1,933 Comments for North Wales Hospital (Denbigh Asylum)

Regarding placing a woman in a psychiatric hospital because she was unmarried and pregnant, i think the old belief went something like this: the social stigma, guilt, shame, censure, ostracism, embarrassment of getting pregnant before marriage was *so* great for the woman, her child, and her family, that any woman "in her right mind" who "fell" and had premarital sex, would immediately marry the man, even before finding out if a child had been conceived. With unwed pregnancy being such an extreme social disgrace, one that "ruined her life," any woman who found herself "in trouble" and didn't get married so that her child would be "legitimate" (and not a "bastard"), was obviously "out of her mind" or "insane." I recall being told by older female members of my family that they didn't know which was worse, a girl who had premarital sex and got pregnant, or a girl who used birth control so that she wouldn't get pregnant when she had premarital sex. It can be very interesting to go through old marriage records and compare them to records of the first child born to the couple. In many, many cases full-term babies were born well before the couple had been married for at least nine months.

The daily census reports I'm familiar with never had any confidential information. They were strictly counts--how many open beds, how many patients with special instructions (seizures, dietary restrictions, elopement precautions, suicidal, etc.), how many "adverse incidents," maintenance problems, staff on leave, things like that. At the most they might have initials (if a patient was injured or so ill s/he had to be transferred to the infirmary, for example). It's important to track this information so that when there is a new admission, the patient can be assigned to the most appropriate ward--if one ward already has several patients with elopement precautions, but another ward has none, a new patient needing the same precautions would be assigned to the ward that currently has no such patients. They are also useful in assigning staff so that you have the most intensive staffing with the patients who have the most involved care.

If you're on a plane that still has the ashtrays and "no smoking" signs on the seatback, that's a strong clue as to the age of the plane. As late as 1992 one could still smoke on international flights, and I think also on domestic flights of more than two hours' duration.

Many older psychiatric patients smoke because back in the days before Thorazine, hospitals tended to *encourage* smoking for the small benefits patients seemed to derive from nicotine, and also as "bribes" to get a patient to do what the staff wanted.

I have never smoked myself, but I think people are taking the "non-smoking agenda" too far. I have lived in countries, worked in offices, and been part of social groups where I was the "odd" one because I didn't smoke. I prefer non-smoking environments, but I'm not so fanatical about it that I would presume to tell other adults what they can do and where they can do it. I would rather have an indoor smoking room than have to make my way through a thick cloud of smoke and piles of discarded cigarette butts to get in the front door of a building.

Now they are setting up regulations that ban smoking even in bars and introducing bills to prohibit smoking in one's own private vehicle if there is a child in the car. It kind of reminds me of the poem about the Nazis that talks about how first they came for the Jews, then they came for the homosexuals, then for the communists, etc. "but I said nothing because I was not Jewish, gay, communist, etc" and ends with the line "Then they came for me, and there was no one left to say anything." When we restrict the rights of others, it's only a matter of time until we lose our own rights.

If this is a seclusion room, the intent was not for it to be used as a punishment (I'm sure sometimes it was, most likely by overworked, totally stressed-out staff, but the fact that it was misused does not mean it did not have a legitimate purpose). Sometimes patients will actually request to use a time-out room, able to recognize that they are too close to losing control, and knowing that they need a place with minimal stimulation where they can be alone and safely discharge all the negative energy and emotion. Yelling, screaming, crying, pounding the walls, etc. until the person is once again calm. It is considered a sign of progress when a person can recognize how his/her emotions are escalating, and requests a brief period of isolation. The hope is that the person will continue to progress to the point where other coping strategies are developed and utilized, and seclusion is no longer needed.

When seclusion is used properly, it requires a lot of extra documentation and monitoring, periodic consultation with the psychiatrist if it continues beyond a specified duration of time (15 minutes is the time span that was used in the places I've worked). Each use of seclusion/time out is reviewed by the client rights committee. Any regulatory or supervising agency always looks very, VERY closely at records of seclusion and time out. The facility is required to have a formal policy addressing the use of time-out and seclusion (where the time-out or seclusion room is, what it contains, under what circumstances it can be used, what other options have to be unsuccessfully implemented before seclusion is used, the follow-up required, etc.) So staff are very unlikely (today) to use it inappropriately, if for no other reason than to avoid all the extra paperwork and investigation. The protocol for time out or seclusion requires that staff take steps to re-establish rapport with the patient afterwards.

I know that I, personally, would prefer to be locked in a small room by myself to calm down than be physically held/restrained by staff until I calmed down. Time-out/seclusion instead of physical restraint also reduce the risk of injury to the patient, the staff, and other patients.

Ive been, its like crap scary!
wowowwyyy

it should be repaired , a hotel the very unsafe
places that can not be repaired should carefully be taken down side small rooms could be made if put into one a single room with en suite with directions a signs and directions of it this would make a wonderful hotel, with facilities out side with gardens for the hotel.

in todays era the thought of losing even one more piece of such rich architecture and history appals me ! this is a wonderfull building and deserves a chance as something new ! to me it matters not whether its housing or hospital or even offices so long as its saved ! this is just my opinion ! ps i did not like the tv program on all hallows eve set at this location !!! cheers D

Wooohooo, been to this amazing place. We ran along the back of this building as we thought we heard security on quad bikes.... VERY scarey at the time!

I LOVE this picture, i watched most haunted, and i find it sad, and very devistating that they are going to just pull down all that history for some houses!

I hope they change there mind an re-store it again!!!

Wow! I love this pic!

did you see it on TV ? it is such a reck
i thingk they should not demolish it.

E.P. is epileptic patients. I am a 3rd year student nurse, and I work in psychiatric units as part of my nursing education.

i thought the most haunted thing was a lie because how could they hear the noises and not the viewers at home

there must be someone out there with money who could save this wonderful building?come on ,before its to late.

same thoughts here with us,would love to walk around the grounds as we spoke to local man who said its fantastic.