Seclusion and restraint for people with serious mental illnesses

Benzodiazepines for psychosis-induced aggression or agitation

BACKGROUND

Acute psychotic illness, especially when associated with agitated or violent behaviour, can require urgent pharmacological tranquillisation or sedation. In several countries, clinicians often use benzodiazepines (either alone or in combination with antipsychotics) for this outcome.

OBJECTIVES

To examine whether benzodiazepines, alone or in combination with other pharmacological agents, is an effective treatment for psychosis-induced aggression or agitation when compared with placebo, other pharmacological agents (alone or in combination) or non-pharmacological approaches.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's register (January 2012, 20 August 2015 and 3 August 2016), inspected reference lists of included and excluded studies, and contacted authors of relevant studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing benzodiazepines alone or in combination with any antipsychotics, versus antipsychotics alone or in combination with any other antipsychotics, benzodiazepines or antihistamines, for people who were aggressive or agitated due to psychosis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We reliably selected studies, quality assessed them and extracted data. For binary outcomes, we calculated standard estimates of risk ratio (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) using a fixed-effect model. For continuous outcomes, we calculated the mean difference (MD) between groups. If there was heterogeneity, this was explored using a random-effects model. We assessed risk of bias and created a 'Summary of findings' table using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty trials including 695 participants are now included in the review. The trials compared benzodiazepines or benzodiazepines plus an antipsychotic with placebo, antipsychotics, antihistamines, or a combination of these. The quality of evidence for the main outcomes was low or very low due to very small sample size of included studies and serious risk of bias (randomisation, allocation concealment and blinding were not well conducted in the included trials, 30% of trials (six out of 20) were supported by pharmaceutical institutes). There was no clear effect for most outcomes.Benzodiazepines versus placeboOne trial compared benzodiazepines with placebo. There was no difference in the number of participants sedated at 24 hours (very low quality evidence). However, for the outcome of global state, clearly more people receiving placebo showed no improvement in the medium term (one to 48 hours) (n = 102, 1 RCT, RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.97, very low quality evidence). Benzodiazepines versus antipsychoticsWhen compared with haloperidol, there was no observed effect for benzodiazepines for sedation by 16 hours (n = 434, 8 RCTs, RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.54, low quality evidence). There was no difference in the number of participants who had not improved in the medium term (n = 188, 5 RCTs, RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.11, low quality evidence). However, one small study found fewer participants improved when receiving benzodiazepines compared with olanzapine (n = 150, 1 RCT, RR 1.84, 95% CI 1.06 to 3.18, very low quality evidence). People receiving benzodiazepines were less likely to experience extrapyramidal effects in the medium term compared to people receiving haloperidol (n = 233, 6 RCTs, RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.41, low quality evidence).Benzodiazepines versus combined antipsychotics/antihistaminesWhen benzodiazepine was compared with combined antipsychotics/antihistamines (haloperidol plus promethazine), there was a higher risk of no improvement in people receiving benzodiazepines in the medium term (n = 200, 1 RCT, RR 2.17, 95% CI 1.16 to 4.05, low quality evidence). However, for sedation, the results were controversial between two groups: lorazepam may lead to lower risk of sedation than combined antipsychotics/antihistamines (n = 200, 1 RCT, RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.98, low quality evidence); while, midazolam may lead to higher risk of sedation than combined antipsychotics/antihistamines (n = 200, 1 RCT, RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.23, low quality evidence).Other combinationsData comparing benzodiazepines plus antipsychotics versus benzodiazepines alone did not yield any results with clear differences; all were very low quality evidence. When comparing combined benzodiazepines/antipsychotics (all studies compared haloperidol) with the same antipsychotics alone (haloperidol), there was no difference between groups in improvement in the medium term (n = 185, 4 RCTs, RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.46, low quality evidence), but sedation was more likely in people who received the combination therapy (n = 172, 3 RCTs, RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.14 to 2.67,very low quality evidence). Only one study compared combined benzodiazepine/antipsychotics with antipsychotics; however, this study did not report our primary outcomes. One small study compared combined benzodiazepines/antipsychotics with combined antihistamines/antipsychotics. Results showed a higher risk of no clinical improvement (n = 60, 1 RCT, RR 25.00, 95% CI 1.55 to 403.99, very low quality evidence) and sedation status (n = 60, 1 RCT, RR 12.00, 95% CI 1.66 to 86.59, very low quality evidence) in the combined benzodiazepines/antipsychotics group.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence from RCTs for the use of benzodiazepines alone is not good. There were relatively few good data. Most trials were too small to highlight differences in either positive or negative effects. Adding a benzodiazepine to other drugs does not seem to confer clear advantage and has potential for adding unnecessary adverse effects. Sole use of older antipsychotics unaccompanied by anticholinergic drugs seems difficult to justify. Much more high-quality research is still needed in this area.

East London Modified-Broset as Decision-Making Tool to Predict Seclusion in Psychiatric Intensive Care Units

Seclusion is a last resort intervention for management of aggressive behavior in psychiatric settings. There is no current objective and practical decision-making instrument for seclusion use on psychiatric wards. Our aim was to test the predictive and discriminatory characteristics of the East London Modified-Broset (ELMB), to delineate its decision-making profile for seclusion of adult psychiatric patients, and second to benchmark it against the psychometric properties of the Broset Violence Checklist (BVC). ELMB, an 8-item modified version of the 6-item BVC, was retrospectively employed to evaluate the seclusion decision-making process on two Psychiatric Intensive Care Units (patients n = 201; incidents n = 2,187). Data analyses were carried out using multivariate regression and Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves. Predictors of seclusion were: physical violence toward staff/patients OR = 24.2; non-compliance with PRN (pro re nata) medications OR = 9.8; and damage to hospital property OR = 2.9. ROC analyses indicated that ELMB was significantly more accurate that BVC, with higher sensitivity, specificity, and positive likelihood ratio. Results were similar across gender. The ELMB is a sensitive and specific instrument that can be used to guide the decision-making process when implementing seclusion.

Haloperidol for psychosis-induced aggression or agitation (rapid tranquillisation)

BACKGROUND

Haloperidol used alone is recommended to help calm situations of aggression or agitation for people with psychosis. It is widely accessible and may be the only antipsychotic medication available in limited-resource areas.

OBJECTIVES

To examine whether haloperidol alone is an effective treatment for psychosis-induced aggression or agitation, wherein clinicians are required to intervene to prevent harm to self and others.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials (26th May 2016). This register is compiled by systematic searches of major resources (including AMED, BIOSIS CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, and registries of clinical trials) and their monthly updates, handsearches, grey literature, and conference proceedings, with no language, date, document type, or publication status limitations for inclusion of records into the register.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving people exhibiting aggression and/or agitation thought to be due to psychosis, allocated rapid use of haloperidol alone (by any route), compared with any other treatment. Outcomes of interest included tranquillisation or asleep by 30 minutes, repeated need for rapid tranquillisation within 24 hours, specific behaviours (threat or injury to others/self), adverse effects. We included trials meeting our selection criteria and providing useable data.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently inspected all citations from searches, identified relevant abstracts, and independently extracted data from all included studies. For binary data we calculated risk ratio (RR), for continuous data we calculated mean difference (MD), and for cognitive outcomes we derived standardised mean difference (SMD) effect sizes, all with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and using a fixed-effect model. We assessed risk of bias for the included studies and used the GRADE approach to produce 'Summary of findings' tables which included our pre-specified main outcomes of interest.

MAIN RESULTS

We found nine new RCTs from the 2016 update search, giving a total of 41 included studies and 24 comparisons. Few studies were undertaken in circumstances that reflect real-world practice, and, with notable exceptions, most were small and carried considerable risk of bias. Due to the large number of comparisons, we can only present a summary of main results.Compared with placebo, more people in the haloperidol group were asleep at two hours (2 RCTs, n=220, RR 0.88, 95%CI 0.82 to 0.95, very low-quality evidence) and experienced dystonia (2 RCTs, n=207, RR 7.49, 95%CI 0.93 to 60.21, very low-quality evidence).Compared with aripiprazole, people in the haloperidol group required fewer injections than those in the aripiprazole group (2 RCTs, n=473, RR 0.78, 95%CI 0.62 to 0.99, low-quality evidence). More people in the haloperidol group experienced dystonia (2 RCTs, n=477, RR 6.63, 95%CI 1.52 to 28.86, very low-quality evidence).Four trials (n=207) compared haloperidol with lorazepam with no significant differences with regard to number of participants asleep at one hour (1 RCT, n=60, RR 1.05, 95%CI 0.76 to 1.44, very low-quality of evidence) or those requiring additional injections (1 RCT, n=66, RR 1.14, 95%CI 0.91 to 1.43, very low-quality of evidence).Haloperidol's adverse effects were not offset by addition of lorazepam (e.g. dystonia 1 RCT, n=67, RR 8.25, 95%CI 0.46 to 147.45, very low-quality of evidence).Addition of promethazine was investigated in two trials (n=376). More people in the haloperidol group were not tranquil or asleep by 20 minutes (1 RCT, n=316, RR 1.60, 95%CI 1.18 to 2.16, moderate-quality evidence). Acute dystonia was too common in the haloperidol alone group for the trial to continue beyond the interim analysis (1 RCT, n=316, RR 19.48, 95%CI 1.14 to 331.92, low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Additional data from new studies does not alter previous conclusions of this review. If no other alternative exists, sole use of intramuscular haloperidol could be life-saving. Where additional drugs are available, sole use of haloperidol for extreme emergency could be considered unethical. Addition of the sedating promethazine has support from better-grade evidence from within randomised trials. Use of an alternative antipsychotic drug is only partially supported by fragmented and poor-grade evidence. Adding a benzodiazepine to haloperidol does not have strong evidence of benefit and carries risk of additional harm.After six decades of use for emergency rapid tranquillisation, this is still an area in need of good independent trials relevant to real-world practice.

