. New York: Springer, 2012, pp. 55–79.

32.

Bryant

. Advanced practice nurses in correctional health care. J Nurse Pract 2013; 9: 177–179.

33.

Marzano

Adler

Ciclitira

. Responding to repetitive, non-suicidal self-harm in an English male prison: staff experiences, reactions, and concerns. Legal Criminol Psych 2013; 20: 241–254.

34.

Bennett

Dyson

. Deliberate self-harm among adults in prisons. Ment Health Pract 2014; 18: 14–20.

35.

Mason

Coyle

Lovell

. Forensic psychiatric nursing: skills and competencies: II clinical aspects. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs 2008; 15: 131–139.

36.

Whitehead

. The Health Promoting Prison (HPP) and its imperative for nursing. Int J Nurs Stud 2006; 43: 123–131.

37.

Traynor

Wade

. The development of a measure of job satisfaction for use in monitoring the morale of community nurses in four trusts. J Adv Nurs 1993; 18: 127–136.

38.

Cohen

Crabtree

. Evaluative criteria for qualitative research in health care: controversies and recommendations. Ann Fam Med 2008; 6: 331–339.

39.

Patton

. Enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative analysis. Health Serv Res 1999; 34: 1189–1208.

40.

Boyatzis

. Transforming qualitative information thematic analysis and code development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1998.

41.

Krueger

Casey

. Focus groups: a practical guide for applied research. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2000, p. 5.

42.

House

Howe

. Values in evaluation and social research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1999.

43.

Mason

. Sample size and saturation in PhD studies using qualitative interviews. Forum Qual Soc Res 2010; 11(3), http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs100387 (accessed 17 November 2015).

44.

Bagnasco

Ghirotto

Sasso

. Theoretical sampling. J Adv Nurs 2014; 70: e6–e7.

45.

Elo

Kyngäs

. The qualitative content analysis process. J Adv Nurs 2008; 62: 107–115.

46.

Braun

Clarke

. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 2006; 3: 77–101.

47.

Lincoln

Guba

. Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1985.

48.

Zhang

Wildemuth

BM.

Qualitative analysis of content: In: Wildemuth

(ed.) Applications of social research methods to qualitative studies in information and library. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited, 2009, pp. 308–319.

49.

Jameton

. Dilemmas of moral distress: moral responsibility and nursing practice. AWHONNS Clin Issues Perinat Womens Health Nurs 1993; 4: 542–551.

50.

Corley

Elswick

Gorman

. Development and evaluation of a moral distress scale. J Adv Nurs 2001; 33: 250–256.

51.

Coomber

Barriball

. Impact of job satisfaction components on intent to leave and turnover for hospital-based nurses: a review of the research literature. Int J Nurs Stud 2007; 44: 297–314.

52.

Fraser

Staff health and well-being in prisons: leadership and training. In: Enggist

Møller

Galea

. (eds) Prisons and health. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe, 2014, p. 185.

53.

Cornelius

. The art of the con: avoiding offender manipulation (Paperback edition). Lanham, MD: American Correctional Association, 2009.

54.

Tuckett

. Virtuous principles as an ethic for nursing. Contemp Nurse 2000; 9: 106–114.

55.

Epstein

Delgado

. Understanding and addressing moral distress. Online J Issues Nurs. Epub ahead of print 30 September 2010. DOI: 10.3912/OJIN.Vol15No03Man01.

56.

Willmott

. Prison nursing: the tension between custody and care. Br J Nurs 1997; 6: 333–336.

57.

Sawatzky

Pesut

. Attributes of spiritual care in nursing practice. J Holist Nurs 2005; 23: 19–33.

58.

Jameton

. Nursing practice: the ethical issues. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1984.