Seclusion and restraint for people with serious mental illnesses

Uncovering Complexities in Reducing Aggression, Conflict and Restrictive Practices in Acute Mental Healthcare Settings: An Overview of Reviews

Aggression, conflict and restrictive practices present complexities in acute mental health services, as do implementing service changes to reduce them. Existing published literature needs to offer more high-level guidance on the effectiveness of these service changes and their associated implementation factors. As a result, an overview of systematic reviews was undertaken to identify (i) nonpharmacological interventions to reduce conflict, aggression and restrictive practices in acute mental health settings, and (ii) their effects across different clinical outcomes. A parallel re-extraction from primary studies was then utilised (iii) to identify factors influencing successful intervention implementation. Of 124 articles sourced from nine databases and registries, four reviews were retained for the final analysis, using the direction of effect and tabular and narrative summaries. These reviews included programmes or interventions focused on inpatient adolescent, adult and older adult populations. They reported on alternative containment strategies, risk assessments, Safewards, sensory rooms and equipment, Six Core Strategy-based interventions and staff training. The overview found that a combination of interventions intended to improve relationships and reduce interpersonal conflict may help reduce aggression, conflict and restrictive practices. At the same time, stand-alone staff training and sensory rooms and equipment may have mixed effects. The quality of the evidence linking these interventions to reductions in aggression, conflict and restrictive practices is limited. Successful implementation hinges on multiple factors: intervention characteristics, preparation and planning, evaluation and monitoring, outcome interpretation, stakeholder involvement/investment, staff-related factors and contextual factors. Any implementation initiative may benefit from using pragmatic and complexity-informed research methodologies, including integrating meaningful involvement with service users, peer workers and culturally diverse groups.

Staff responses to interventions aiming to reduce mechanical restraint in adult mental health inpatient settings: a questionnaire-based survey

PURPOSE

To explore mental health staff's responses towards interventions designed to reduce the use of mechanical restraint (MR) in adult mental health inpatient settings.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional, questionnaire-based survey. The questionnaire, made available online via REDCap, presented 20 interventions designed to reduce MR use. Participants were asked to rate and rank the interventions based on their viewpoints regarding the relevance and importance of each intervention.

RESULTS

A total of 128 mental health staff members from general and forensic mental health inpatient units across the Mental Health Services in the Region of Southern Denmark completed the questionnaire (response rate = 21.3%). A total of 90.8% of the ratings scored either 'agree' (45.2%) or 'strongly agree' (45.6%) concerning the relevance of the interventions in reducing MR use. Overall and in the divided analysis, interventions labelled as 'building relationship' and 'patient-related knowledge' claimed high scores in the staff's rankings of the interventions' importance concerning implementation. Conversely, interventions like 'carers' and 'standardised assessments' received low scores.

CONCLUSIONS

The staff generally considered that the interventions were relevant. Importance rankings were consistent across the divisions chosen, with a range of variance and dispersion being recorded among certain groups.

The attitudes of nurses towards seclusion: A New Zealand in-patient mental health setting

Seclusion is a form of restraint practised in mental health services world-wide, and has been criticised as unethical and traumatising to patients. Several countries have committed to reducing or eliminating seclusion. In New Zealand, there has been a focus on reducing seclusion of the indigenous Māori population, who experience particularly high rates. Nurses typically lead decisions to place patients in seclusion and their attitudes towards seclusion likely influence this process. This study aimed to address the primary question: what are the attitudes of registered nurses towards the use of seclusion? A mixed methods pragmatic approach was used involving qualitative interviews of nurses working in a high seclusion mental health ward located in the North Island of New Zealand, and a quantitative analysis of the seclusion data from this ward. This report is adherent with COREQ and STROBE. Thirteen nurses were interviewed and four main themes were identified: seclusion is necessary; seclusion is being used unnecessarily; nurse characteristics influence the use of seclusion; nurses perceived their ward culture to be improving in the use of seclusion. However, analysis of seclusion data indicated that rates had been increasing for this ward prior to this study, and the rates for indigenous Māori patients were especially elevated. This pattern of increasing rates was congruent with the 'supportive' attitudes of nurses towards seclusion. Interestingly, during the time of this study, the seclusion rates began to decline, including for Māori patients. This decline may have been partially due to the increased awareness prompted by the study.

Evidence synthesis on coercion in mental health: An umbrella review

Coercion in mental healthcare is ubiquitous and affects the physical health, recovery and psychological and emotional well-being of those who experience it. Numerous studies have explored different issues related to coercion, and the present umbrella review aims to gather, evaluate and synthesise the evidence found across systematic reviews. The protocol, registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020196713), included 46 systematic reviews and meta-analyses of primary studies whose main theme was coercion and which were obtained from databases (Medline/PubMed, PsycINFO, EMBASE and CINAHL) and repositories of systematic reviews following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. All the reviews were subjected to independent assessment of quality and risk of bias and were grouped in two categories: (1) evidence on specific coercive measures (including Community Treatment Orders, forced treatment, involuntary admissions, seclusion and restriction and informal coercion), taking into account their prevalence, related factors, effectiveness, harmful effects and alternatives to reduce their use; and (2) experiences, perceptions and attitudes concerning coercion of professionals, mental health service users and their caregivers or relatives. This umbrella review can be useful to professionals and users in addressing the wide variety of aspects encompassed by coercion and the implications for professionals' daily clinical practice in mental health units. This research received funding from two competitive calls.

Prevention strategies of the risk of violence and aggression towards nurses in renal units

BACKGROUND

Nursing, between healthcare professions, is the most at risk of violence and aggression. Most healthcare organizations rely on training as the primary strategy for the prevention of violence. Very little is known about the key factors for prevention against nurses: staff education, training and risk assessment.

OBJECTIVES

The aim is to verify if the number of observed episodes of violence and aggression in renal units are associated with structural and prevention managerial strategies.

DESIGN

An observational, cross-sectional study.

PARTICIPANTS

They were part of a convention sample of participants in the European Dialysis and Transplant Nurses Association/European Renal Care Association Conference of 2019, who understood the English Language and had a smartphone or tablet.

MEASUREMENTS

The tool used was a questionnaire developed by Zampieron in 2010, with closed questions, focused on violence and aggression's prevention and management.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion our study found that organizational and managerial strategies to address violence and aggression are highly correlated with observed violence in unit. Nurses are encouraged to become proactive by participating in prevention committees and policies, attending prevention training offered by unit, and reporting all incidents including those witnessed.

Reducing use of seclusion on a male medium secure forensic ward

The reduction of restrictive practices is a priority for mental health inpatient services. Often such practices are considered to increase patients' feelings of anger, loneliness, hopelessness and vulnerability. Moreover, such approaches are counterintuitive to both recovery-orientated and trauma-informed practice.Our project, based in a male 15-bed secure forensic ward, aimed to reduce the duration (outcome measure) and frequency (balancing measure) of the use of seclusion by 10% over 6 months. Following the analysis of our local data systems and feedback from both patients and staff, we identified the high levels of use of seclusion, and reluctance to terminate it. These included a lack of awareness of the effective and appropriate use of such a facility, a hesitancy to use de-escalation techniques and an over-reliance on multidisciplinary team and consultant decision making.We subsequently designed and implemented three tests of change which reviewed seclusion processes, enhanced de-escalation skills and improved decision making. Our tests of change were applied over a 6-month period. During this period, we surpassed our original target of a reduction of frequency and duration by 10% and achieved a 33% reduction overall. Patients reported feeling safer on the ward, and the team reported improvements in relationships with patients.Our project highlights the importance of relational security within the secure setting and provides a template for other wards wishing to reduce the frequency and duration of seclusions.