Nursing Staff Factors Contributing to Seclusion in Acute Mental Health Care - An Explorative Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Seclusion is a controversial intervention. Efficacy with regard to aggressive behaviour has not been demonstrated, and seclusion is only justified for preventing safety hazards. Previous studies indicate that nursing staff factors may be predictors for seclusion, although methodological issues may have led to equivocal results.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a prospective cohort study to determine whether nursing staff characteristics are associated with seclusion of adult inpatients admitted to a closed psychiatric ward.

METHOD

We studied the association between nurses' demographics and incidence of seclusion during every shift. Data were collected during five months in 2013. Multiple logistic regression was used for analysis.

RESULTS

In univariable analysis, we found a non-significant association between seclusion and female gender, odds ratio (OR) = 5.27 (0.98-28.49) and a significant association between seclusion and nurses' large physical stature, OR = 0.21 (0.06-0.72). We found that physical stature is the most substantial factor, although not significant: OR_adjusted = 0.27 (0.07-1.04).

CONCLUSION

Nurses' gender may be a predictor for seclusion, but it seems to be mediated by the effect of physical stature. We used a rigorous, census-based, prospective design to collect data on a highly detailed level and found a large effect of physical stature of nurses on seclusion. We found nurses' physical stature to be the most substantial predictor for seclusion. These and other factors need to be explored in further research with larger sample size.

Staff's normative attitudes towards coercion: the role of moral doubt and professional context-a cross-sectional survey study

Background

The use of coercion is morally problematic and requires an ongoing critical reflection. We wondered if not knowing or being uncertain whether coercion is morally right or justified (i.e. experiencing moral doubt) is related to professionals’ normative attitudes regarding the use of coercion.

Methods

This paper describes an explorative statistical analysis based on a cross-sectional survey across seven wards in three Norwegian mental health care institutions.

Results

Descriptive analyses showed that in general the 379 respondents a) were not so sure whether coercion should be seen as offending, b) agreed with the viewpoint that coercion is needed for care and security, and c) slightly disagreed that coercion could be seen as treatment. Staff did not report high rates of moral doubt related to the use of coercion, although most of them agreed there will never be a single answer to the question ‘What is the right thing to do?’.

Bivariate analyses showed that the more they experienced general moral doubt and relative doubt, the more one thought that coercion is offending. Especially psychologists were critical towards coercion. We found significant differences among ward types. Respondents with decisional responsibility for coercion and leadership responsibility saw coercion less as treatment. Frequent experience with coercion was related to seeing coercion more as care and security.

Conclusions

This study showed that experiencing moral doubt is related to some one’s normative attitude towards coercion. Future research could investigate whether moral case deliberation increases professionals’ experience of moral doubt and whether this will evoke more critical thinking and increase staff’s curiosity for alternatives to coercion.

Study protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial to assess the effectiveness of user-driven intervention to prevent aggressive events in psychiatric services

BACKGROUND

People admitted to psychiatric hospitals with a diagnosis of schizophrenia may display behavioural problems. These may require management approaches such as use of coercive practices, which impact the well-being of staff members, visiting families and friends, peers, as well as patients themselves. Studies have proposed that not only patients' conditions, but also treatment environment and ward culture may affect patients' behaviour. Seclusion and restraint could possibly be prevented with staff education about user-centred, more humane approaches. Staff education could also increase collaboration between patients, family members and staff, which may further positively affect treatment culture and lower the need for using coercive treatment methods.

METHODS

This is a single-blind, two-arm cluster randomised controlled trial involving 28 psychiatric hospital wards across Finland. Units will be randomised to receive either a staff educational programme delivered by the team of researchers, or standard care. The primary outcome is the incidence of use of patient seclusion rooms, assessed from the local/national health registers. Secondary outcomes include use of other coercive methods (limb restraint, forced injection, and physical restraint), service use, treatment satisfaction, general functioning among patients, and team climate and employee turn-over (nursing staff).

DISCUSSION

The study, designed in close collaboration with staff members, patients and their relatives, will provide evidence for a co-operative and user-centred educational intervention aiming to decrease the prevalence of coercive methods and service use in the units, increase the functional status of patients and improve team climate in the units. We have identified no similar trials.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02724748 . Registered on 25th of April 2016.

De-escalation techniques for psychosis-induced aggression or agitation

BACKGROUND

Aggression is a disposition, a willingness to inflict harm, regardless of whether this is behaviourally or verbally expressed and regardless of whether physical harm is sustained.De-escalation is a psychosocial intervention for managing people with disturbed or aggressive behaviour. Secondary management strategies such as rapid tranquillisation, physical intervention and seclusion should only be considered once de-escalation and other strategies have failed to calm the service user.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the effects of de-escalation techniques in the short-term management of aggression or agitation thought or likely to be due to psychosis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials (latest search 7 April, 2016).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials using de-escalation techniques for the short-term management of aggressive or agitated behaviour. We planned to include trials involving adults (at least 18 years) with a potential for aggressive behaviour due to psychosis, from those in a psychiatric setting to those possibly under the influence of alcohol or drugs and/or as part of an acute setting as well. We planned to include trials meeting our inclusion criteria that provided useful data.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors inspected all abstracts of studies identified by the search process. As we were unable to include any studies, we could not perform data extraction and analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

Of the 345 citations that were identified using the search strategies, we found only one reference to be potentially suitable for further inspection. However, after viewing the full text, it was excluded as it was not a randomised controlled trial.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Using de-escalation techniques for people with psychosis induced aggression or agitation appears to be accepted as good clinical practice but is not supported by evidence from randomised trials. It is unclear why it has remained such an under-researched area. Conducting trials in this area could be influenced by funding flow, ethical concerns - justified or not - anticipated pace of recruitment as well the difficulty in accurately quantifying the effects of de-escalation itself. With supportive funders and ethics committees, imaginative trialists, clinicians and service-user groups and wide collaboration this dearth of randomised research could be addressed.

Use of Coercive Measures during Involuntary Psychiatric Admission and Treatment Outcomes: Data from a Prospective Study across 10 European Countries

To assess the association between different types of coercive measures (forced medication, seclusion, and restraint) used during involuntary psychiatric admission and two treatment outcomes: retrospective views of patients towards their admission and length of inpatient stay. A secondary analysis was conducted of data previously gathered by the EUNOMIA study (n = 2030 involuntarily detained inpatients across 10 European countries, of whom 770 were subject to one or more coercive measures). Associations between coercive measures and outcomes were tested through multivariable regression models adjusted for patients' socio-demographic and clinical characteristics. Use of forced medication was associated with patients being significantly less likely to justify their admission when interviewed after three months. All coercive measures were associated with patients staying longer in hospital. When the influence of other variables was considered in a multi-variate analysis, seclusion remained as a significant predictor of longer inpatient stay, adding about 25 days to the average admission. Of the three coercive measures, forced medication appears to be unique in its significant impact on patient disapproval of treatment. While all coercive measures are associated with patients staying longer in hospital, only use of seclusion is associated with longer inpatient stays independently of coerced patients' having higher symptom scores at the time of admission.

Droperidol for psychosis-induced aggression or agitation

BACKGROUND

People experiencing acute psychotic illnesses, especially those associated with agitated or violent behaviour, may require urgent pharmacological tranquillisation or sedation. Droperidol, a butyrophenone antipsychotic, has been used for this purpose in several countries.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the effects of droperidol, including its cost-effectiveness, when compared to placebo, other 'standard' or 'non-standard' treatments, or other forms of management of psychotic illness, in controlling acutely disturbed behaviour and reducing psychotic symptoms in people with schizophrenia-like illnesses.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated previous searches by searching the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Register (18 December 2015). We searched references of all identified studies for further trial citations and contacted authors of trials. We supplemented these electronic searches by handsearching reference lists and contacting both the pharmaceutical industry and relevant authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with useable data that compared droperidol to any other treatment for people acutely ill with suspected acute psychotic illnesses, including schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, mixed affective disorders, the manic phase of bipolar disorder or a brief psychotic episode.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

