Seclusion and restraint for people with serious mental illnesses

Physical restraint in a therapeutic setting; a necessary evil?

Physical restraint of people experiencing mental health problems is a coercive and traumatic procedure which is only legally permitted if it is proportionate to the risk presented. This study sought to examine the decision-making processes used by mental health staff involved in a series of restraint episodes in an acute care setting. Thirty nurses were interviewed either individually or in focus groups to elicit their views on restraint and experience in specific incidents. Four factors which influenced the decision to restrain were identified: contextual demands; lack of alternatives; the escalatory effects of restraint itself; and perceptions of risk. While some of these factors are amenable to change through improvements in practice, training and organisational culture, nurses viewed restraint as a necessary evil, justified on the basis of the unpredictable nature of mental illness and the environment in which they worked.

Reducing the use of seclusion and restraint in psychiatric emergency and adult inpatient services- improving patient-centered care

The reduction of seclusion and restraint (S/R) use has been given national priority by the US government, The Joint Commission, and patient advocacy groups. It is associated with high rates of patient and staff injuries and is a coercive and potentially traumatizing intervention. The New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (HHC) is the largest municipal health care system in the country, with 11 HHC facilities operating psychiatric emergency services and inpatient psychiatric services. HHC operates 1117 adult inpatient psychiatric beds with an average length of stay of 22.2 days that generated over 19,000 discharges in 2009. In 2009, there were over 36,000 psychiatric emergency services visits. HHC's Office of Behavioral Health provides strategic leadership, planning, and support for the operations and quality objectives of these services. In January 2007, the corporate office initiated the Seclusion and Restraint Reduction Initiative, with a sequenced, intensive series of interventions and strategies to help focus the behavioral health leadership and staff on the need for continued culture change toward a more patient-centered and safe system of psychiatric emergency and adult inpatient care. From 2007 to 2009, there was a substantial decline in HHC's overall rate of S/R incidents in inpatient units. The more substantial impact was in the reduced overall time spent in S/R; the reduced frequency of use of S/R; and the reduced likelihood of patient injury from S/R use.

Management of aggressive behaviour among adolescents in forensic units: a four-country perspective

Management of aggressive behaviour is a challenge in adolescent forensic units. Aggressive behaviour endangers the safety of the treatment milieu for patients and nursing and multidisciplinary staff. However, there is a paucity of literature about how the staff manage aggressive behaviour among patients in adolescent forensic settings, and whether the nursing practices are similar across countries. The purpose of this study was to explore nursing practices used to manage adolescent aggressive behaviour in adolescent forensic units in four European countries. An exploratory, descriptive research approach was adopted for the study. A convenience sampling was used by selecting the staff members working in adolescent forensic units (Belgium n= 15, Finland n= 18, the Netherlands n= 16, the UK n= 9). Personal thematic interviews were used to collect the data; and for data analysis, qualitative content analysis was applied. Staff members preferred using verbal and less restrictive interventions when intervening in escalated situations and perceived the use of coercive measures as the last option. Differences between countries were found in the use of restrictive methods. The principles of aggression management were fairly similar across Europe, even if differences were reported in practical solutions.

Exploring patterns of seclusion use in Australian mental health services

Seclusion has remained a common practice in mental health services. In Australia, recent mental health policy has reflected a desire to reduce (and, if possible, eliminate) the use of seclusion. The collection and analysis of data on the use of seclusion have been identified as an important component of the success of reduction initiatives. A cross-sectional design was used in the collection of inpatient unit data on seclusions that occurred in 11 mental health services in Australia over a 6-month period. During this time, there were 4,337 episodes of care. One or more seclusions occurred in 6.8% of episodes of care, with consumers being secluded, on average, 2.32 times and with 44% of them having been secluded more than once. The average length of the seclusions was 2 hours 52 minutes, with 51.4% of seclusions being less than 2 hours. These rates were lower than those reported in previous research studies. The practice of seclusion occurred more commonly on the first 2 days following admission, on weekdays than weekends, and between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and midnight. An understanding of seclusion data can provide fundamental information from which strategies to reduce seclusion can be developed.