[Coercion in psychiatric hospitalizations in Chile: madness and suffering in the 21st century]

This article reflects on the problem of coercion in Chilean psychiatric hospitalizations from the perspective of users who participate in mental health treatment programs in the public healthcare system. Qualitative research from a hermeneutical epistemic approach was carried out between 2019 and 2020, which included 25 interviews with individuals of both sexes (15 men and 10 women) who had a psychiatric diagnosis. The purpose of this research was to analyze their narratives and critically reframe intervention practices implemented in psychiatric hospitalizations in Chile, which constitute an important space for public health in the country as well as the rights of people with mental health problems. One of the principal findings of the study was that coercive practices still persist in Chile, despite being detrimental to the recovery of mental health care users, representing a negative impact on the quality of life and citizen freedoms of individuals with mental health problems.

Health Effects of Policing in Hospitals: a Narrative Review

IMPORTANCE

Law enforcement activity, in the form of outside agencies or hospital security forces, is increasingly common in American healthcare. Little is known about the potential effects of this prevalent, modifiable exposure on hospital staff and patient health. This narrative review characterizes existing evidence on the direct and indirect health effects of law enforcement activity in hospitals.

OBSERVATIONS

Law enforcement activity in hospitals can affect health outcomes through four mechanisms: (1) physical health effects related to workplace violence, restraint use, excessive force, and weapon use; (2) mental health effects involving perceptions of safety and psychological distress; (3) social effects related to the patient-provider relationship, mistrust, and bias and discrimination; and (4) legal and ethical considerations affecting overall well-being.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Unchecked law enforcement activity in hospitals may risk patient physical and mental health, reduce patient trust, result in bias and discrimination, and contribute to legal and ethical rights violations. Importantly, law enforcement activity in hospitals may also contribute to staff perceptions of safety. To fill knowledge gaps on the measurable impact of law enforcement activity in the hospital on staff and patients, hospitals should collect and publicly share robust data on law enforcement activity in their facilities, create and adopt patient-centered policies to ensure safety and protect patient health and privacy, and implement evidence-based interventions that safely reduce law enforcement involvement with patients.

Nurses' perceptions of nurse-patient communication in seclusion rooms in psychiatric inpatient care: A focus group study

INTRODUCTION

Communication between nurses and patients is essential in mental health nursing. In coercive situations (e.g. seclusion), the importance of nurse-patient communication is highlighted. However, research related to nurses' perceptions of nurse-patient communication during seclusion is scant.

AIM

The aim of this study was to describe nurses' perceptions of nurse-patient communication during patient seclusion and the ways nurse-patient communication can be improved.

METHOD

A qualitative study design using focus group interviews was adopted. Thirty-two nurses working in psychiatric wards were recruited to participate. The data were analysed using inductive qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

Nurses aimed to communicate in a patient-centred way in seclusion events, and various issues affected the quality of communication. Nurses recognized several ways to improve communication during seclusion.

DISCUSSION

Treating patients in seclusion rooms presents highly demanding care situations for nurses. Seclusion events require nurses to have good communication skills to provide ethically sound care.

CONCLUSION

Improved nurse-patient communication may contribute to shorter seclusion times and a higher quality of care. Improving nurses' communication skills may help support the dignity of the secluded patients. Safewards practices, such as respectful communication and recognizing the effect of non-verbal behaviour, could be considered when developing nurse-patient communication in seclusion events.

RELEVANCE STATEMENT

This study deepens the understanding of nurse-patient communication during seclusion events from the perspective of nurses. Caring for patients in seclusion presents challenging situations for nurses and demands that they have good communication skills. To enhance their communication skills in seclusion events, nurses require opportunities to take part in further training after education related to communication skills for demanding care situations. Knowing the appropriate ways to interact with individual patients during seclusion can help nurses create and maintain communication with patients. For mental health nursing, nurses' enhanced communication may promote increased use of noncoercive practices in psychiatric settings. For patients, improving nurses' communication skills may help support dignity and autonomy during seclusion and shorten the time spent in seclusion, resulting in a better quality of care and more positive patient experiences related to care offered in seclusion. In this, the perspectives of people with lived experience of mental health problems should be acknowledged. Components of Safewards practices, such as using respectful and individual communication and paying attention to one's non-verbal communication (Soft Words), could be useful when developing nurse-patient communication in seclusion events.

The psychiatric mental health nurse's ethical considerations regarding the use of coercive measures - a qualitative interview study

BACKGROUND

In psychiatric inpatient care, situations arise where it may be necessary to use coercive measures and thereby restrict individual autonomy. The ethical principles of healthcare, i.e., respect for autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice, are recognized as central aspects in healthcare practice, and nurses must be clear about which ethical theories and principles to prioritize and what values are needed for a thorough ethical consideration. The aim of this study is to shed light on psychiatric mental health nurses' ethical considerations and on the factors influencing them when performing coercive measures.

METHODS

This qualitative interview study included twelve psychiatric mental health nurses with experience from psychiatric inpatient care. A content analysis was made. The interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim, and categories were formulated.

RESULTS

The study revealed a duality that created two categories: Ethical considerations that promote the patient's autonomy and health and Obstacles to ethical considerations. Based on this duality, ethical considerations were made when performing coercive measures to alleviate suffering and promote health. The result shows a high level of ethical awareness in clinical work. However, a request emerged for more theoretical knowledge about ethical concepts that could be implemented among the staff.

CONCLUSION

The psychiatric mental health nurses in this study strive to do what is best for the patient, to respect the patient's autonomy as a guiding principle in all ethical considerations, and to avoid coercive measures. An organizational ethical awareness could increase the understanding of the difficult ethical considerations that nurses face with regard to minimizing the use of coercive measures in the long run.

Effects of Psychiatric Disease Severity and Clinical Characteristics on Duration of High Violence Risk: A Perspective on Violence Prevention in the Psychiatric Ward

Objective

Prevention, de-escalation, and management of violence in the acute psychiatric ward is essential. Few studies have focused on differences in the duration of high-violence risk between different profiles of high-violence risk. This study aimed to analyze the data of high-violence patients and duration of high-violence risk to provide a new perspective on violence prevention, de-escalation and management.

Methods

This retrospective observational cohort study included 171 patients who were treated in the acute psychiatric ward of Keelung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital between January 2016 and June 2020, and who were assessed daily as having high violence risk. All patient data were collected from electronic hospital records (eg, age, gender, diagnosis, violence history, self-harm history, and admission condition (involuntary admission, discharged against medical advice). Between-group differences in disease severity, use of antipsychotics and benzodiazepine, and duration of high violence risk were analyzed using regression analysis.