For included studies, we assessed quality, risk of bias and extracted data. We excluded data when more than 50% of participants were lost to follow-up. For binary outcomes, we calculated standard estimates of risk ratio (RR) and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). We created a 'Summary of findings' table using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified four relevant trials from the update search (previous version of this review included only two trials). When droperidol was compared with placebo, for the outcome of tranquillisation or asleep by 30 minutes we found evidence of a clear difference (1 RCT, N = 227, RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.31, high-quality evidence). There was a clear demonstration of reduced risk of needing additional medication after 60 minutes for the droperidol group (1 RCT, N = 227, RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.85, high-quality evidence). There was no evidence that droperidol caused more cardiovascular arrhythmia (1 RCT, N = 227, RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.31, moderate-quality evidence) and respiratory airway obstruction (1 RCT, N = 227, RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.52, low-quality evidence) than placebo. For 'being ready for discharge', there was no clear difference between groups (1 RCT, N = 227, RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.48, high-quality evidence). There were no data for mental state and costs.Similarly, when droperidol was compared to haloperidol, for the outcome of tranquillisation or asleep by 30 minutes we found evidence of a clear difference (1 RCT, N = 228, RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.09, high-quality evidence). There was a clear demonstration of reduced risk of needing additional medication after 60 minutes for participants in the droperidol group (2 RCTs, N = 255, RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.90, high-quality evidence). There was no evidence that droperidol caused more cardiovascular hypotension (1 RCT, N = 228, RR 2.80, 95% CI 0.30 to 26.49,moderate-quality evidence) and cardiovascular hypotension/desaturation (1 RCT, N = 228, RR 2.80, 95% CI 0.12 to 67.98, low-quality evidence) than haloperidol. There was no suggestion that use of droperidol was unsafe. For mental state, there was no evidence of clear difference between the efficacy of droperidol compared to haloperidol (Scale for Quantification of Psychotic Symptom Severity, 1 RCT, N = 40, mean difference (MD) 0.11, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.29, low-quality evidence). There were no data for service use and costs.Whereas, when droperidol was compared with midazolam, for the outcome of tranquillisation or asleep by 30 minutes we found droperidol to be less acutely tranquillising than midazolam (1 RCT, N = 153, RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.28, high-quality evidence). As regards the 'need for additional medication by 60 minutes after initial adequate sedation, we found an effect (1 RCT, N = 153, RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.20, moderate-quality evidence). In terms of adverse effects, we found no statistically significant differences between the two drugs for either airway obstruction (1 RCT, N = 153, RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.55, low-quality evidence) or respiratory hypoxia (1 RCT, N = 153, RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.16 to 3.03, moderate-quality evidence) - but use of midazolam did result in three people (out of around 70) needing some sort of 'airway management' with no such events in the droperidol group. There were no data for mental state, service use and costs.Furthermore, when droperidol was compared to olanzapine, for the outcome of tranquillisation or asleep by any time point, we found no clear differences between the older drug (droperidol) and olanzapine (e.g. at 30 minutes: 1 RCT, N = 221, RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.11, high-quality evidence). There was a suggestion that participants allocated droperidol needed less additional medication after 60 minutes than people given the olanzapine (1 RCT, N = 221, RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.87, high-quality evidence). There was no evidence that droperidol caused more cardiovascular arrhythmia (1 RCT, N = 221, RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.88, moderate-quality evidence) and respiratory airway obstruction (1 RCT, N = 221, RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.20 to 4.72, low-quality evidence) than olanzapine. For 'being ready for discharge', there was no difference between groups (1 RCT, N = 221, RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.34, high-quality evidence). There were no data for mental state and costs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Previously, the use of droperidol was justified based on experience rather than evidence from well-conducted and reported randomised trials. However, this update found high-quality evidence with minimal risk of bias to support the use of droperidol for acute psychosis. Also, we found no evidence to suggest that droperidol should not be a treatment option for people acutely ill and disturbed because of serious mental illnesses.

Haloperidol for long-term aggression in psychosis

BACKGROUND

Psychotic disorders can lead some people to become agitated. Characterised by restlessness, excitability and irritability, this can result in verbal and physically aggressive behaviour - and both can be prolonged. Aggression within the psychiatric setting imposes a significant challenge to clinicians and risk to service users; it is a frequent cause for admission to inpatient facilities. If people continue to be aggressive it can lengthen hospitalisation. Haloperidol is used to treat people with long-term aggression.

OBJECTIVES

To examine whether haloperidol alone, administered orally, intramuscularly or intravenously, is an effective treatment for long-term/persistent aggression in psychosis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (July 2011 and April 2015).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCT) or double blind trials (implying randomisation) with useable data comparing haloperidol with another drug or placebo for people with psychosis and long-term/persistent aggression.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One review author (AK) extracted data. For dichotomous data, one review author (AK) calculated risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis based on a fixed-effect model. One review author (AK) assessed risk of bias for included studies and created a 'Summary of findings' table using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We have no good-quality evidence of the absolute effectiveness of haloperidol for people with long-term aggression. One study randomising 110 chronically aggressive people to three different antipsychotic drugs met the inclusion criteria. When haloperidol was compared with olanzapine or clozapine, skewed data (n=83) at high risk of bias suggested some advantage in terms of scale scores of unclear clinical meaning for olanzapine/clozapine for 'total aggression'. Data were available for only one other outcome, leaving the study early. When compared with other antipsychotic drugs, people allocated to haloperidol were no more likely to leave the study (1 RCT, n=110, RR 1.37, CI 0.84 to 2.24, low-quality evidence). Although there were some data for the outcomes listed above, there were no data on most of the binary outcomes and none on service outcomes (use of hospital/police), satisfaction with treatment, acceptance of treatment, quality of life or economics.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Only one study could be included and most data were heavily skewed, almost impossible to interpret and oflow quality. There were also some limitations in the study design with unclear description of allocation concealment and high risk of bias for selective reporting, so no firm conclusions can be made. This review shows how trials in this group of people are possible - albeit difficult. Further relevant trials are needed to evaluate use of haloperidol in treatment of long-term/persistent aggression in people living with psychosis.

Haloperidol plus promethazine for psychosis-induced aggression

BACKGROUND

Health services often manage agitated or violent people, and such behaviour is particularly prevalent in emergency psychiatric services (10%). The drugs used in such situations should ensure that the person becomes calm swiftly and safely.

OBJECTIVES

To examine whether haloperidol plus promethazine is an effective treatment for psychosis-induced aggression.

SEARCH METHODS

On 6 May 2015 we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register of Trials, which is compiled by systematic searches of major resources (including MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, BIOSIS, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PubMed, and registries of clinical trials) and their monthly updates, handsearches, grey literature, and conference proceedings.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised clinical trials with useable data focusing on haloperidol plus promethazine for psychosis-induced aggression.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently extracted data. For binary outcomes, we calculated risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI), on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we estimated the mean difference (MD) between groups and its 95% CI. We employed a fixed-effect model for analyses. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and created 'Summary of findings' tables using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We found two new randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from the 2015 update searching. The review now includes six studies, randomising 1367 participants and presenting data relevant to six comparisons.When haloperidol plus promethazine was compared with haloperidol alone for psychosis-induced aggression for the outcome not tranquil or asleep at 30 minutes, the combination treatment was clearly more effective (n=316, 1 RCT, RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.87, high-quality evidence). There were 10 occurrences of acute dystonia in the haloperidol alone arm and none in the combination group. The trial was stopped early as haloperidol alone was considered to be too toxic.When haloperidol plus promethazine was compared with olanzapine, high-quality data showed both approaches to be tranquillising. It was suggested that the combination of haloperidol plus promethazine was more effective, but the difference between the two approaches did not reach conventional levels of statistical significance (n=300, 1 RCT, RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.61, high-quality evidence). Lower-quality data suggested that the risk of unwanted excessive sedation was less with the combination approach (n=116, 2 RCTs, RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.12 to 3.84).When haloperidol plus promethazine was compared with ziprasidone all data were of lesser quality. We identified no binary data for the outcome tranquil or asleep. The average sedation score (Ramsay Sedation Scale) was lower for the combination approach but not to conventional levels of statistical significance (n=60, 1 RCT, MD -0.1, 95% CI - 0.58 to 0.38). These data were of low quality and it is unclear what they mean in clinical terms. The haloperidol plus promethazine combination appeared to cause less excessive sedation but again the difference did not reach conventional levels of statistical significance (n=111, 2 RCTs, RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.43).We found few data for the comparison of haloperidol plus promethazine versus haloperidol plus midazolam. Average Ramsay Sedation Scale scores suggest the combination of haloperidol plus midazolam to be the most sedating (n=60, 1 RCT, MD - 0.6, 95% CI -1.13 to -0.07, low-quality evidence). The risk of excessive sedation was considerably less with haloperidol plus promethazine (n=117, 2 RCTs, RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.49, low-quality evidence). Haloperidol plus promethazine seemed to decrease the risk of needing restraints by around 12 hours (n=60, 1 RCT, RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.55, low-quality evidence). It may be that use of midazolam with haloperidol sedates swiftly, but this effect does not last long.When haloperidol plus promethazine was compared with lorazepam, haloperidol plus promethazine seemed to more effectively cause sedation or tranquillisation by 30 minutes (n=200, 1 RCT, RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.68, high-quality evidence). The secondary outcome of needing restraints or seclusion by 12 hours was not clearly different between groups, with about 10% in each group needing this intrusive intervention (moderate-quality evidence). Sedation data were not reported, however, the combination group did have less 'any serious adverse event' in 24-hour follow-up, but there were not clear differences between the groups and we are unsure exactly what the adverse effect was. There were no deaths.When haloperidol plus promethazine was compared with midazolam, there was clear evidence that midazolam is more swiftly tranquillising of an aggressive situation than haloperidol plus promethazine (n=301, 1 RCT, RR 2.90, 95% CI 1.75 to 4.8, high-quality evidence). On its own, midazolam seems to be swift and effective in tranquillising people who are aggressive due to psychosis. There was no difference in risk of serious adverse event overall (n=301, 1 RCT, RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.95, high-quality evidence). However, 1 in 150 participants allocated haloperidol plus promethazine had a swiftly reversed seizure, and 1 in 151 given midazolam had swiftly reversed respiratory arrest.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Haloperidol plus promethazine is effective and safe, and its use is based on good evidence. Benzodiazepines work, with midazolam being particularly swift, but both midazolam and lorazepam cause respiratory depression. Olanzapine intramuscular and ziprasidone intramuscular do seem to be viable options and their action is swift, but resumption of aggression with subsequent need to re-inject was more likely than with haloperidol plus promethazine. Haloperidol used on its own without something to offset its frequent and serious adverse effects does seem difficult to justify.

Deprivation of Liberty in Psychiatric Hospital Care: the Patient's Perspective

Deprivation of liberty in psychiatric hospitals is common world-wide. The aim of this study was to find out whether patients had experienced deprivation of their liberty during psychiatric hospitalization and to explore their views about it. Patients (n = 51) in two acute psychiatric inpatient wards were interviewed in 2001. They were asked to describe in their own words their experiences of being deprived of their liberty. The data were analysed by inductive content analysis. The types of deprivation of liberty in psychiatric hospital care reported by these patients were: restrictions on leaving the ward and on communication, confiscation of property, and various coercive measures. The patients' experiences of being deprived of their liberty were negative, although some saw the rationale for using these interventions, considering them as part of hospital care.