TREC-SAVE: a randomised trial comparing mechanical restraints with use of seclusion for aggressive or violent seriously mentally ill people: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Thousands of people whose aggression is thought due to serious mental illness are secluded or restrained every day. Without fair testing these techniques will continue to be used outside of a rigorous evidence base. With such coercive treatment this leaves all concerned vulnerable to abuse and criticism. This paper presents the protocol for a randomised trial comparing seclusion with restraints for people with serious mental illnesses.

METHODS/DESIGN

Setting-General psychiatric wards of a large psychiatric hospital in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Participants-Anyone aggressive or violent suspected or known to have serious mental illness for whom restriction is felt to be indicated by nursing and medical staff, but also for whom they are unsure whether seclusion or restraint would be indicated. Interventions-The standard care of either strong cotton banding to edge of bed with medications as indicated and close observation or the other standard care of use of a minimally furnished seclusion room but with open but barred windows onto the nursing station. Outcomes-time to restrictions lifted, early change of treatment, additional episodes, adverse effects/events, satisfaction with care during episode. Duration-2 weeks. Identifier: ISRCTN 49454276 http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN49454276.

Prevalence and correlates of seclusion and restraint use in children and adolescents: a systematic review

Seclusion and restraint are frequent procedures to intervene in aggressive and potentially dangerous patients in psychiatric settings. However, little is known about their utilization and effectiveness in pediatric populations. We aimed to examine the prevalence and determinants of seclusion and restraint utilization in children and adolescents in psychiatric settings. Using PubMed, PsychInfo and Cinahl, we performed a systematic literature review of studies published in the last 10 years reporting on the prevalence of seclusion and restraint use in psychiatrically ill youth (<21 years old) treated in psychiatric settings. Only seven publications addressed the topic. Primary outcomes were prevalence rates, reported either as the proportion of patients restrained/secluded or as the number of restraints/seclusions per number of patient days. All studies found relatively high baseline rates of seclusion (26% of patients; 67/1,000 patient days), and restraints (29% of patients; 42.7/1,000 patient days). In four studies, an intervention, implemented to reduce seclusion and restraints, resulted in a dramatic weighted mean reduction in the more restrictive use of restraints by 93.2%, with a 54.2% shorter duration. There was a small, weighted mean reduction in the use of less restrictive seclusions (-0.6%), but results were heterogeneous (-97.2 to +71.0%), with the only increase in seclusions being reported in one study in which the intervention-based padded seclusion room was utilized more frequently instead of more restrictive measures. Otherwise, seclusion episodes reduced by 74.7%, including a 32.4% shorter duration. Few studies reported on risk-factors and predictors, consisting of past or current aggression and/or violence, suicidal behavior, more severe psychopathology, non-White ethnicity, emergency admissions, out-of-home placement, and poorer family functioning, while findings regarding age were inconsistent Except for duration, data about the effectiveness of seclusion and restraints were missing, although there is some indication that seclusion and restraints can lead to severe psychological and physical consequences. Future research should focus on indications, predictors, preventive and alternative strategies, as well as on clinical outcomes of seclusion and restraints in psychiatrically ill youth. In addition, there is a clear need for transparent policies and guidelines.

Temporal trends in self harm and aggression on a paediatric mental health ward

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this paper is to describe trends in aggression and self harm on a mental health inpatient unit for children and adolescents between January 2006 and August 2009. Various ward interventions and the ward milieu were evaluated as possible explanatory factors for trends.

METHOD

This was a retrospective study whereby incidents of aggression, self harm and seclusion were obtained from a computerized Incident Information Management System (IIMS) database. Trends in incidents were analysed using linear regression analyses.

RESULTS

Over a 44-month period, 292 incidents of aggression and 139 incidents of self harm were reported. The use of seclusion and the number of aggressive incidents both significantly decreased over time. Trends suggested a positive relationship between the introduction of restraint training, changes in leadership and full staff complement, and a reduction in aggression and seclusion.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the findings are limited by their retrospective nature and reliance on formal records, this study suggests that different factors can contribute to decrease the incidence of adverse events on a psychiatric ward. Future prospective research is needed to assess the effectiveness of different interventions in both the prevention and management of self harm, aggression and seclusion in child and adolescent inpatient units.