Results

Only patients' age was significantly associated with duration of high-violence risk (P = 0.028), making it predictive of longer duration of high-violence risk. In patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorder or bipolar disorder, higher severity was significantly associated with longer duration of high-violence risk (P = 0.007, P = 0.001, respectively).

Conclusion

Only age is a predictor of longer duration of violence risk in psychiatric patients, although higher severity is associated with higher violence risk. Study results may help management and healthcare staff better understand how quickly or slowly violence risk will decrease and may improve efficient use of healthcare resources and individualized patient-centered care.

“It’s possible”: reducing the coercion in care for adults living with neurodevelopmental disorders: a mixed-methods study

Introduction

Adults living with a neurodevelopmental disorder may present episodes of aggression, which may lead to the use of seclusion or restraint. The aim of the study was to assess the effect of an intervention aimed at reducing the use of coercive measures in a long-term care unit for adults suffering from a neurodevelopmental disorder with or without psychiatric co-morbidities.

Method

The single-center study used a sequential mixed-methods explanatory design. Retrospective data on periods of seclusion, with and without physical restraint, were collected for the ten-month pre-intervention and post-intervention periods. A qualitative survey was conducted at the end of the intervention period among the health professionals working in the unit to review the implementation and the efficiency of the approach.

Results

A significant decrease was observed between the pre- and post-intervention period in the number of seclusion and restraint sequences, the number of patients experiencing seclusion and restraint, and the duration of seclusion and restraint sequences. The efficiency of the approach was confirmed by the health care professionals and was attributed to leadership focused on limiting coercive measures, better adherence to legal obligations, team cohesion, and the implementation of alternative tools and methods.

Discussion

Reducing the use of coercive measures with adults with neurodevelopmental disorders is possible. Further studies are needed to confirm the effectiveness of alternative strategies to seclusion and restraint.

Best practice recommendations on the application of seclusion and restraint in mental health services: An evidence, human rights and consensus-based approach

WHAT IS KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT?: Seclusion and restraint still regularly occur within inpatient mental health services. The Council of Europe requires the development of a policy on for instance age limits, techniques and time limits. However, they only define the outer limits of such a policy by indicating when rights are violated. Within these limits, many choices remain open. Staff and service managers lack clarity on safe and humane procedures. Research literature provides limited and contradictory insights on these matters. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS TO EXISTING KNOWLEDGE?: The study resulted in 77 best practice recommendations on the practical application of restraint and seclusion as last resort intervention in inpatient youth and adult mental health services, including forensic facilities. To our knowledge, this is the first study in which the development of recommendations on this topic is not only based on scientific evidence, but also on an analysis of European human rights standards and consensus within and between expert-professionals and experts-by-experience. This approach allowed to develop for the first time recommendations on time limits, asking for second opinion, and registration of seclusion and restraint. WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE?: The 77 recommendations encourage staff to focus on teamwork, safety measures, humane treatment, age and time limits, asking for second opinion, observation, evaluation and registration when applying seclusion and restraint as last resort intervention. The implementation of the best practice recommendations is feasible provided that they are combined with a broad preventive approach and with collaboration between service managers, staff (educators) and experts-by-experience. Under these conditions, the recommendations will improve safety and humane treatment, and reduce harm to both service users and staff.

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Seclusion and restraint still regularly occur within inpatient mental health services. Professionals lack clarity on safe and humane procedures. Nevertheless, a detailed policy on for instance age limits, techniques and time limits is required.

AIM

We developed recommendations on the humane and safe application of seclusion, physical intervention and mechanical restraint in inpatient youth and adult mental health services, including forensic facilities.

METHOD

After developing a questionnaire based on a rapid scientific literature review and an analysis of human rights sources stemming from the Council of Europe, 60 expert-professionals and 18 experts-by-experience were consulted in Flanders (Belgium) through a Delphi-study.

RESULTS

After two rounds, all but one statement reached the consensus-level of 65% in both panels. The study resulted in 77 recommendations on teamwork, communication, materials and techniques, maximum duration, observation, evaluation, registration, second opinion and age limits.

DISCUSSION

Combining an evidence, human rights and consensus-based approach allowed for the first time to develop recommendations on time limits, asking for second opinion and registration.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

When combined with a preventive approach and collaboration between service managers, staff (educators) and experts-by-experience, the recommendations will improve safety and humane treatment, and reduce harm to service users and staff.

Experience of mental health nurses regarding mechanical restraint in patients with psychomotor agitation: A qualitative study

AIM

To explore mental health nurses' experiences whilst managing a patient with psychomotor agitation, and the factors that influence the decision to use mechanical restraints.

BACKGROUND

Psychomotor agitation is considered a potentially violent psychiatric emergency. The management of disruptive behaviours includes mechanical restraints as the last resort although its use has consequences for patients, professionals and the therapeutic relationship.

DESIGN

A qualitative study design with a hermeneutical approach was developed.

METHODS

A total of 31 nurses were purposively sampled from six short- and medium-stay mental health inpatient units. Data were obtained from semi-structured interviews. A thematic content analysis following the seven steps of Colaizzi's method was performed. Three researchers independently conducted an inductive analysis within a perspective of a hermeneutic paradigm. The COREQ checklist was followed in carrying out this research.

RESULTS

Four themes emerged from the analysis: 1) Nurses' perceptions of restraint methods, 2) Factors influencing decision-making, 3) Consequences for professionals of the use of mechanical restraint and 4) Alternatives to mechanical restraint.

CONCLUSIONS

Aspects such as the importance of teamwork, the issue of cognitive dissonance, ethical conflict and barriers to effecting the withdrawal of these measures affect the mental health nurse's decision-making process. The understanding of these aspects is crucial to further reducing its incidence and negative consequences and achieving the elimination of mechanical restraints.

RELEVANCE FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE

Knowing how nurses feel during the patient's episode of psychomotor agitation and which factors influence the decision on whether to apply coercive methods can guide us on the quality of care offered.

A two-center pilot study on the effects of clinical ethics support on coercive measures in psychiatry

BACKGROUND

The use of formal coercion such as seclusion, mechanical restraint, and forced medication is one of the most challenging and complex issues in mental health care, on the clinical, the legal, and the ethical level. Clinical ethics support aims at assisting healthcare practitioners in determining the morally most justifiable course of action in these situations. However, the effectiveness of clinical ethics support has hardly been studied so far.

METHODS

Monthly moral case deliberation (MCD) was implemented in two acute wards of two different psychiatric hospitals in Switzerland. Frequency and intensity of coercion was measured on ward level (n_patients = 405), and the Moral Attentiveness Scale, Knowledge on Coercion Scale, and Staff Attitudes towards Coercion Scale were applied on healthcare practitioner level (n_HP = 46). Pre-post-comparisons were conducted using multi-level modeling where appropriate.