[Schizophrenia spectrum disorders in elderly patients : Analysis of reasons for admission to a department of geriatric psychiatry]

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to analyze the possible reasons for acute admission to a department for geriatric psychiatry. The reasons for hospitalization, the psychiatric and somatic comorbidities of the patients over 65 years old with schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder and delusional disorder were examined to identify patterns and risk profiles.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis was carried out using paper and electronic patient records of a department of acute care for geriatric psychiatry and psychotherapy. During the assessment period 206 successive patients over 65 years old were included in the study. The patient cohort included 64 patients with schizophrenia according to the international classification of diseases 10 (ICD-10, category F20), 78 patients with persistent delusional disorder (ICD-10, F22) and 64 patients with schizoaffective disorder (ICD-10, F25).

RESULTS

The reason for admission for one third of the patients in all three groups was aggressive behavior, whereas delusions and hallucinations were more frequent in the groups of F20 and F22 patients than in patients with schizoaffective disorders (F25). Somatic comorbidities were seen significantly more often in the group of F22 patients than in the other two groups.

CONCLUSION

Acute admission was essentially due to acute psychiatric symptoms. Additional somatic comorbidities and psychosocial influencing factors played only a minor role in this study. The patients examined in this study constituted a special group within the acute treatment of inpatient psychiatry because they showed distinctive psychopathological productive symptoms but were relatively healthy from a somatic point of view. Patients with the diagnosis of schizophrenia (F20) or schizoaffective disorder (F25) were significantly different from patients classified into the group of delusional disorders (F22).

Mental Health Nursing, Mechanical Restraint Measures and Patients' Legal Rights

Coercive mechanical restraint (MR) in psychiatry constitutes the perhaps most extensive exception from the common health law requirement for involving patients in health care decisions and achieving their informed consent prior to treatment. Coercive measures and particularly MR seriously collide with patient autonomy principles, pose a particular challenge to psychiatric patients' legal rights, and put intensified demands on health professional performance. Legal rights principles require rationale for coercive measure use be thoroughly considered and rigorously documented. This article presents an in-principle Danish Psychiatric Complaint Board decision concerning MR use initiated by untrained staff. The case illustrates that, judicially, weight must be put on the patient perspective on course of happenings and especially when health professional documentation is scant, patients' rights call for taking notice of patient evaluations. Consequently, if it comes out that psychiatric staff failed to pay appropriate consideration for the patient's mental state, perspective, and expressions, patient response deviations are to be judicially interpreted in this light potentially rendering MR use illegitimated. While specification of law criteria might possibly improve law use and promote patients' rights, education of psychiatry professionals must address the need for, as far as possible, paying due regard to meeting patient perspectives and participation principles as well as formal law and documentation requirements.

An integrative review exploring decision-making factors influencing mental health nurses in the use of restraint

WHAT IS KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT?: There is emerging evidence highlighting the counter therapeutic impact of the use of restraint and promoting the minimization of this practice in mental health care. Mental health nurses are often the professional group using restraint and understanding factors influencing their decision-making becomes critical. To date, there are no other published papers that have undertaken a similar broad search to review this topic. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS TO EXISTING KNOWLEDGE?: Eight emerging themes are identified as factors influencing mental health nurses decisions-making in the use of restraint. The themes are: 'safety for all', 'restraint as a necessary intervention', 'restraint as a last resort', 'role conflict', 'maintaining control', 'staff composition', 'knowledge and perception of patient behaviours', and 'psychological impact'. 'Last resort' appears to be the mantra of acceptable restraint use, although, to date, there are no studies that specifically consider what this concept actually is. WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE?: These findings should be considered in the evaluation of the use of restraint in mental health settings and appropriate strategies placed to support shifting towards restraint minimization. As the concept of 'last resort' is mentioned in many policies and guidelines internationally with no published understanding of what this means, research should prioritize this as a critical next step in restraint minimization efforts.

INTRODUCTION

While mechanical and manual restraint as an institutional method of control within mental health settings may be perceived to seem necessary at times, there is emergent literature highlighting the potential counter-therapeutic impact of this practice for patients as well as staff. Nurses are the professional group who are most likely to use mechanical and manual restraint methods within mental health settings. In-depth insights to understand what factors influence nurses' decision-making related to restraint use are therefore warranted.

AIM

To explore what influences mental health nurses' decision-making in the use of restraint.

METHOD

An integrative review using Cooper's framework was undertaken.

RESULTS

Eight emerging themes were identified: 'safety for all', 'restraint as a necessary intervention', 'restraint as a last resort', 'role conflict', 'maintaining control', 'staff composition', 'knowledge and perception of patient behaviours', and 'psychological impact'. These themes highlight how mental health nurses' decision-making is influenced by ethical and safety responsibilities, as well as, interpersonal and staff-related factors.

CONCLUSION

Research to further understand the experience and actualization of 'last resort' in the use of restraint and to provide strategies to prevent restraint use in mental health settings are needed.

Contenção física no hospital psiquiátrico: estudo transversal das práticas e fatores de risco

RESUMO Objetivos Descrever a utilização da contenção física em um hospital psiquiátrico público e analisar os fatores de risco associados com seu uso, no contexto da implantação de um protocolo clínico. Métodos Em um hospital psiquiátrico público de Belo Horizonte-MG, os formulários de registro e monitoramento de contenção física (2011-2012) foram analisados e comparados com os registros das demais internações englobadas no mesmo período. Neste estudo transversal, além das análises descritivas das características clínicas e demográficas dos pacientes contidos, das técnicas utilizadas e das complicações reportadas, os fatores de risco associados com o uso da contenção foram analisados por meio de regressão logística múltipla. Resultados A contenção foi utilizada em 13,4% das internações, sendo mais comum em pacientes jovens, do sexo masculino, portadores de psicoses não orgânicas, apresentando agitação/agressividade. A técnica foi geralmente de quatro pontos, durando entre 61-240 minutos. Os únicos fatores de risco significativos para o uso da contenção incluíram a idade (OR = 0,98; p = 0,008) e o tempo de permanência (OR = 1,01; p < 0,001). Conclusões A contenção física foi utilizada usualmente na abordagem aguda do paciente agitado/agressivo inabordável verbalmente, no contexto de um transtorno psicótico. O registro dos dados vitais e dos efeitos adversos foram os itens menos aderentes aos protocolos vigentes.

Consumers and Carer perspectives on poor practice and the use of seclusion and restraint in mental health settings: results from Australian focus groups

BACKGROUND

Seclusion and restraint are interventions currently permitted for use in mental health services to control or manage a person's behaviour. In Australia, serious concerns about the use of such seclusion and restraint have been raised at least since 1993. Consumers and their supporters have also expressed strong views about the harm of these practices. This paper presents the results of ten focus group discussions with people with lived experience of mental health issues and also carers, family members and support persons in relation to the use of seclusion and restraint.

METHODS

The 30 consumers and 36 supporters participating in the focus groups convened in four Australian cities and one regional centre discussed their understandings of the use of seclusion and restraint and its impact on the people involved. Participants also presented their observations about poor practice and what contributes to it as well as providing ideas and recommendations regarding strategies to reduce or eliminate seclusion and restraint. Focus group discussions were recorded and transcribed, then analysed using the NVivo 10 qualitative data analysis software with a general inductive approach used to analyse data. This analysis enabled consideration of the responses to key questions in the focus groups as well as the identification of emerging themes.

RESULTS

Six themes emerged from the analysis, these being: human rights, trauma, control, isolation, dehumanisation and 'othering', and anti-recovery. Examples of poor practice identified by focus groups included the use of excessive force, lack of empathy/paternalistic attitudes, lack of communication and interaction and a lack of alternative strategies to the use of seclusion and restraint. There was a confluence of factors identified by participants as contributing to poor practice, with the main factors being organisational culture, the physical environment, under-resourced mental health services and fear and stigma.

CONCLUSIONS

Focus group participants in the main viewed seclusion and restraint practices in mental health settings as unnecessarily overused, exacerbating problems for individuals, carers, staff and the broader system of care. This study highlights that lived experience of both consumers and their supporters can make an important contribution to mental health services and its ongoing reform.

One-year incidence and prevalence of seclusion: Dutch findings in an international perspective

BACKGROUND

The Netherlands started a nationwide coercion reduction program in 2007. In 2011, accurate registration of coercive measures became obligatory by law.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare number and duration of coercive measures in the Netherlands with international data.

METHODS

2011 data on coercive measures were collected, using a system developed in Germany. To understand determinants of coercion, multilevel logistic regression was performed.

RESULTS

12.0 % (n = 5169) of patients (n = 42.960) in 2011 experienced at least one coercive measure. Exposure to coercion was comparable to other countries, and duration was higher. Medication use seemed to half average times in seclusion. In the Netherlands, coercion mainly constituted of seclusion and occurred in bipolar and psychotic disorders. In Germany, coercion was mostly mechanical restraint and occurred in organic disorders and schizophrenia.

CONCLUSIONS

Gathering comprehensive data allows comparisons between countries, increasing our understanding of the impact of different cultures, legislation and health care systems on coercion. In the Netherlands, seclusion is still the main type of coercion, despite significant improvements in the last few years. It is shorter when applied in combination with enforced medication.