Incidence of seclusion and restraint in psychiatric hospitals: a literature review and survey of international trends

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to identify quantitative data on the use of seclusion and restraint in different countries and on initiatives to reduce these interventions.

METHODS

Combined literature review on initiatives to reduce seclusion and restraint, and epidemiological data on the frequency and means of use in the 21st century in different countries. Unpublished study was detected by contacting authors of conference presentations. Minimum requirements for the inclusion of data were reporting the incidence of coercive measures in complete hospital populations for defined periods and related to defined catchment areas.

RESULTS

There are initiatives to gather data and to develop new clinical practice in several countries. However, data on the use of seclusion and restraint are scarcely available so far. Data fulfilling the inclusion criteria could be detected from 12 different countries, covering single or multiple hospitals in most counties and complete national figures for two countries (Norway, Finland). Both mechanical restraint and seclusion are forbidden in some countries for ethical reasons. Available data suggest that there are huge differences in the percentage of patients subject to and the duration of coercive interventions between countries.

CONCLUSIONS

Databases on the use of seclusion and restraint should be established using comparable key indicators. Comparisons between countries and different practices can help to overcome prejudice and improve clinical practice.

Interventions to reduce the use of seclusion and restraint in inpatient psychiatric settings: what we know so far a review of the literature

INTRODUCTION

In recent times, much attention has been focused on the reduction of seclusion and restraint in psychiatric settings. This paper analyzes evidence available from evaluations of single seclusion and/or restraint reduction programmes. A total of 29 papers were included in the review.

RESULTS

Seven key strategy types emerged from the analysis: (i) policy change/leadership; (ii) external review/debriefing; (iii) data use; (iv) training; (v) consumer/family involvement; (vi) increase in staff ratio/crisis response teams; and (vii) programme elements/changes. Outcomes indicate that a range of reduction programmes are successful in reducing the frequency and duration of seclusion and restraint use, while at the same time maintaining a safe environment.

CONCLUSION

The development of new seclusion and restraint reduction programmes should include strong leadership from local management; external seclusion and restraint review committees or post-incident debriefing and analysis; broad-based staff training and programme changes at a local level. Behavioural and cognitive-behavioural programmes appear to be very useful in child and adolescent services. Further systematic research should be conducted to more fully understand which elements of successful programmes are the most powerful in reducing incidents of seclusion and restraint.

Nurses' attitudes to the use of seclusion: a review of the literature

Seclusion is now widely recognized as a coercive strategy with negative consequences for the consumers and staff involved. Nevertheless, this intervention continues to be used frequently in mental health services internationally. Due to their direct care role, nurses are commonly involved in the initiation or management of seclusion. Understanding nurses' attitudes to seclusion is therefore essential for the success of any attempts to reduce its use. A review of the literature was conducted using the search terms 'patient', 'seclusion', 'attitudes', 'nurses' and 'containment'. Twenty-eight articles which met the inclusion criteria were identified. Analysis of these articles identified six main themes: a necessary intervention; workplace culture; staff composition and experience; conflict; ethical considerations; and consumer characteristics. An overview of the literature is presented according to these main themes. The research suggests that most nurses support the continued use of seclusion as a strategy for the management of violence and aggression. A deeper understanding of the factors that influence attitudes is necessary if seclusion rates are to be effectively reduced.

Chlorpromazine for psychosis induced aggression or agitation

BACKGROUND

Agitated or violent behaviour constitutes 10% of all emergency psychiatric treatment. Some guidelines do not recommend the use of chlorpromazine for rapid tranquillisation but it is still often used for this purpose.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effects of oral or intramuscular chlorpromazine for psychosis induced agitation or aggression.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (up to July 2009) which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE and PsycINFO.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised control trials or double blind trials (implying randomisation) comparing chlorpromazine with another drug or placebo for people who are thought to be acutely aggressive or agitated due to psychotic illness.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data independently. For dichotomous data we calculated relative risks (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis based on a fixed-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