RESULTS

After implementation of MCD, formal coercion was less frequent (particularly seclusion, small effect size; 9.6 vs. 16.7%, p = .034, Cramér's V = .105) and less intense (particularly mechanical restraint, large effect size; 86.8 ± 45.3 vs. 14.5 ± 12.1 h, exact p = .019, r = -.74), and approval for coercive measures among healthcare practitioners was lower when controlling for the number of MCD sessions attended.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical ethics support such as MCD may be a hitherto underutilized service for the reduction of coercion, complementing existing strategies and programs. Implementing clinical ethics support may help improve quality of care for persons suffering from severe mental illness.

Safety hazards in patient seclusion events in psychiatric care: A video observation study

WHAT IS KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT?: Coercive measures such as seclusion are used to maintain the safety of patients and others in psychiatric care. The use of coercive measures can lead to harm among patients and staff. WHAT THE PAPER ADDS TO EXISTING KNOWLEDGE?: This study is the first of its kind to rely on video observation to expose safety hazards in seclusion events that have not been reported previously in the literature. The actions that both patients and staff take during seclusion events can result in various safety hazards. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE?: Constant monitoring of patients during seclusion is important for identifying safety hazards and intervening to prevent harm. Nursing staff who use seclusion need to be aware of how their actions can contribute to safety hazards and how they can minimize their potential for harm ABSTRACT: Introduction Seclusion is used to maintain safety in psychiatric care. There is still a lack of knowledge on potential safety hazards related to seclusion practices. Aim To identify safety hazards that might jeopardize the safety of patients and staff in seclusion events in psychiatric hospital care. Method A descriptive design with non-participant video observation was used. The data consisted of 36 video recordings, analysed with inductive thematic analysis. Results Safety hazards were related to patient and staff actions. Patient actions included aggressive behaviour, precarious movements, escaping, falling, contamination and preventing visibility. Staff actions included leaving hazardous items in a seclusion room, unsafe administration of medication, unsecured use of restraints and precarious movements and postures. Discussion This is the first observational study to identify safety hazards in seclusion, which may jeopardize the safety of patients and staff. These hazards were related to the actions of patients and staff. Implications for Practice Being better aware of possible safety hazards could help prevent adverse events during patient seclusion events. It is therefore necessary that nursing staff are aware of how their actions might impact their safety and the safety of the patients. Video observation is a useful method for identifying safety hazards. However, its use requires effort to safeguard the privacy and confidentiality of those included in the videos.

Risk factors associated with use of coercive practices in adult mental health inpatients: A systematic review

WHAT IS KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT?: Coercive practices such as restraint (physically holding a person) or seclusion (containing a person in locked room) are frequently used in mental health care. How often and which specific practices are used is not consistent across different healthcare systems, hospitals or wards. Internationally, there is agreement on the need to monitor and reduce the use of coercive practices. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS TO EXISTING KNOWLEDGE?: The reviewed evidence suggests a number of different factors affect a person's risk of experiencing coercive practices, while admitted to a mental health ward. However, there is currently not enough high-quality research evidence to say which factors are most important or how they work to influence the likelihood of a person experiencing coercive practice. WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE?: When carrying out risk assessments, mental health professionals must take into account that a number of different factors are important and explore these with the patient. Care plans aimed at minimizing the use of coercive practices, such as restraint, must be personalized and developed with the individual. ABSTRACT: Introduction Coercive practices, such as physical restraint and seclusion, are a common feature of all mental healthcare systems. However, there is considerable variation in their use, concern about their iatrogenic potential and agreement internationally on the need to monitor and reduce their use. Aims To examine the evidence concerning risk factors associated with use of coercive practices in adults admitted to inpatient psychiatric services. Method A systematic review, consistent with PRIMSA guidelines, of four databases (PsychINFO, Medline, CINHAL and Embase). Peer-reviewed, English language articles from database inception to February 2020 were included. Methodological quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies. Results Twenty studies met inclusion criteria. Risk factors examined in the studies organized around four categories: patient socio-demographic; patient clinical; staff; and organizational factors. Overall, methodological quality of papers was deemed weak, and there was insufficient evidence to support any singular risk factor. Discussion The reviewed evidence suggests risk of coercive practice in inpatient mental health settings is multifactorial. Further research to standardize concept definitions and elucidate the mechanisms behind variance in use is required. Implications for Practice Assessment of patients at risk of coercive practice must take a multifactorial approach.

An Evaluation of the Implementation of a "No Force First" Informed Organisational Guide to Reduce Physical Restraint in Mental Health and Learning Disability Inpatient Settings in the UK

BACKGROUND

The use of physical restraint on vulnerable people with learning disabilities and mental health problems is one of the most controversial and criticised forms of restrictive practice. This paper reports on the implementation of an organisational approach called "No Force First" within a large mental health organisation in England, UK. The aim was to investigate changes in violence/aggression, harm, and physical restraint following implementation.

METHODS

The study used a pretest-posttest quasi-experimental design. Recorded incidents of violence/aggression from 44 inpatient mental health and learning disabilities (including forensic) wards were included (n = 13,599). Two study groups were created for comparison: the "intervention" group comprising all incidents on these wards during the 24 months post-implementation (2018-2019) (n = 6,551) and the "control" group comprising all incidents in the 24 months preceding implementation (2015-2016) (n = 7,048). Incidents recorded during implementation (i.e., 2017) were excluded (n = 3,705). Incidence rate ratios (IRR) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). Multivariate regression models using generalised estimating equations were performed to estimate unadjusted and adjusted prevalence ratios (aPR) of physical restraint and harm, using type of wards, incident, and violence/aggression as key covariates.

RESULTS

A significant 17% reduction in incidence of physical restraint was observed [IRR = 0.83, 95% CI 0.77-0.88, p < 0.0001]. Significant reductions in rates of harm sustained and aggression/violence were also observed, but not concerning the use of medication during restraint. The prevalence of physical restraint was significantly higher in inpatients on forensic learning disability wards than those on forensic mental health wards both pre- (aPR = 4.26, 95% CI 2.91-6.23) and post-intervention (aPR = 9.09, 95% CI 5.09-16.23), when controlling for type of incident and type of violence/aggression. Physical assault was a significantly more prevalent risk factor of restraint use than other forms of violence/aggression, especially that directed to staff (not to other patients).

CONCLUSIONS

This is a key study reporting the positive impact that organisational models and guides such as "No Force First" can have on equipping staff to focus more on primary and secondary prevention as opposed to tertiary coercive practices such as restraint in mental health and learning disabilities settings.

Time-Out with Young Children: A Parent-Child Interaction Therapy (PCIT) Practitioner Review

Time-out is a component of many evidence-based parent training programmes for the treatment of childhood conduct problems. Existing comprehensive reviews suggest that time-out is both safe and effective when used predictably, infrequently, calmly and as one component of a collection of parenting strategies-i.e., when utilised in the manner advocated by most parent training programmes. However, this research evidence has been largely oriented towards the academic community and is often in conflict with the widespread misinformation about time-out within communities of parents, and within groups of treatment practitioners. This dissonance has the potential to undermine the dissemination and implementation of an effective suite of treatments for common and disabling childhood conditions. The parent-practitioner relationship is integral to the success of Parent-Child Interaction Therapy (PCIT), an evidence-based treatment which involves live coaching of parent(s) with their young child(ren). Yet this relationship, and practitioner perspectives, attitudes and values as they relate to time-out, are often overlooked. This practitioner review explores the dynamics of the parent-practitioner relationship as they apply to the teaching and coaching of time-out to parents. It also acknowledges factors within the clinical setting that impact on time-out's use, such as the views of administrators and professional colleagues. The paper is oriented toward practitioners of PCIT but is of relevance to all providers of parent training interventions for young children.