The Use of Physical Restraint in Norwegian Adult Psychiatric Hospitals

Background. The use of coercion within the psychiatric services is problematic and raises a range of ethical, legal, and clinical questions. “Physical restraint” is an emergency procedure used in psychiatric hospitals to control patients that pose an imminent physical danger. We wished to review the literature published in scientific peer-reviewed journals describing studies on the use of physical restraint in Norway, in order to identify the current state of knowledge and directions for future research. Design. The databases PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Embase were searched for studies relating to physical restraint (including holding) in Norwegian psychiatric hospitals, supplemented with hand searches. Results. 28 studies were included. Most of the studies were on rates of restraint, but there were also some studies on perceptions of patients and staff, case studies, and ethnographic studies. There was only one intervention study. There are differences in use between wards and institutions, which in part may be explained by differences in patient populations. Staff appear to be less negative to the use of restraint than patients. Conclusions. The studies that were identified were primarily concerned with rates of use and with patients' and staff's perspectives. More interventional studies are needed to move the field forward.

Limiting Patients as a Nursing Practice in Psychiatric Intensive Care Units to Ensure Safety and Gain Control

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to describe how the limitation of patients is being practiced in psychiatric intensive care units.

DESIGN AND METHODS

A focused ethnographic methodology was applied. To gather data, the author conducted fieldwork involving participant observation.

FINDINGS

The results of the study are presented in two categories, which describe the limited access patients had to items and in the ward environments.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

It is advisable for practitioners to critically reflect upon local regulations and policies related to the practice of limiting patients during the worst phase of their mental illness.

Understanding Mental Health Service User Experiences of Restraint Through Debriefing: A Qualitative Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To examine debriefing data to understand experiences before, during, and after a restraint (seclusion, chemical, and physical) event from the perspective of inpatients at a large urban mental health and addiction hospital.

METHOD

Audits were conducted on a purposeful sample of inpatient charts containing post-restraint event inpatient debrief forms (n = 55). Qualitative data from the forms were analyzed thematically.

RESULTS

Loss of autonomy and related anger, conflict with staff and other inpatients, and unmet needs were the most common factors precipitating restraint events. Inpatients often reported that increased communication with staff could have prevented restraint. Inpatients described having had various negative emotional states and responses during restraint events, including fear and rejection. Post-restraint, inpatients often desired to leave the unit for fresh air or to engage in leisure activities.

CONCLUSIONS

To our knowledge, our study is the first to use debriefing form data to explore mental health inpatients' experiences of restraint. Inpatients view restraint negatively and do not experience it as a therapeutic intervention. Debriefing, guided by a form, is useful for understanding the inpatient's experience of restraint, and should be used to re-establish the therapeutic relationship and to inform plans of care. In addition, individual and collective inpatient perspectives should inform alternatives to restraint.

Health service use and costs associated with aggressiveness or agitation and containment in adult psychiatric care: a systematic review of the evidence

BACKGROUND

Agitation and containment are frequent in psychiatric care but little is known about their costs. The aim was to evaluate the use of services and costs related to agitation and containment of adult patients admitted to a psychiatric hospital or emergency service.

METHODS

Systematic searches of four electronic databases covering the period January 1998-January 2014 were conducted. Manual searches were also performed. Paper selection and data extraction were performed in duplicate. Cost data were converted to euros in 2014.

RESULTS

Ten studies met inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis (retrospective cohorts, prospective cohorts and cost-of-illness studies). Evaluated in these studies were length of stay, readmission rates and medication. Eight studies assessed the impact of agitation on the length of stay and six showed that it was associated with longer stays. Four studies examined the impact of agitation on readmission and a statistically significant increase in the probability of readmission of agitated patients was observed. Two studies evaluated medication. One study showed that the mean medication dose was higher in agitated patients and the other found higher costs of treatment compared with non-agitated patients in the unadjusted analysis. One study estimated the costs of conflict and containment incurred in acute inpatient psychiatric care in the UK. The estimation for the year 2014 of total annual cost per ward for all conflict was €182,616 and €267,069 for containment based on updated costs from 2005.

CONCLUSIONS

Agitation has an effect on healthcare use and costs in terms of longer length of stay, more readmissions and higher drug use. Evidence is scarce and further research is needed to estimate the burden of agitation and containment from the perspective of hospitals and the healthcare system.

The methodical work approach and the reduction in the use of seclusion: how did it work?

The prevention of seclusion and other coercive measures has become a priority for mental health facilities, and numerous comprehensive programs to reduce the use of these containment procedures, have been developed. It is, however, poorly understood which interventions or elements of programs are effective and by which mechanisms or processes change is mediated. The present study explores the effects of an intervention by which a reduction in the use of seclusion was achieved. The intervention concerned a transformation of the treatment process, based on the principles of the methodical work approach, at a ward for the intensive treatment of patients with psychosis and substance use disorders. Changes in the working practice and team process were analyzed on the basis of case examples and team evaluation. The methodical work approach appears to have provided a guidance for the multidisciplinary team, the patient and the family to work together in a systematic and goal-directed way with cyclic evaluation and readjustment of the treatment and nurse care plan. Also implicit, positive changes were found in the team process: increased interdisciplinary collaboration, team cohesion, and professionalization. It is argued that the implicit or non-specific effects of an intervention to prevent seclusion may constitute a major contribution to the results and therefore merit further research.

Dealing with ethical challenges: a focus group study with professionals in mental health care

Background

Little is known about how health care professionals deal with ethical challenges in mental health care, especially when not making use of a formal ethics support service. Understanding this is important in order to be able to support the professionals, to improve the quality of care, and to know in which way future ethics support services might be helpful.

Methods

Within a project on ethics, coercion and psychiatry, we executed a focus group interview study at seven departments with 65 health care professionals and managers. We performed a systematic and open qualitative analysis focusing on the question: ‘How do health care professionals deal with ethical challenges?’ We deliberately did not present a fixed definition or theory of ethical challenge.

Results

We categorized relevant topics into three subthemes: 1) Identification and presence of ethical challenges; 2) What do the participants actually do when dealing with an ethical challenge?; and 3) The significance of facing ethical challenges.

Results varied from dealing with ethical challenges every day and appreciating it as a positive part of working in mental health care, to experiencing ethical challenges as paralyzing burdens that cause a lot of stress and hinder constructive team cooperation. Some participants reported that they do not have the time and that they lack a specific methodology. Quite often, informal and retrospective ad-hoc meetings in small teams were organized. Participants struggled with what makes a challenge an ethical challenge and whether it differs from a professional challenge. When dealing with ethical challenges, a number of participants experienced difficulties handling disagreement in a constructive way. Furthermore, some participants plead for more attention for underlying intentions and justifications of treatment decisions.

Conclusions

The interviewed health care professionals dealt with ethical challenges in many different ways, often in an informal, implicit and reactive manner. This study revealed nine different categories of what health care professionals implicitly or explicitly conceive as ‘ethical challenges’. Future research should focus on how ethics support services, such as ethics reflection groups or moral case deliberation, can be of help with respect to dealing with ethical challenges and value disagreements in a constructive way.

When reduction strategies are put in place and mental health consumers are still secluded: an analysis of clinical and sociodemographic characteristics

Internationally, seclusion practices continue to be the subject of intense clinical health service and academic scrutiny. Despite extensive efforts to reduce and eliminate this controversial practice, seclusion remains a clinical intervention widely used in contemporary mental health service settings. Early identification of people who are at risk for seclusion and the timely application of alternative evidence-based interventions are critical for reducing incidents of seclusion in real-world practice settings. This retrospective study aimed to determine the relationship between sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, and the use of seclusion for those mental health consumers for whom evidence-based seclusion-reduction initiatives had little impact. A 12-month centred moving average was fitted to seclusion data from a psychiatric inpatient unit over 2 years to determine stabilization in seclusion reduction. The number of consumers admitted was calculated from the point of stabilization for 1 year (n = 469). In this cohort, univariate analysis sought to compare the characteristics of those who were secluded and those who were not. A multivariate logistic regression model was undertaken to associate future seclusion based on significant independent variables. Of those people admitted, 88 (19%) were secluded. The majority of seclusions occurred in the first 5 days (70/88, 79%). Multivariate logistic regression indicated that three variables maintained their independent associative risk of seclusion: (i) age less than 35 years; (ii) assessment of risk of violence to others; and (iii) a history of seclusion. The implications of these findings for nursing practice are discussed.

[Psychiatry with open doors. Part 1: Rational for an open door for acute psychiatry]

Despite the reform efforts of the last decades modern acute psychiatry still stands between conflicting priorities in everyday practice. The protection of patient autonomy might conflict with a regulatory mandate of psychiatry in societal contexts and the necessity of coercive measures and involuntary treatment might become problematic with respect to presumed but contentious interests of the patient. The conflicts particularly concern questions of involuntary commitment, door closing, coercive and isolation measures. Research on the topic of therapeutic effectiveness of these practices is rare. Accordingly, the practice depends on the federal state, hospital and ward and is very heterogeneous. Epidemiological prognosis predicts an increase of psychiatric disorders; however, simultaneously in terms of medical ethics the warranty of patient autonomy, shared decision-making and informed consent in psychiatry become increasingly more important. This challenges structural and practical changes in psychiatry, particularly in situations of self and third party endangerment which are outlined and a rationale for an opening of the doors in acute psychiatric wards is provided.