One study (total n=30) met the inclusion criteria. When compared with haloperidol (Man 1973) (1 RCT, n=30) people allocated chlorpromazine were no more likely to have one additional injection than those allocated haloperidol (RR 3.00 CI 0.13 to 68.26). This remained true for 2-4 injections (RR 0.90 CI 0.52 to 1.55) and for 5 or more injections (RR 0.75 CI 0.20 to 2.79). Two people allocated chlorpromazine had sudden, serious hypotension while no one allocated haloperidol had such an effect (RR 5.00 CI 0.26 to 96.13). No extrapyramidal symptoms were observed. One person allocated chlorpromazine developed status epilepticus (RR 3.00 CI 0.13 to 68.26).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall the quality of evidence is limited, poor and dated. Where drugs that have been better evaluated are available, it may be best to avoid use of chlorpromazine. Where chlorpromazine is used for acute aggression or where choices are limited, relevant trials are possible and urgently needed.

Proposing a common sense approach to assessing the risks posed by physical intervention techniques

Irrespective of whether they are universally accepted or approved, physical intervention techniques are being applied, in a variety of health and care settings, on a daily basis. Every time a technique is applied there is a risk of injury. Therefore, there is an imperative to develop an effective way in which such techniques can be effectively risk assessed. The development of a process that is robust enough to evaluate all types of techniques, and is simple and concise enough to engender widespread and regular use could eliminate the use of unnecessary and inappropriate techniques. This paper discusses how the five-step model proposed in the UK by the Health & Safety Executive as well as a common sense approach to completing assessments could be used to simplify the process.

"Coercion Experience Scale" (CES)--validation of a questionnaire on coercive measures

BACKGROUND

Although the authors of a Cochrane Review on seclusion and mechanical restraint concluded that "there is a surprising and shocking lack of published trials" on coercive interventions in psychiatry, there are only few instruments that can be applied in trials. Furthermore, as main outcome variable safety, psychopathological symptoms, and duration of an intervention cannot meet the demand to indicate subjective suffering and impact relevant to posttraumatic stress syndromes. An instrument used in controlled trials should assess the patients' subjective experiences, needs to be applicable to more than one intervention in order to compare different coercive measures and has to account for the specific psychiatric context.

METHODS

The primary version of the questionnaire comprised 44 items, nine items on restrictions to human rights, developed on a clinical basis, and 35 items on stressors, derived from patients' comments during the pilot phase of the study. An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) using principal axis factoring (PAF) was carried out. The resulting factors were orthogonally rotated via VARIMAX procedure. Items with factor loadings less than .50 were eliminated. The reliability of the subscales was assessed by calculating Cronbach.

RESULTS

Data of 102 patients was analysed. The analysis yielded six factors which were entitled "Humiliation", "Physical adverse effects", "Separation", "Negative environment", "Fear" and "Coercion". These six factors explained 54.5% of the total variance. Cronbach alpha ranged from .67 to .93, which can be interpreted as a high internal consistency. Convergent and discriminant validity yielded both highly significant results (r = .79, p < .001, resp. r = .38, p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

The "Coercion Experience Scale" is an instrument to measure the psychological impact during psychiatric coercive interventions. Its psychometric properties showed satisfying reliability and validity. For purposes of research it can be used to compare different coercive interventions. In clinical practice it can be used as a screening instrument for patients who need support after coercive interventions to prevent consequences from traumatic experiences. Further research is needed to identify possible diagnostic, therapeutic or prognostic implications of the total score and the different subscales.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN70589121.

Inquérito sobre o uso de contenção física em um hospital psiquiátrico de grande porte no Rio de Janeiro

OBJETIVO: Investigar o uso da contenção física em hospital psiquiátrico no Rio de Janeiro. MÉTODOS: Um inquérito foi conduzido em agosto de 2009. As informações - sexo, idade, diagnóstico, ocorrência e duração de contenção física - foram coletadas no prontuário. RESULTADO: A amostra consistiu em 66 pacientes, dos quais 59% eram mulheres, com idade média de 44 anos. Durante o período estudado, 24% dos pacientes foram contidos no leito pelo menos uma vez, mas não é prática corrente o registro detalhado do procedimento. Não ocorreram eventos adversos importantes. Não houve associação entre o uso de contenção e variáveis sociodemográficas e clínicas. CONCLUSÕES: A prática de contenção física parece consistente nas emergências psiquiátricas do Rio de Janeiro: esse mesmo percentual foi observado em estudos conduzidos em três hospitais em outros momentos, 2001 e 2004, e situa-se em uma faixa intermediária em relação aos resultados observados em outros países. Não existem estudos randomizados para se fazer uma avaliação objetiva dos benefícios e riscos dessa prática, mas a segurança e a eficácia dessa intervenção deveriam ser objeto do mesmo escrutínio científico normalmente destinado aos outros tratamentos.