Seclusion in an enriched environment versus seclusion as usual: A quasi-experimental study using mixed methods

Background

For patients, seclusion during psychiatric treatment is often a traumatic experience. To prevent such experiences, adjustments in the design of seclusion rooms have been recommended.

Methods

As there have been no empirical studies on the matter, we used a quasi-experimental design to compare the experiences in seclusion of two groups of patients: 26 who had been secluded in a room designed according to the principles of healing environment, a so called ‘Enriched Environment Seclusion room’ (EES), and 27 who had been secluded in a regular seclusion (RS) room. The enrichment included audio-visual facilities, a fixed toilet, a couch and a self-service system to adjust light, colour, blinds and temperature according to the patient’s preferences. Insight into their experiences was obtained using the Patient View-of-Seclusion Questionnaire, which comprises nine statements on seclusion, supplemented with open-ended questions.

Results

The responses regarding seclusion experiences between the two groups did not differ significantly (U = 280.00, p = .21, r = -.17). Although those who had been secluded in the specially designed room had greatly appreciated the opportunities for distraction, and those who had been secluded in a regular seclusion room expressed the need for more distracting activities during seclusion, both groups described seclusion as a dreadful experience. If seclusion cannot be avoided, patients recommend facilities for distraction (such as those provided in an enriched environment seclusion room) to be available.

Conclusion

Whatever the physical environment and facilities of a seclusion room, we may thus conclude that seclusion is a burdensome experience.

Elevated Rates of Restraint and Seclusion in Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Inpatients in China and Their Associated Factors

To investigate the rate of restraint and seclusion (R&S) use in child and adolescent psychiatric inpatients in China and to examine factors associated with use of these interventions. As part of an official national survey, 41 provincial tertiary psychiatric hospitals in China were selected. Data from 196 youth inpatients discharged from these hospitals from March 19 to 31, 2019 were retrieved and analyzed. (1) The overall rate of R&S was 29.1% (N = 57) and the rate of restraint was 28.6% (N = 56), and seclusion was 11.7% (N = 23) respectively. (2) Compared to patients who did not require R&S, those who required R&S were more likely to have been hospitalized on an involuntary basis, more likely to present with either manic symptoms or aggressive behavior as primary reason for admission, had more frequent aggressive behaviors during hospitalization, and had a significantly longer length of stay. (3) A logistic regression showed that aggressive behaviors during hospitalization was significantly associated with the use of R&S (OR = 21.277, p < 0.001), along with three other factors: manic symptoms as a reason for admission, involuntary admission and a lower GAF score at admission (all p < 0.01). The rate of R&S is dramatically higher in child and adolescent psychiatric hospitalizations in China compared to other regions. Targeted training of staff, development of precise operational guidelines for appropriate use of R&S, and strict oversight are urgently needed to minimize the inappropriate use of R&S in child and adolescent patients.

[Mental health and human rights: The experience of professionals in training with the use of mechanical restraints in Madrid, Spain]

Mechanical restraint is a coercive procedure in psychiatry, which despite being permitted in Spain, raises significant ethical conflicts. Several studies argue that non-clinical factors - such as professionals' experiences and contextual influences - may play a more important role than clinical factors (diagnosis or symptoms) in determining how these measures are employed. The aim of this study is to understand how the experiences of mental health professionals in training relate to the use of mechanical restraints in Madrid's mental health network. Qualitative phenomenological research was conducted through focus groups in 2017. Interviews were transcribed for discussion and thematic analysis with Atlas.ti. Descriptive results suggest that these measures generate emotional distress and conflict with their role as caregivers. Our findings shed light on different factors related to their experiences and contexts that are important in understanding the use of mechanical restraint, as well as the contradictions of care in clinical practice.

Mental health nurses experience of the introduction and practice of the Safewards model: a qualitative descriptive study

BACKGROUND

A lack of safety experienced by patients and staff in acute psychiatric units is a major concern and containment methods used to manage conflict have the potential to cause harm and upset to both staff and patients. To ensure safety for all, it is highly desirable to reduce levels of conflict and containment and the Safewards model is an evidence-based model aimed at reducing conflict and containment rates by improving nurse-patient relationships and safety.

METHODS

The aim of this study was to explore mental health nurses' experience of the introduction and practice of three Safewards interventions; reassurance, soft words and discharge messages. A qualitative descriptive research design utilising a purposive sample (n = 21) of registered psychiatric nurses (n = 16) and managers (n = 5) in an acute psychiatric unit in Ireland. Following a 12-week implementation of Safewards, three focus groups were conducted, two with nursing staff and one with nurse managers. Data were analysed using Braun and Clarke thematic analysis framework which supported the identification of four themes: introducing Safewards, challenges of Safewards, impact of Safewards and working towards success.

RESULTS

The findings indicate that the process of implementation was inadequate in the training and education of staff, and that poor support from management led to poor staff adherence and acceptance of the Safewards interventions. The reported impact of Safewards on nursing practice and patient experience were mixed. Overall, engagement and implementation under the right conditions are essential for success and while some participants perceived that the interventions already existed in practice, participants agreed Safewards enhanced their communication skills and relationships with patients.

CONCLUSION

The implementation of Safewards requires effective leadership and support from management, mandatory training for all staff, and the involvement of staff and patients during implementation. Future research should focus on the training and education required for successful implementation of Safewards and explore the impact of Safewards on nursing practice and patient experience.

Non-pharmacological interventions to reduce restrictive practices in adult mental health inpatient settings: the COMPARE systematic mapping review

Objectives

The study aimed to provide a mapping review of non-pharmacological interventions to reduce restrictive practices in adult mental health inpatient settings; classify intervention components using the behaviour change technique taxonomy; explore evidence of behaviour change techniques and interventions; and identify the behaviour change techniques that show most effectiveness and those that require further testing.

Background

Incidents involving violence and aggression occur frequently in adult mental health inpatient settings. They often result in restrictive practices such as restraint and seclusion. These practices carry significant risks, including physical and psychological harm to service users and staff, and costs to the NHS. A number of interventions aim to reduce the use of restrictive practices by using behaviour change techniques to modify practice. Some interventions have been evaluated, but effectiveness research is hampered by limited attention to the specific components. The behaviour change technique taxonomy provides a common language with which to specify intervention content.

Design

Systematic mapping study and analysis.

Data sources

English-language health and social care research databases, and grey literature, including social media. The databases searched included British Nursing Index (BNI), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CCRCT), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), EMBASE, Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Database, HTA Canadian and International, Ovid MEDLINE®, NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), PsycInfo®and PubMed. Databases were searched from 1999 to 2019.