Clinical and organizational factors related to the reduction of mechanical restraint application in an acute ward: an 8-year retrospective analysis

Background:

The purpose of this study was to describe the frequency of mechanical restraint use in an acute psychiatric ward and to analyze which variables may have significantly influenced the use of this procedure. Methods: This retrospective study was conducted in the Servizio Psichiatrico di Diagnosi e Cura (SPDC) of Modena Centro. The following variables of our sample, represented by all restrained patients admitted from 1-1-2005 to 31-12-2012, were analyzed: age, gender, nationality, psychiatric diagnoses, organic comorbidity, state and duration of admission, motivation and duration of restraints, nursing shift and hospitalization day of restraint, number of patients admitted at the time of restraint and institutional changes during the observation period. The above variables were statistically compared with those of all other non-restrained patients admitted to our ward in the same period. Results: Mechanical restraints were primarily used as a safety procedure to manage aggressive behavior of male patients, during the first days of hospitalization and night shifts. Neurocognitive disorders, organic comorbidity, compulsory state and long duration of admission were statistically significantly related to the increase of restraint use (p<.001, multivariate logistic regression). Institutional changes, especially more restricted guidelines concerning restraint application, were statistically significantly related to restraint use reduction (p<.001, chi2 test, multivariate logistic regression). Conclusion: The data obtained highlight that mechanical restraint use was influenced not only by clinical factors, but mainly by staff and policy factors, which have permitted a gradual but significant reduction in the use of this procedure through a multidimensional approach.

Methodological and ethical challenges in studying patients' perceptions of coercion: a systematic mixed studies review

BACKGROUND

Despite improvements in psychiatric inpatient care, patient restrictions in psychiatric hospitals are still in use. Studying perceptions among patients who have been secluded or physically restrained during their hospital stay is challenging. We sought to review the methodological and ethical challenges in qualitative and quantitative studies aiming to describe patients' perceptions of coercive measures, especially seclusion and physical restraints during their hospital stay.

METHODS

Systematic mixed studies review was the study method. Studies reporting patients' perceptions of coercive measures, especially seclusion and physical restraints during hospital stay were included. Methodological issues such as study design, data collection and recruitment process, participants, sampling, patient refusal or non-participation, and ethical issues such as informed consent process, and approval were synthesized systematically. Electronic searches of CINALH, MEDLINE, PsychINFO and The Cochrane Library (1976-2012) were carried out.

RESULTS

Out of 846 initial citations, 32 studies were included, 14 qualitative and 18 quantitative studies. A variety of methodological approaches were used, although descriptive and explorative designs were used in most cases. Data were mainly collected in qualitative studies by interviews (n = 13) or in quantitative studies by self-report questionnaires (n = 12). The recruitment process was explained in 59% (n = 19) of the studies. In most cases convenience sampling was used, yet five studies used randomization. Patient's refusal or non-participation was reported in 37% (n = 11) of studies. Of all studies, 56% (n = 18) had reported undergone an ethical review process in an official board or committee. Respondents were informed and consent was requested in 69% studies (n = 22).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of different study designs made comparison methodologically challenging. The timing of data collection (considering bias and confounding factors) and the reasons for non-participation of eligible participants are likewise methodological challenges, e.g. recommended flow charts could aid the information. Other challenges identified were the recruitment of large and representative samples. Ethical challenges included requesting participants' informed consent and respecting ethical procedures.

Reduction in the use of seclusion by the methodical work approach

Patient care in a psychiatric setting can benefit from a more systematic, transparent, and goal-driven way of working. The methodical work approach, with its cyclic five phases, provides such an approach: (i) translation of problems into goals; (ii) search for means to realize the goals; (iii) formulation of an individualized plan; (iv) implementation of the plan; and (v) evaluation and readjustment. We examined the effect of the methodical work approach on the use of seclusion at a ward for the intensive treatment of inpatients with psychoses and substance-use disorders. The team of this ward implemented the methodical work approach. Special attention was paid to the involvement of the patient and his/her family in the treatment process and to the role of the coordinating nurse. Compared to control wards within the same hospital, at the ward where the methodical work approach was implemented, a more pronounced reduction was achieved in the number of incidents and in the total hours of seclusion. Implementation of the methodical work approach can contribute to a reduction in the use of seclusion.

Attitudes of clinical staff toward the causes and management of aggression in acute old age psychiatry inpatient units

BACKGROUND

In psychiatry, most of the focus on patient aggression has been in adolescent and adult inpatient settings. This behaviour is also common in elderly people with mental illness, but little research has been conducted into this problem in old age psychiatry settings. The attitudes of clinical staff toward aggression may affect the way they manage this behaviour. The purpose of this study was to examine the attitudes of clinical staff toward the causes and management of aggression in acute old age psychiatry inpatient settings.

METHODS

A convenience sample of clinical staff were recruited from three locked acute old age psychiatry inpatient units in Melbourne, Australia. They completed the Management of Aggression and Violence Scale, which assessed the causes and managment of aggression in psychiatric settings.

RESULTS

Eighty-five staff completed the questionnaire, comprising registered nurses (61.1%, n = 52), enrolled nurses (27.1%, n = 23) and medical and allied health staff (11.8%, n = 10). A range of causative factors contributed to aggression. The respondents had a tendency to disagree that factors directly related to the patient contributed to this behaviour. They agreed patients were aggressive because of the environment they were in, other people contributed to them becoming aggressive, and patients from certain cultural groups were prone to these behaviours. However, there were mixed views about whether patient aggression could be prevented, and this type of behaviour took place because staff did not listen to patients. There was agreement medication was a valuable approach for the management of aggression, negotiation could be used more effectively in such challenging behaviour, and seclusion and physical restraint were sometimes used more than necessary. However, there was disagreement about whether the practice of secluding patients should be discontinued.

CONCLUSIONS

Aggression in acute old age psychiatry inpatient units occurs occasionally and is problematic. A range of causative factors contribute to the onset of this behaviour. Attitudes toward the management of aggression are complex and somewhat contradictory and can affect the way staff manage this behaviour; therefore, wide-ranging initiatives are needed to prevent and deal with this type of challenging behaviour.

The effects of a changing culture on a child and adolescent psychiatric inpatient unit

OBJECTIVES

To examine the impact of restructuring a child and adolescent psychiatry inpatient unit on reportable incidents (including verbal or physical aggression), seclusion, security, constant observation, sick leave and lengths of stay.

METHODS

Data was collected regarding a seven-bed child and adolescent psychiatric unit between 2008 and 2010, comparing data from 2008 and 2009 (before) to 2010 (after).

RESULTS

Occurrences, sick leave, security, seclusion and constant observation all decreased in 2010 compared to 2008 and 2009, although only the decrease in constant observation was statistically significant. Length of stay was not affected.

CONCLUSIONS

A broad representation of multidisciplinary team members, increased consistency and improved communication may be associated with reductions in reportable incidents, seclusion, security and constant observation.

Does experienced seclusion or restraint affect psychiatric patients' subjective quality of life at discharge?

Background

In Finland major effort has been invested in reducing the use of coercion in psychiatric treatment, and the goal is to diminish the use of coercion by 40% by 2015. Improving patients’ quality of life (QoL) has gained prominence in psychiatric treatment during the past decade. Numerous studies have shown that most secluded or restrained patients (S/R patients) would prefer not to have had this experience. Experience of S/R could affect negatively patients’ QoL, but empirical data on this issue are lacking.

Aim

The study aimed to explore the effect of experienced S/R on the subjective QoL of psychiatric in-patients.

Method

This study explored subjective QoL of the S/R patients. At discharge, S/R patients completed the Short Form of the Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire (Q-LES-Q-SF).

Results

We found that S/R patients’ (n = 36) subjective QoL was significantly better than that of non-S/R patients’ (n = 228). Most non-S/R patients were diagnosed with mood disorders (mostly depression). Most of S/R patients were diagnosed with schizophrenia, schizotypal and delusional disorders. The mean duration of S/R was 2.3 days, median was one day and mean length of the hospitalization after S/R episode was 2.5 months.

Conclusion

Our cross-sectional findings suggest that S/R does not considerably influence patients’ QoL or that the influence is short-lived. Because baseline QoL was not measured this remains uncertain. There are also many other factors, such as negative mood, which decrease the patients’ QoL ratings. These factors may either mask the influence of S/R on QoL or modify the experience of QoL to such an extent that no independent association can be found at the time of discharge.

Optimizing arousal to manage aggression: a pilot study of sensory modulation

The dominant model that informs clinical training for preventing violence and managing aggression posits arousal as mediated downwards from higher cortical structures. This view results in an often-misplaced reliance on verbal and cognitive techniques for de-escalation. The emergence of sensory modulation, via the Six Core Strategies, is an alternative or complementary approach that is associated with reduced rates of seclusion and restraint. Sensory-based interventions are thought to promote adaptive regulation of arousal and emotion, but this connection has had limited theoretical and empirical development. This paper presents results of a pilot trial of sensory-based interventions in four inpatient mental health units in New Zealand. Narrative analysis of interview and focus group data suggest that modifications to the environment and the use of soothing stimuli moderate or optimize arousal and promote an ability to adaptively regulate emotion. Findings are discussed in light of recent advances in the neurophysiology of emotional regulation and the General Aggression Model that posits arousal and maladaptive emotional regulation as precursors to aggression.

Frequency, characteristics and management of adolescent inpatient aggression

BACKGROUND

Inpatient aggression is a serious challenge in pediatric psychiatry.

METHODS

A chart review study in adolescent psychiatric inpatients consecutively admitted over 24 months was conducted, to describe aggressive events requiring an intervention (AERI) and to characterize their management. AERIs were identified based on specific institutional event forms and/or documentation of as-needed (STAT/PRN) medication administration for aggression, both recorded by nursing staff.