Manual restraint of adult psychiatric inpatients: a literature review

Relatively little is known about the prevalence of manual restraint to manage violent or challenging behaviour in hospital psychiatric services or the circumstances of its use. This review identified 45 empirical studies of manual restraint of adult psychiatric inpatients, mostly from the UK. On average, up to five episodes per month of manual restraint might be expected on an average 20-bed ward. Episodes last around 10 min, with about half involving the restraint of patients on the floor, usually in the prone position. Manually restrained patients tend to be younger, male and detained under mental health legislation. Staff value restraint-related training, but its impact on nursing practice has not been evaluated. Research has tended to focus on official reports of violent incidents rather than manual restraint per se. Larger and more complex studies are needed to examine how manual restraint is used in response to different types of incident and in different service settings.

Attitude of young psychiatrists toward coercive measures in psychiatry: a case vignette study in Japan

BACKGROUND

Every psychiatrist must pay careful attention to avoid violating human rights when initiating coercive treatments such as seclusion and restraint. However, these interventions are indispensable in clinical psychiatry, and they are often used as strategies to treat agitated patients. In this study, we investigated young psychiatrists' attitudes toward psychiatric coercive measures.

METHODS

A total of 183 young psychiatrists participated as subjects in our study. A questionnaire with a case vignette describing a patient with acute psychosis was sent to the study subjects via the Internet or by mail. This questionnaire included scoring the necessity for hospitalization, and the likelihood of prescribing seclusion and/or restraint, on a 9-point Likert scale (with 9 indicating strong agreement).

RESULTS

There was general agreement among the study subjects that the case should be admitted to a hospital (8.91 +/- 0.3) and secluded (8.43 +/- 1.0). The estimated length of hospitalization was 13.53 +/- 6.4 weeks. Regarding the likelihood of prescribing restraint, results showed great diversity (5.14 +/- 2.5 on 9-point scale); psychiatrists working at general hospitals scored significantly higher (6.25 +/- 2.5) than those working at university hospitals (5.02 +/- 2.3) or psychiatric hospitals (4.15 +/- 2.6). A two-group comparison of the length of inpatient care revealed a significant difference between those psychiatrists who scored 1-3 (n = 55, 14.22 +/- 7.4 wks) and those who scored 7-9 (n = 62, 12.22 +/- 4.0) regarding the need to use restraint.

CONCLUSION

Our results may reflect the current dilemma in Japanese psychiatry wherein psychiatrists must initiate coercive measures to shorten hospitalization stays. This study prompted its subject psychiatrists to consider coercive psychiatric treatments.

Restraint and seclusion: a distressing treatment option?

The effectiveness of restraint and seclusion interventions in the nursing management of disturbed and aggressive clients remains questionable. Considerable debate continues regarding the use of these treatment options in psychiatric hospitals. The existing literature suggests that the controversial nature of restraint and seclusion creates a complex dilemma for nurses, which initiates emotional distress. This study specifically explored the emotions and feelings experienced by a group of psychiatric nurses working in Ireland in relation to incidents of restraint and seclusion. A qualitative research approach was employed incorporating focus group discussions. A total of 23 nurses participated in three focus group interviews. The data were analysed using qualitative interpretive analysis. Three themes were created consisting of: (1) the last resort - restraint and seclusion; (2) emotional distress; and (3) suppressing unpleasant emotions. It is suggested that the nurses' experience of restraint and seclusion created a dynamic movement between the release and suppression of distressing emotions. The oscillatory characteristics embedded within the nurses' emotional responses were reminiscent of a model of suffering developed by Morse in 2001. Consequently, this model is incorporated throughout the discussion of the findings to provide a more in-depth description of the emotional distress experienced by the nurses in the study.