Review methods

Broad literature search; identification, description and classification of interventions using the behaviour change technique taxonomy; and quality appraisal of reports. Records of interventions to reduce any form of restrictive practice used with adults in mental health services were retrieved and subject to scrutiny of content, to identify interventions; quality appraisal, using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool; and data extraction, regarding whether participants were staff or service users, number of participants, study setting, intervention type, procedures and fidelity. The resulting data set for extraction was guided by the Workgroup for Intervention Development and Evaluation Research, Cochrane and theory coding scheme recommendations. The behaviour change technique taxonomy was applied systematically to each identified intervention. Intervention data were examined for overarching patterns, range and frequency. Overall percentages of behaviour change techniques by behaviour change technique cluster were reported. Procedures used within interventions, for example staff training, were described using the behaviour change technique taxonomy.

Results

The final data set comprised 221 records reporting 150 interventions, 109 of which had been evaluated. The most common evaluation approach was a non-randomised design. There were six randomised controlled trials. Behaviour change techniques from 14 out of a possible 16 clusters were detected. Behaviour change techniques found in the interventions were most likely to be those that demonstrated statistically significant effects. The most common intervention target was seclusion and restraint reduction. The most common strategy was staff training. Over two-thirds of the behaviour change techniques mapped onto four clusters, that is ‘goals and planning’, ‘antecedents’, ‘shaping knowledge’ and ‘feedback and monitoring’. The number of behaviour change techniques identified per intervention ranged from 1 to 33 (mean 8 techniques).

Limitations

Many interventions were poorly described and might have contained additional behaviour change techniques that were not detected. The finding that the evidence was weak restricted the study’s scope for examining behaviour change technique effectiveness. The literature search was restricted to English-language records.

Conclusions

Studies on interventions to reduce restrictive practices appear to be diverse and poor. Interventions tend to contain multiple procedures delivered in multiple ways.

Future work

Prior to future commissioning decisions, further research to enhance the evidence base could help address the urgent need for effective strategies. Testing individual procedures, for example, audit and feedback, could ascertain which are the most effective intervention components. Separate testing of individual components could improve understanding of content and delivery.

Study registration

The study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018086985.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full inHealth Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 9, No. 5. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Effects of Recovery-Orientation on the Use of Forced Medication and Maximum Daily Drug Dose: The "Weddinger Modell"

Objective: The aim of the present study was to analyze the effects of the implementation of the Recovery-orientated psychiatric care concept "Weddinger Modell" on the incidence of forced medication, the total number of forced medication incidents per affected case, the maximum dose of a singular forced medication and the maximum voluntary daily drug dose of different psychotropic drugs administered during an inpatient stay. Methods: This retrospective case-control study included 234 patients. A pre/post-comparison of patients on two acute psychiatric wards before (control group, n = 112) and after (intervention group, n = 122) the implementation of the Weddinger Modell in 2010 was performed. Patient data was selected at two reporting periods before and at two reporting periods after 2010. Results: No significant differences were found in the incidence of forced medication and the total number of forced medications. A significant reduction of the maximum forced medication dose of haloperidol in the intervention group was seen. Furthermore, the analysis of the intervention group showed a significant reduction of the maximum voluntary daily drug doses of clozapine, haloperidol and risperidone. Discussion: The results indicate that the implementation of the Weddinger Modell had no effect on the incidence of forced medication, but it can help to improve the approach to psychotropic drugs. Despite the reduction of mechanical coercive measures by the model, as shown in a previous study, there is no increase in forced medications or administered drug doses. Focus on Recovery helps in reducing coercion in acute psychiatric care.

The use of mechanical restraint in Pacific Rim countries: an international epidemiological study

AIMS

The use of mechanical restraint is a challenging area for psychiatry. Although mechanical restraint remains accepted as standard practice in some regions, there are ethical, legal and medical reasons to minimise or abolish its use. These concerns have intensified following the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Despite national policies to reduce use, the reporting of mechanical restraint has been poor, hampering a reasonable understanding of the epidemiology of restraint. This paper aims to develop a consistent measure of mechanical restraint and compare the measure within and across countries in the Pacific Rim.

METHODS

We used the publicly available data from four Pacific Rim countries (Australia, New Zealand, Japan and the United States) to compare and contrast the reported rates of mechanical restraint. Summary measures were computed so as to enable international comparisons. Variation within each jurisdiction was also analysed.

RESULTS

International rates of mechanical restraint in 2017 varied from 0.03 (New Zealand) to 98.9 (Japan) restraint events per million population per day, a variation greater than 3000-fold. Restraint in Australia (0.17 events per million) and the United States (0.37 events per million) fell between these two extremes. Variation as measured by restraint events per 1000 bed-days was less extreme but still substantial. Within all four countries there was also significant variation in restraint across districts. Variation across time did not show a steady reduction in restraint in any country during the period for which data were available (starting from 2003 at the earliest).

CONCLUSIONS

Policies to reduce or abolish mechanical restraint do not appear to be effecting change. It is improbable that the variation in restraint within the four examined Pacific Rim countries is accountable for by psychopathology. Greater efforts at reporting, monitoring and carrying out interventions to achieve the stated aim of reducing restraint are urgently needed.

A hermeneutic phenomenological exploration of 'last resort' in the use of restraint

Restraining patients is a practice that dates back at least three centuries. In recent years, there has been a mandate and advocacy in various countries for organizations to shift towards the minimization of restraint, whereby its use is only as a 'last resort'. There is growing evidence internationally indicating the negative impact of the use of restraint. However, to date there is no research specifically focusing on trying to understand the concept of 'last resort'. Further insights to explore this concept among mental health nurses are therefore warranted. The empirical research comprised a hermeneutic phenomenological study. By recruiting and interviewing thirteen mental health nurses from across Canada who had experiences of restraint use, the research aimed to generate a deeper understanding of the meanings and lived experiences of the concept of 'last resort'. Data were collected through fifteen in-depth interviews. Data analysis was undertaken through a hermeneutic phenomenological framework based on van Manen's approach and Heideggerian philosophy. Five Heideggerian concepts were used to illuminate 'last resort' in restraint use by mental health nurses - temporality, inauthenticity, thrownness, leaping in and leaping ahead, and mood (fear). Key findings highlight the influence of nurses' past experiences, how nursing staff adopt a collective (rather than individual) approach, and the dependency on knowledge and skills of others in using restraint as a 'last resort'. Overall, the lived experience of 'last resort' is comprised of many elements. This study provides insights and an initial understanding, which is hoped to advance the field of restraint minimization.

A tool to evaluate proportionality and necessity in the use of restrictive practices in forensic mental health settings: the DRILL tool (Dundrum restriction, intrusion and liberty ladders)

BACKGROUND

Prevention of violence due to severe mental disorders in psychiatric hospitals may require intrusive, restrictive and coercive therapeutic practices. Research concerning appropriate use of such interventions is limited by lack of a system for description and measurement. We set out to devise and validate a tool for clinicians and secure hospitals to assess necessity and proportionality between imminent violence and restrictive practices including de-escalation, seclusion, restraint, forced medication and others.