RESULTS

Among 408 adolescent inpatients (age: 15.2±1.6 years, 43.9% male), 1349 AERIs were recorded, with ≥1 AERI occurring in 28.4% (n=116; AERI+). However, the frequency of AERIs was highly skewed (median 4, range: 1-258). In a logistical regression model, the primary diagnosis at discharge of disruptive behavior disorders and bipolar disorders, history of previous inpatient treatment, length of hospitalization, and absence of a specific precipitant prior to admission were significantly associated with AERIs (R(2)=0.32; p<0.0001). The first line treatment of patients with AERIs (AERI+) was pharmacological in nature (95.6%). Seclusion or restraint (SRU) was used at least once in 59.4% of the AERI+ subgroup (i.e., in 16.9% of all patients; median within-group SRU frequency: 3). Treatment and discharge characteristics indicated a poorer prognosis in the AERI+ (discharge to residential care AERI+: 22.8%, AERI-: 5.6%, p<0.001) and a greater need for psychotropic polypharmacy (median number of psychotropic medications AERI+: 2; AERI-: 1, p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite high rates of pharmacological interventions, SRU continue to be used in adolescent inpatient care. As both of these approaches lack a clear evidence base, and as adolescents with clinically significant inpatient aggression have increased illness acuity/severity and service needs, structured research into the most appropriate inpatient aggression management is sorely needed.

Benzodiazepines for psychosis-induced aggression or agitation

BACKGROUND

Acute psychotic illness, especially when associated with agitated or violent behaviour, can require urgent pharmacological tranquillisation or sedation. In several countries, clinicians often use benzodiazepines (either alone or in combination with antipsychotics) for this outcome.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the effects of benzodiazepines, alone or in combination with antipsychotics, when compared with placebo or antipsychotics, alone or in combination with antihistamines, to control disturbed behaviour and reduce psychotic symptoms.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's register (January 2012), inspected reference lists of included and excluded studies and contacted authors of relevant studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised clinical trials (RCTs) comparing benzodiazepines alone or in combination with any antipsychotics, versus antipsychotics alone or in combination with any other antipsychotics, benzodiazepines or antihistamines, for people with acute psychotic illnesses.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We reliably selected studies, quality assessed them and extracted data. For binary outcomes, we calculated standard estimates of relative risk (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) using a fixed-effect model. For continuous outcomes, we calculated the mean difference (MD) between groups. If heterogeneity was identified, this was explored using a random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 21 trials with a total of n = 1968 participants. There was no significant difference for most outcomes in the one trial that compared benzodiazepines with placebo, although there was a higher risk of no improvement in people receiving placebo in the medium term (one to 48 hours) (n = 102, 1 RCT, RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.97, very low quality evidence). There was no difference in the number of participants who had not improved in the medium term when benzodiazepines were compared with antipsychotics (n = 308, 5 RCTs, RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.42, low quality evidence); however, people receiving benzodiazepines were less likely to experience extrapyramidal effects (EPS) in the medium term (n = 536, 8 RCTs, RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.39, moderate quality of evidence). Data comparing combined benzodiazepines and antipsychotics versus benzodiazepines alone did not yield any significant results. When comparing combined benzodiazepines/antipsychotics (all studies compared haloperidol) with the same antipsychotics alone (haloperidol), there was no difference between groups in improvement in the medium term (n = 155, 3 RCTs, RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.70, very low quality evidence) but sedation was more likely in people who received the combination therapy (n = 172, 3 RCTs, RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.14 to 2.67, very low quality evidence). However, more participants receiving combined benzodiazepines and haloperidol had not improved by medium term when compared to participants receiving olanzapine (n = 60,1 RCT, RR 25.00, 95% CI 1.55 to 403.99, very low quality evidence) or ziprasidone (n = 60, 1 RCT, RR 4.00, 95% CI 1.25 to 12.75 very low quality evidence). When haloperidol and midazolam were compared with olanzapine, there was some evidence the combination was superior in terms of improvement, sedation and behaviour.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence from trials for the use of benzodiazepines alone is not good. There were relatively little good data and most trials are too small to highlight differences in either positive or negative effects. Adding a benzodiazepine to other drugs does not seem to confer clear advantage and has potential for adding unnecessary adverse effects. Sole use of older antipsychotics unaccompanied by anticholinergic drugs seems difficult to justify. Much more high quality research is needed in this area.

Professionals' attitudes after a seclusion reduction program: anything changed?

Changing professionals' attitudes toward seclusion is seen as an important condition to reduce its use. The purpose of this study was to determine whether professionals from a mental health institute in the Netherlands changed in their attitudes toward seclusion after implementation of a multifaceted seclusion reduction program. Professionals working on four acute admission wards filled in the Professional Attitudes Toward Seclusion Questionnaire (PATS-Q) before and after a seclusion reduction program. Changes were analyzed by comparing mean scores on the PATS-Q. After the program, professionals scored significantly higher on 'ethics' and 'more care'. As expected, no change occurred on 'reasons' for the use of seclusion. In addition, no significant changes were found on 'confidence', 'better care' and 'other care'. Significant changes in professional attitudes concerning the ethics of using seclusion and involving issues of more care were observed after a seclusion reduction program. Mental health professionals moved in the direction of 'transformers', indicating an increased criticism of the practice of seclusion and increased willingness to change their own use of seclusion.

Differences in seclusion rates between admission wards: does patient compilation explain?

Comparison of seclusion figures between wards in Dutch psychiatric hospitals showed substantial differences in number and duration of seclusions. In the opinion of nurses and ward managers, these differences may predominantly be explained by differences in patient characteristics, as these are expected to have a large impact on these seclusion rates. Nurses assume more admissions of severely ill patients are related to higher seclusion rates. In order to test this hypothesis, we investigated differences in patient and background characteristics of 718 secluded patients over 5,097 admissions on 29 different admission wards over seven Dutch psychiatric hospitals. We performed an extreme group analysis to explore the relationship between patient and ward characteristics and the wards' number of seclusion hours per 1,000 admission hours. In a multivariate and a multilevel analysis, various characteristics turned out to be related to the number of seclusion hours per 1,000 admission hours as well as to the likelihood of a patient being secluded, confirming the nurses assumptions. The extreme group analysis showed that seclusion rates depended on both patient and ward characteristics. A multivariate and multilevel analyses revealed that differences in seclusion hours between wards could partially be explained by ward size next to patient characteristics. However, the largest deal of the difference between wards in seclusion rates could not be explained by characteristics measured in this study. We concluded ward policy and adequate staffing may, in particular on smaller wards, be key issues in reduction of seclusion.

Haloperidol for psychosis-induced aggression or agitation (rapid tranquillisation)

BACKGROUND

Haloperidol, used alone is recommended to help calm situations of aggression with people with psychosis. This drug is widely accessible and may be the only antipsychotic medication available in areas where resources are limited.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether haloperidol alone, administered orally, intramuscularly or intravenously, is effective treatment for psychosis-induced agitation or aggression.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (1st June 2011).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled  trials (RCTs) involving people exhibiting agitation or aggression (or both) thought to be due to psychosis, allocated rapid use of haloperidol alone (by any route), compared with any other treatment. Outcomes included tranquillisation or asleep by 30 minutes, repeated need for rapid tranquillisation within 24 hours, specific behaviours (threat or injury to others/self), adverse effects.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently selected and assessed studies for methodological quality and extracted data. 'Summary of findings' tables were produced for each comparison grading the evidence and calculating, where possible and appropriate, a range of absolute effects.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 32 studies comparing haloperidol with 18 other treatments. Few studies were undertaken in circumstances that reflect real world practice, and, with notable exceptions, most were small and carried considerable risk of bias.Compared with placebo, more people in the haloperidol group were asleep at two hours (2 RCTs, n = 220, risk ratio (RR) 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 0.95). Dystonia was common (2 RCTs, n = 207, RR 7.49, CI 0.93 to 60.21). Compared with aripiprazole, people in the haloperidol group required fewer injections than those in the aripiprazole group (2 RCTs, n = 473, RR 0.78, CI 0.62 to 0.99). More people in the haloperidol group experienced dystonia (2 RCTs, n = 477, RR 6.63, CI 1.52 to 28.86).Despite three larger trials with ziprasidone (total n = 739), data remain patchy, largely because of poor design and reporting. Compared with zuclopenthixol acetate, more people who received haloperidol required more than three injections (1 RCT, n = 70, RR 2.54, CI 1.19 to 5.46).Three trials (n = 205) compared haloperidol with lorazepam. There were no significant differences between the groups with regard to the number of participants asleep at one hour (1 RCT, n = 60, RR 1.05, CI 0.76 to 1.44). However, by three hours, significantly more people were asleep in the lorazepam group compared with the haloperidol group (1 RCT, n = 66, RR 1.93, CI 1.14 to 3.27). There were no differences in numbers requiring more than one injection (1 RCT, n = 66, RR 1.14, CI 0.91 to 1.43).Haloperidol's adverse effects were not offset by addition of lorazepam (e.g. dystonia 1 RCT, n = 67, RR 8.25, CI 0.46 to 147.45; required antiparkinson medication RR 2.74, CI 0.81 to 9.25). Addition of promethazine was investigated in one larger and better graded trial (n = 316). More people in the haloperidol group were not tranquil or asleep by 20 minutes (RR 1.60, CI 1.18 to 2.16). Significantly more people in the haloperidol alone group experienced one or more adverse effects (RR 11.28, CI 1.47 to 86.35). Acute dystonia for those allocated haloperidol alone was too common for the trial to continue beyond the interim analysis (RR 19.48, CI 1.14 to 331.92).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

If no other alternative exists, sole use of intramuscular haloperidol could be life-saving. Where additional drugs to offset the adverse effects are available, sole use of haloperidol for the extreme emergency, in situations of coercion, could be considered unethical. Addition of the sedating promethazine has support from better-grade evidence from within randomised trials. Use of an alternative antipsychotic drug is only partially supported by fragmented and poor-grade evidence. Evidence for use of newer generation antipsychotic alternatives is no stronger than that for older drugs. Adding a benzodiazepine to haloperidol does not have strong evidence of benefit and carries a risk of additional harm.After six decades of use for emergency rapid tranquillisation, this is still an area in need of good independent trials relevant to real world practice.