Physical intervention: a review of the literature on its use, staff and patient views, and the impact of training

As a principal control measure, physical intervention is intended to be a skilled manual, or hands-on, method of physical restraint implemented by trained individuals, with the intention of controlling the aggressive patient, to restore safety in the clinical environment. Physical intervention is however a contentious practice. There have been reports in the literature of negative psychological views from staff and patients on the procedure. Although formal structured training was introduced in response to concerns around patient safety during restraint, concerns remain that PI is sometimes construed as a stand-alone violence prevention initiative. Its potential for misuse, and overuse, in corrupted cultures of care has emerged as a social policy issue. The following paper critically explores the literature on training in physical intervention in the United Kingdom.

Successful interventions on an organisational level to reduce violence and coercive interventions in in-patients with adjustment disorders and personality disorders

Background

Self-directed and other violence as well as subsequent coercive interventions occur in a substantial proportion of patients with personality disorders during in-patient treatment. Different strategies may be required to reduce coercive interventions for patients of different diagnostic groups.

Methods

We specialised one of our acute admission wards in the treatment of personality disorders and adjustment disorders (ICD-10 F4 and F6). Patients are not transferred to other acute wards in case of suicidal or violent behaviour. Violent behaviour and coercive interventions such as seclusion or restraint were recorded in the same way as in the rest of the hospital. We recorded the percentage of subjects affected by diagnostic group and average length of an intervention in the year before and after the change in organisational structure.

Results

The total number of coercive interventions decreased by 85% both among patients with an F4 and those with an F6 primary diagnosis. Violent behaviours decreased by about 50%, the proportion of involuntary committed patients decreased by 70%.

Conclusion

The organisational change turned out to be highly effective without any additional cost of personnel or other resources.

Physical intervention to manage aggression in older adults: how often is it employed?

There has been growing concern about the levels of violence on psychiatric wards in recent years, which has led to increased emphasis on the safe management of such behavior. Physical intervention (PI) is a form of “hands on restraint” to manage the aggressive patient. PI was originally introduced as control and restraint in high security special hospitals in the mid-1980s to enable nursing staff to manage aggressive behavior in a systematic manner. The use of PI is highly emotive and controversial, yet staff are trained in the techniques across all mental health services in the U.K. (Wright et al., 2005). To be legally and ethically justifiable, the form of PI employed must be an appropriate, proportionate and reasonable response to the risk posed and be terminated at the earliest possible opportunity (National Institute of Clinical Excellence, 2005).

Patient and staff perspectives on the use of seclusion

OBJECTIVES

This paper investigates the perceptions and experience of patients and staff on the use of seclusion in psychiatric services.

METHOD

A purpose designed questionnaire was distributed to staff and patients in a general adult mental health service.

RESULTS

Staff and patients both attributed more negative than positive feelings to patients' experience of seclusion.

CONCLUSIONS

Monitoring and evaluation of the use of seclusion may be insufficient to prevent or ameliorate its emotional impact. More comfortable alternatives to seclusion need to be utilized whenever possible.

Professionals' attitudes toward reducing restraint: the case of seclusion in the Netherlands

INTRODUCTION

Despite public opinion and policy interventions, restraint remains a common practice. This is also the case in the Netherlands, where projects aimed to reduce seclusion, have not led to a decreased use of restraint. Is this lack of effectiveness related to attitudes of the professionals? The aim of this study was to explore the attitudes of professionals working in mental health care toward restraint.

METHOD

A questionnaire with eight scales was constructed for measuring attitudes of professionals. Scores of 540 professionals were studied, using analysis of variance and cluster analysis and related to several personnel and organizational characteristics.

RESULTS

The more professionals were personally involved in seclusion, the more they believed in it. Three types of professionals were identified: Transformers, Doubters and Maintainers. More than half of the psychiatrists (56%) belonged to the type of maintainers. Nurses were more divided.

CONCLUSION

Professionals working in clinical settings are not really opposed to restraint. This could explain the limited effects of innovation projects.