METHODS

In this retrospective observational cohort study, 28 patients on a 12 bed male admissions unit in a secure psychiatric hospital were assessed daily for six months. Data on adverse incidents were collected from case notes, incident registers and legal registers. Using the functional assessment sequence of antecedents, behaviours and consequences (A, B, C) we devised and applied a multivariate framework of structured professional assessment tools, common adverse incidents and preventive clinical interventions to develop a tool to analyse clinical practice. We validated by testing assumptions regarding the use of restrictive and intrusive practices in the prevention of violence in hospital. We aimed to provide a system for measuring contextual and individual factors contributing to adverse events and to assess whether the measured seriousness of threating and violent behaviours is proportionate to the degree of restrictive interventions used. General Estimating Equations tested preliminary models of contexts, decisions and pathways to interventions.

RESULTS

A system for measuring adverse behaviours and restrictive, intrusive interventions for prevention had good internal consistency. Interventions were proportionate to seriousness of harmful behaviours. A 'Pareto' group of patients (5/28) were responsible for the majority (80%) of adverse events, outcomes and interventions. The seriousness of the precipitating events correlated with the degree of restrictions utilised to safely manage or treat such behaviours.

CONCLUSION

Observational scales can be used for restrictive, intrusive or coercive practices in psychiatry even though these involve interrelated complex sequences of interactions. The DRILL tool has been validated to assess the necessity and demonstrate proportionality of restrictive practices. This tool will be of benefit to services when reviewing practices internally, for mandatory external reviewing bodies and for future clinical research paradigms.

Does high and intensive care reduce coercion? Association of HIC model fidelity to seclusion use in the Netherlands

BACKGROUND

A new inpatient care model has been developed in the Netherlands: High and Intensive Care (HIC). The purpose of HIC is to improve quality of inpatient mental healthcare and to reduce coercion.

METHODS

In 2014, audits were held at 32 closed acute admission wards for adult patients throughout the Netherlands. The audits were done by trained auditors, who were professionals of the participating institutes, using the HIC monitor, a model fidelity scale to assess implementation of the HIC model. The HIC model fidelity scale (67 items) encompasses 11 domains including for example team structure, team processes, diagnostics and treatment, and building environment. Data on seclusion and forced medication was collected using the Argus rating scale. The association between HIC monitor scores and the use of seclusion and forced medication was analyzed, corrected for patient characteristics.

RESULTS

Results showed that wards having a relatively high HIC monitor total score, indicating a high level of implementation of the model as compared to wards scoring lower on the monitor, had lower seclusion hours per admission hours (2.58 versus 4.20) and less forced medication events per admission days (0.0162 versus 0.0207). The HIC model fidelity scores explained 27% of the variance in seclusion rates (p < 0.001). Adding patient characteristics to HIC items in the regression model showed an increase of the explained variance to 40%.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that higher HIC model fidelity was associated with less seclusion and less forced medication at acute closed psychiatric wards in the Netherlands.

Influence of nursing staff attitudes and characteristics on the use of coercive measures in acute mental health services-A systematic review

WHAT IS KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT?: Aggressive behaviour is a major problem in clinical practice of mental health care and can result in the use of coercive measures. Coercive measures are dangerous for psychiatric patients and international mental healthcare works on the elimination of these interventions. There is no previous review that summarizes the attitude of nursing staff towards coercive measures and the influence of nursing staff characteristics on attitude towards and the use of coercive measures. WHAT THE PAPER ADDS TO EXISTING KNOWLEDGE?: The attitude of nurses shifted from a therapeutic paradigm (coercive measures have positive effects on patients) to a safety paradigm (coercive measures are undesirable, but necessary for the wards' safety). Nurses express the need for less coercive interventions to prevent seclusion and restraint, but their perception of intrusiveness is influenced by how often they use specific coercive measures. The knowledge from scientific literature on the influence of nursing staff on coercive measures is highly inconclusive, although the feeling of safety of nurses might prove to be promising for further research. WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE?: There is need for increased attention specifically for the feeling of safety of nurses, to better equip nurses for their difficult work on acute mental health wards. ABSTRACT: Introduction The use of coercive measures generally has negative effects on patients. To help prevent its use, professionals need insight into what nurses believe about coercion and which staff determinants may influence its application. There is need for an integrated review on both attitude and influence of nurses on the use of coercion. Aim To summarize literature concerning attitude of nurses towards coercive measures and the influence of staff characteristics on the use of coercive measures. Method Systematic review. Results The attitude of nurses changed during the last two decades from a therapeutic to a safety paradigm. Nurses currently view coercive measures as undesirable, but necessary to deal with aggression. Nurses express the need for less intrusive interventions, although familiarity probably influences its perceived intrusiveness. Literature on the relation between staff characteristics and coercive measures is inconclusive. Discussion Nurses perceive coercive measures as unwanted but still necessary to maintain safety on psychiatric wards. Focussing on the determinants of perception of safety might be a promising direction for future research. Implications for practice Mental health care could improve the focus on the constructs of perceived safety and familiarity with alternative interventions to protect patients from unnecessary use of coercive interventions.

Risk Factors for Seclusion in Children and Adolescents Inpatient Psychiatry: The Role of Demographic Characteristics, Clinical Severity, Life Experiences and Diagnoses

OBJECTIVE

To understand the risk factors for seclusion in a sample of children and adolescents admitted to an inpatient psychiatry unit looking at demographic, clinical severity, life experience, and diagnostic characteristics.

METHODS

An unmatched case-control retrospective analysis of psychiatric records in a pediatric inpatient unit from December 2011 to December 2015 (N = 1986) RESULTS: Individual characteristics, including demographics, clinical severity, and clinical presentation as per the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) jointly predicted seclusion in adolescents, with younger age, male sex, black race, having a prior admission, and having a disruptive behavior or bipolar and related disorder diagnoses being predictive of seclusion. While demographic and clinical severity factors were predictive of seclusion in multivariate models, clinical diagnoses only added modestly to the variance explained.

CONCLUSIONS

High-risk demographic and clinical characteristics for seclusion events in children and adolescents can provide valuable information to guide interventions to prevent seclusion events during their hospitalization.

Reducing coercion in mental healthcare

AIMS

To examine the extent and nature of coercive practices in mental healthcare and to consider the ethical, human rights challenges facing the current clinical practices in this area. We consider the epidemiology of coercion in mental health and appraise the efficacy of attempts to reduce coercion and make specific recommendations for making mental healthcare less coercive and more consensual.

METHODS

We identified references through searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL Plus. Search was limited to articles published from January 1980 to May 2018. Searches were carried out using the terms mental health (admission or detain* or detention or coercion) and treatment (forcible or involuntary or seclusion or restraint). Articles published during this period were further identified through searches in the authors' personal files and Google Scholar. Articles resulting from searches and relevant references cited in those articles were reviewed. Articles and reviews of non-psychiatric population, children under 16 years, and those pertaining exclusively to people with dementia were excluded.