Event sequencing of forced intramuscular medication in England

In most inpatient psychiatric care systems it is permissible in certain situations for staff to forcibly inject patients with psychotropic medication. The aim of this study is to describe what precedes and follows a coerced intramuscular injection within a nursing shift. Data were collected on the sequence of conflict (aggression, absconding, etc.) and containment (seclusion, restraint, etc.) for the first 2 weeks of 522 acute admissions on 84 wards in 31 UK hospitals. Injections were given to 9% of patients. Aggression, regular medication refusal and pro re nata (PRN) medication refusal preceded injections. The giving of coerced medication concluded most crises. Coerced medication effectively resolves crises in the short term. Staff should offer oral PRN as an alternative, unless this is unsafe. Where only verbal violence has occurred staff should try to resolve the crisis without enforcing medication. More research on the best way to respond to inpatients' medication refusal is required.

Physical restraints versus seclusion room for management of people with acute aggression or agitation due to psychotic illness (TREC-SAVE): a randomized trial

BACKGROUND

After de-escalation techniques have failed, restraints, seclusion and/or rapid tranquillization may be used for people whose aggression is due to psychosis. Most coercive acts of health care have not been evaluated in trials.

METHOD

People admitted to the emergency room of Instituto Philippe Pinel, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, whose aggression/agitation was thought due to psychosis and for whom staff were unsure if best to restrict using physical restraints or a seclusion room, were randomly allocated to one or the other and followed up to 14 days. The primary outcomes were 'no need to change intervention early - within 1 h' and 'not restricted by 4 h'.

RESULTS

A total of 105 people were randomized. Two-thirds of the people secluded were able to be fully managed in this way. Even taking into account the move out of seclusion into restraints, this study provides evidence that embarking on the less restrictive care pathway (seclusion) does not increase overall time in restriction of some sort [not restricted by 4 h: relative risk 1.09, 95% confidence interval 0.75-1.58; mean time to release: restraints 337.6 (s.d.=298.2) min, seclusion room 316.3 (s.d.=264.5) min, p=0.48]. Participants tended to be more satisfied with their care in the seclusion group (17.0% v. 11.1%) but this did not reach conventional levels of statistical significance (p=0.42).

CONCLUSIONS

This study should be replicated, but suggests that opting for the least restrictive option in circumstances where there is clinical doubt does not harm or prolong coercion.

The use of coercive measures in adolescent psychiatric inpatient treatment: a nation-wide register study

PURPOSE

To evaluate the extent and trends in the use of seclusion/restraint in psychiatric inpatient treatment of adolescents aged 12-17 years in Finland.

METHODS

The National Hospital Discharge Register data comprising all psychiatric inpatient treatment periods of 12- to 17 year-olds in Finland during the period 1996-2003 was used. Time trends, regional variation and patient characteristics related to the risk of being subjected to seclusion/restraint in psychiatric inpatient treatment are reported.

RESULTS

The average prevalence of use of seclusion and restraint was 1.71/10,000/year over the study period. Use of seclusion/restraint in adolescent psychiatric inpatient care first increased, peaking in 1999-2001, and then decreased. The decrease occurred after stricter legislative control of use of seclusion/restraint was introduced in 2002, despite that involuntary treatment periods did not decrease. Considerable regional variation was seen in the use of seclusion/restraint. A greater proportion of girls than boys were secluded/restrained. Seclusion/restraint was most common in schizophrenia, mood disorders and conduct disorder.

CONCLUSIONS

Legislative control had the desired immediate impact on the use of seclusion/restraint in adolescent psychiatric inpatient care. Legislative control is, however, not strong enough to ensure homogenous practices across the country, as there is many-fold regional variation in figures for using seclusion and restraint.

Evaluation of behavioral changes and subjective distress after exposure to coercive inpatient interventions

BACKGROUND

There is a lack of evidence to underpin decisions on what constitutes the most effective and least restrictive form of coercive intervention when responding to violent behavior. Therefore we compared ratings of effectiveness and subjective distress by 125 inpatients across four types of coercive interventions.

METHODS

Effectiveness was assessed through ratings of patient behavior immediately after exposure to a coercive measure and 24 h later. Subjective distress was examined using the Coercion Experience Scale at debriefing. Regression analyses were performed to compare these outcome variables across the four types of coercive interventions.

RESULTS

Using univariate statistics, no significant differences in effectiveness and subjective distress were found between the groups, except that patients who were involuntarily medicated experienced significant less isolation during the measure than patients who underwent combined measures. However, when controlling for the effect of demographic and clinical characteristics, significant differences on subjective distress between the groups emerged: involuntary medication was experienced as the least distressing overall and least humiliating, caused less physical adverse effects and less sense of isolation. Combined coercive interventions, regardless of the type, caused significantly more physical adverse effects and feelings of isolation than individual interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

In the absence of information on individual patient preferences, involuntary medication may be more justified than seclusion and mechanical restraint as a coercive intervention. Use of multiple interventions requires significant justification given their association with significant distress.

Zuclopenthixol acetate for acute schizophrenia and similar serious mental illnesses

BACKGROUND

Medication used for acute aggression in psychiatry must have rapid onset of effect, low frequency of administration and low levels of adverse effects. Zuclopenthixol acetate is said to have these properties.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the clinical effects of zuclopenthixol acetate for the management of acute aggression or violence thought to be due to serious mental illnesses, in comparison to other drugs used to treat similar conditions.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia's Group Trials Register (July 2011). We supplemented this by citation searching and personal contact with authors and relevant pharmaceutical companies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised clinical trials involving people thought to have serious mental illnesses comparing zuclopenthixol acetate with other drugs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors extracted and cross-checked data independently. We calculated fixed-effect relative risks (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous data. We analysed by intention-to-treat. We used mean differences (MD) for continuous variables.

MAIN RESULTS

We found no data for the primary outcome, tranquillisation. Compared with haloperidol, zuclopenthixol acetate was no more sedating at two hours (n = 40, 1 RCT, RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.34). People given zuclopenthixol acetate were not at reduced risk of being given supplementary antipsychotics (n = 134, 3 RCTs, RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.97 to 2.30) although additional use of benzodiazepines was less (n = 50, 1 RCT, RR 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.47). People given zuclopenthixol acetate had fewer injections over seven days compared with those allocated to haloperidol IM (n = 70, 1 RCT, RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.84, NNT 4, CI 3 to 14). We found no data on more episodes of aggression or harm to self or others. One trial (n = 148) reported no significant difference in adverse effects for people receiving zuclopenthixol acetate compared with those allocated haloperidol at one, three and six days (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.27). Compared with haloperidol or clotiapine, people allocated zuclopenthixol did not seem to be at more risk of a range of movement disorders (< 20%). Three studies found no difference in the proportion of people getting blurred vision/dry mouth (n = 192, 2 RCTs, RR at 24 hours 0.90, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.70). Similarly, dizziness was equally infrequent for those allocated zuclopenthixol acetate compared with haloperidol (n = 192, 2 RCTs, RR at 24 hours 1.15, 95% CI 0.46 to 2.88). There was no difference between treatments for leaving the study before completion (n = 522, RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.31 to 2.31). One study reported no difference in adverse effects and outcome scores, when high dose (50-100 mg/injection) zuclopenthixol acetate was compared with low dose (25-50 mg/injection) zuclopenthixol acetate.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Recommendations on the use of zuclopenthixol acetate for the management of psychiatric emergencies in preference to 'standard' treatment have to be viewed with caution. Most of the small trials present important methodological flaws and findings are poorly reported. This review did not find any suggestion that zuclopenthixol acetate is more or less effective in controlling aggressive acute psychosis, or in preventing adverse effects than intramuscular haloperidol, and neither seemed to have a rapid onset of action. Use of zuclopenthixol acetate may result in less numerous coercive injections and low doses of the drug may be as effective as higher doses. Well-conducted pragmatic randomised controlled trials are needed.

Physical restraints in an Italian psychiatric ward: clinical reasons and staff organization problems

PURPOSE

To analyze physical restraint use in an Italian acute psychiatric ward, where mechanical restraint by belt is highly discouraged but allowed.

DESIGN AND METHODS

Data were retrospectively collected from medical and nursing charts, from January 1, 2005, to December 31, 2008. Physical restraint rate and relationships between restraints and selected variables were statistically analyzed.

FINDINGS

Restraints were statistically significantly more frequent in compulsory or voluntary admissions of patients with an altered state of consciousness, at night, to control aggressive behavior, and in patients with "Schizophrenia and other Psychotic Disorders" during the first 72 hr of hospitalization.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Analysis of clinical and organizational factors conditioning restraints may limit its use.

Patients' preference and experiences of forced medication and seclusion

This study examined patients' preferences for coercive methods and the extent to which patients' choices were determined by previous experience, demographic, clinical and intervention-setting variables. Before discharge from closed psychiatric units, 161 adult patients completed a questionnaire. The association between patients' preferences and the underlying variables was analyzed using logistic regression. We found that patients' preferences were mainly defined by earlier experiences: patients without coercive experiences or who had had experienced seclusion and forced medication, favoured forced medication. Those who had been secluded preferred seclusion in future emergencies, but only if they approved its duration. This suggests that seclusion, if it does not last too long, does not have to be abandoned from psychiatric practices. In an emergency, however, most patients prefer to be medicated. Our findings show that patients' preferences cannot guide the establishment of international uniform methods for managing violent behaviour. Therefore patients' individual choices should be considered.