Correspondence

I would like to comment on Stubbs et al's article on Physical interventions for managing aggression in mental health: Should physiotherapists be involved? (Vol 15 No 1: p.8). It is very difficult to argue against the need for mental health workers to be effectively trained in Control and Restraint (C&R). For mental health clinicians working in this therapeutic milieu there is the risk of serious untoward incidents that place both patients and staff at risk of assault and attack. The argument put forward in questioning whether physiotherapists should be involved in the use of physical interventions in the management of aggression in mental health services proposes that when patients are admitted into mental health services they undergo a physiotherapy assessment for their suitability for C&R. However, if this seems a reasonable suggestion then it is potentially impractical. There seems to be two distinct flaws with this proposal. The first relates to the shear practicality as to the context upon which such an assessment takes place. Effectively a patient is being assessed as to whether they are able to be subjected to C&R? Working on the principle that effective communication and transparency is paramount within psychiatry then how might such an assessment be best explained to a patient, particularly ones who are deeply disturbed or psychotic? Vulnerable patients may find this assessment extremely disturbing particularly those with evidence of paranoia.

Diagnosis-related frequency of compulsory measures in 10 German psychiatric hospitals and correlates with hospital characteristics

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the incidence of coercive measures in standard psychiatric care in different psychiatric hospitals.

METHODS

We developed a common documentation of mechanical restraint, seclusion, and medication by coercion, and introduced it in 10 participating hospitals. We developed software able to process the data and to calculate four key indicators for routine clinical use.

RESULTS

9.5% of 36,690 cases treated in 2004 were exposed to coercive measures with the highest percentage among patients with organic psychiatric disorders (ICD-10 F0) (28.0%). Coercive measures were applied a mean 5.4 times per case and lasted a mean 9.7 h each. The incidence and duration of coercive measures varied highly between different diagnostic groups and different hospitals. Use of detailed guidelines for seclusion and restraint was associated with a lower incidence of coercive measures.

DISCUSSION

Data interpretation should consider numerous confounding factors such as case mix and hospital characteristics. Suggestions on how to cope with ethical and technical problems in the processing of large multi-site data sets in routine clinical use are made.

Containment strategies for people with serious mental illness

BACKGROUND

The management of acutely disturbed people during periods of psychiatric crisis poses a particular challenge for mental health professionals. The challenge is to maintain safety while providing a safe and therapeutic environment. Non-pharmaceutical methods currently used to accomplish this include special observations, de-escalation, behavioural contracts and locking doors.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of various strategies used to contain acutely disturbed people during periods of psychiatric crisis (excluding seclusion and restraint and the use of 'as prescribed medication).

SEARCH STRATEGY

For the 2006 update of this review, we searched the Ovid interface of CINAHL, CENTRAL and The Schizophrenia Groups register, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Relevant randomised controlled trials involving people hospitalised with serious mental illness, comparing any non-pharmacological interventions aimed at containing people who were at risk of harming themselves or others, (such as those approaches that change observation levels, lock wards, manage staff patient ratios, use de-escalation techniques or behavioural contracts).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Trials would have been reliably quality assessed and data extracted. Relative risks (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) would have been calculated with a random effects model. Where possible, numbers needed to treat and harm (NNT, NNH) would have been estimated.

MAIN RESULTS

The initial 1999 search identified over 2000 reports and the update search of 2006, an additional 2808 reports. Of these, only six seemed to have the potential to be relevant, but once they were obtained it was clear they could not be included. None focused upon non-pharmacological methods for containment of violence or self harm in people with serious mental illness.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Current non-pharmacological approaches to containment of disturbed or violent behaviour are not supported by evidence from controlled studies. Clinical practice is based on evidence that is not derived from trials and continued practice entirely outside of well designed, conducted and reported randomised studies is difficult to justify.

A Systematic Review of the Safety and Effectiveness of Restraint and Seclusion as Interventions for the Short-Term Management of Violence in Adult Psychiatric Inpatient Settings and Emergency Departments

AIMS

The aim of this review was to assess whether restraint and seclusion are safe and effective interventions for the short-term management of disturbed/violent behaviour. Staff and service user perspectives on the use of these interventions were also considered. The review was undertaken as part of the development process for a national guideline on the short-term management of disturbed/violent behaviour in adult psychiatric inpatient settings and emergency departments in the United Kingdom.

METHOD

An exhaustive literature search was undertaken. Systematic reviews, before and after studies, as well as qualitative studies were included. Searches were run from 1985 to 2002.

FINDINGS

Thirty-six eligible studies were identified. However, none were randomised controlled trials. Most of the included studies had many limitations, such as small sample sizes, confounders not adequately accounted for, potential selection bias, poorly reported results, and lack of clarity as to whether mechanical restraints were used. This review must therefore be viewed as a mapping exercise, which illustrates the range and quality of studies that have been undertaken in this area to date.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Insufficient evidence is available to determine whether seclusion and restraint are safe and/or effective interventions for the short-term management of disturbed/violent behaviour in adult psychiatric inpatient settings. These interventions should therefore be used with caution and only as a last resort once other methods of calming a situation and/or service user have failed.

Effects of a psychiatric intensive care unit in an acute psychiatric department

Psychiatric acute units use different levels of segregation to satisfy needs for containment and decrease in sensory input for behaviourally disturbed patients. Controlled studies evaluating the effects of the procedure are lacking. The aim of the present study was to compare effects in acutely admitted patients with the use of a psychiatric intensive care unit (PICU) and not in a psychiatric acute department. In a naturalistic study, one group of consecutively referred patients had access only to the PICU, the other group to the whole acute unit. Data were obtained for 56 and 62 patients using several scales. There were significant differences in reduction of behaviour associated with imminent, threatening incidents (Broset Violence Checklist), and actual number of such incidents (Staff Observation Aggression Scale-Revised) in favour of the group that was treated in a PICU. The principles of patient segregation in PICUs have favourable effects on behaviours associated with and the actual numbers of violent and threatening incidents.

The EUNOMIA project on coercion in psychiatry: study design and preliminary data

Previous national research has shown significant variation in several aspects of coercive treatment measures in psychiatry. The EUNOMIA project, an international study funded by the European Commission, aims to assess the clinical practice of these measures and their outcomes. Its naturalistic and epidemiological design is being implemented at 13 centres in 12 European countries. This article describes the design of the study and provides preliminary data on the catchment areas, staff, available facilities and modalities of care at the participating centres.

Factors relating to the use of physical restraints in psychogeriatric care: A paradigm for elder abuse

The purpose of this study was to address one component of the complex topic "elder abuse". A prospective observational study in the psychogeriatric unit of an acute psychiatric hospital demonstrated that 30% (n=37) of all included patients (n=122) were physically restrained. The highest incidence (48%) was found in elderly patients with severe cognitive impairments (diagnosis of dementia and/or delirium) (n=60). The most commonly used devices of physical restraints were bed rails (100%), belts (trunk 93%, limbs 40%) and chair-tables ("gerichair") (41%). Most restraints occurred at the beginning of hospitalization (83%). Physical restraints were continued for many days and on average of many hours a day. Patients with low cognitive status and serious mobility impairments showed a very high risk of being restrained (p=0.015; OR 32.0 [95% CI:2.0-515.1]). Inability to perform ADL activities increased the frequency of restraint use (p=0.035; OR27.7 [95%CI: 1.3-604.1]). As possible co-factors repetitive disruptive behaviors were found. There was no significant difference between the frequency of falls in restrained or unrestrained patients during the observational period, but fall-related fractures (n=2) only occurred in restrained patients. It is possible that restraints increase the use of benzodiazepines and classical neuroleptics. These results confirm that physical restraints remain a common practice in psychogeriatric care. No evidence-based data support the value of restraints in regard to fall prevention and control of behavioral disturbances in elderly people with serious mental illness. In contrast, these devices can have serious adverse effects and mean one of the most severe interventions in fundamental human rights.

Close-observation areas in acute psychiatric units: a literature review

Close-observation areas in Australian inpatient psychiatric units are locked areas usually within an open ward. Despite patient acuity, and the inherent difficulties in this area, little has been written that addresses either the processes or goals of containing patients, the role of nurses, or the skills involved. This paper examines the literature related to close-observation areas and argues that they are highly demanding of expert psychiatric nursing skills. Nurses need to advocate for humane, well-resourced areas, staffed with highly skilled nurses in order to fulfil the obligations of the national nursing and mental health service standards and to reduce the deleterious effects of hospitalization on patients.