RESULTS

Coercion in its various guises is embedded in mental healthcare. There is very little research in this area and the absence of systematic and routinely collected data is a major barrier to research as well as understanding the nature of coercion and attempts to address this problem. Examples of good practice in this area are limited and there is hardly any evidence pertaining to the generalisability or sustainability of individual programmes. Based on the review, we make specific recommendations to reduce coercive care. Our contention is that this will require more than legislative tinkering and will necessitate a fundamental change in the culture of psychiatry. In particular, we must ensure that clinical practice never compromises people's human rights. It is ethically, clinically and legally necessary to address the problem of coercion and make mental healthcare more consensual.

CONCLUSION

All forms of coercive practices are inconsistent with human rights-based mental healthcare. This is global challenge that requires urgent action.

Ethical challenges of seclusion in psychiatric inpatient wards: a qualitative study of the experiences of Norwegian mental health professionals

Background

Seclusion is an invasive clinical intervention used in inpatient psychiatric wards as a continuation of milieu therapy with vast behavioural implications that raise many ethical challenges. Seclusion is in Norway defined as an intervention used to contain the patient, accompanied by staff, in a single room, a separate unit, or an area inside the ward. Isolation is defined as the short-term confinement of a patient behind a locked or closed door with no staff present. Few studies examine how staff experiences the ethical challenges they encounter during seclusion. By making these challenges explicit and reflecting upon them, we may be able to provide better care to patients. The aim of this study is to examine how clinical staff in psychiatric inpatient wards describes and assess the ethical challenges of seclusion.

Methods

This study was based on 149 detailed written descriptions of episodes of seclusion from 57 psychiatric wards. A descriptive and exploratory approach was used. Data were analysed using qualitative content analysis.

Results

The main finding is that the relationship between treatment and control during seclusion presents several ethical challenges. This is reflected in the balance between the staff’s sincere desire to provide good treatment and the patients’ behaviour that makes control necessary. Particularly, the findings show how taking control of the patient can be ethically challenging and burdensome and that working under such conditions may result in psychosocial strain on the staff. The findings are discussed according to four core ethical principles: autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice.

Conclusion

Ethical challenges seem to be at the core of the seclusion practice. Systematic ethical reflections are one way to process the ethical challenges that staff encounters. More knowledge is needed concerning the ethical dimensions of seclusion and alternatives to seclusion, including what ethical consequences the psychosocial stress of working with seclusion have for staff.

Reweighing the Ethical Tradeoffs in the Involuntary Hospitalization of Suicidal Patients

Suicide is the 10th leading cause of death in the United States and the second cause of death among those ages 15-24 years. The current standard of care for suicidality management often involves an involuntary hospitalization deemed necessary by the attending psychiatrist. The purpose of this article is to reexamine the ethical tradeoffs inherent in the current practice of involuntary psychiatric hospitalization for suicidal patients, calling attention to the often-neglected harms inherent in this practice and proposing a path for future research. With accumulating evidence of the harms inherent in civil commitment, we propose that the relative value of this intervention needs to be reevaluated and more efficacious alternatives researched. Three arguments are presented: (1) that inadequate attention has been given to the harms resulting from the use of coercion and the loss of autonomy, (2) that inadequate evidence exists that involuntary hospitalization is an effective method to reduce deaths by suicide, and (3) that some suicidal patients may benefit more from therapeutic interventions that maximize and support autonomy and personal responsibility. Considering this evidence, we argue for a policy that limits the coercive hospitalization of suicidal individuals to those who lack decision-making capacity.

Safewards Impact in Inpatient Mental Health Units in Victoria, Australia: Staff Perspectives

Introduction: Mental health professionals working in acute inpatient mental health wards are involved in a complex interplay between an espoused commitment by government and organizational policy to be recovery-oriented and a persistent culture of risk management and tolerance of restrictive practices. This tension is overlain on their own professional drive to deliver person-centered care and the challenging environment of inpatient wards. Safewards is designed to reduce conflict and containment through the implementation of 10 interventions that serve to improve the relationship between staff and consumers. The aim of the current study was to understand the impact of Safewards from the perspectives of the staff. Methods: One hundred and three staff from 14 inpatient mental health wards completed a survey 12 months after the implementation of Safewards. Staff represented four service settings: adolescent, adult, and aged acute and secure extended care units. Results: Quantitative results from the survey indicate that staff believed there to be a reduction in physical and verbal aggression since the introduction of Safewards. Staff were more positive about being part of the ward and felt safer and more connected with consumers. Qualitative data highlight four key themes regarding the model and interventions: structured and relevant; conflict prevention and reducing restrictive practices; ward culture change; and promotes recovery principles. Discussion: This study found that from the perspective of staff, Safewards contributes to a reduction in conflict events and is an acceptable practice change intervention. Staff perspectives concur with those of consumers regarding an equalizing of staff consumer relationships and the promotion of more recovery-oriented care in acute inpatient mental health services.

Post-incident review after restraint in mental health care -a potential for knowledge development, recovery promotion and restraint prevention. A scoping review

Background

Use of physical restraint is a common practice in mental healthcare, but is controversial due to risk of physical and psychological harm to patients and creating ethical dilemmas for care providers. Post-incident review (PIR), that involve patient and care providers after restraints, have been deployed to prevent harm and to reduce restraint use. However, this intervention has an unclear scientific knowledge base. Thus, the aim of this scoping review was to explore the current knowledge of PIR and to assess to what extent PIR can minimize restraint-related use and harm, support care providers in handling professional and ethical dilemmas, and improve the quality of care in mental healthcare.

Methods

Systematic searches in the MEDLINE, PsychInfo, Cinahl, Sociological Abstracts and Web of Science databases were carried out. The search terms were derived from the population, intervention and settings.

Results

Twelve studies were included, six quantitative, four qualitative and two mixed methods. The studies were from Sweden, United Kingdom, Canada and United States. The studies’ design and quality varied, and PIR s’ were conducted differently. Five studies explored PIR s’ as a separate intervention after restraint use, in the other studies, PIR s’ were described as one of several components in restraint reduction programs. Outcomes seemed promising, but no significant outcome were related to using PIR alone. Patients and care providers reported PIR to: 1) be an opportunity to review restraint events, they would not have had otherwise, and 2) promote patients’ personal recovery processes, and 3) stimulate professional reflection on organizational development and care.

Conclusion

Scientific literature directly addressing PIR s’ after restraint use is lacking. However, results indicate that PIR may contribute to more professional and ethical practice regarding restraint promotion and the way restraint is executed. The practice of PIR varied, so a specific manual cannot be recommended. More research on PIR use and consequences is needed, especially PIR’s potential to contribute to restraint prevention in mental healthcare.

Effects of Seclusion and Restraint in Adult Psychiatry: A Systematic Review

Background: Determining the clinical effects of coercion is a difficult challenge, raising ethical, legal, and methodological questions. Despite limited scientific evidence on effectiveness, coercive measures are frequently used, especially in psychiatry. This systematic review aims to search for effects of seclusion and restraint on psychiatric inpatients with wider inclusion of outcomes and study designs than former reviews. Methods: A systematic search was conducted following PRISMA guidelines, primarily through Pubmed, Embase, and CENTRAL. Interventional and prospective observational studies on effects of seclusion and restraint on psychiatric inpatients were included. Main search keywords were restraint, seclusion, psychiatry, effect, harm, efficiency, efficacy, effectiveness, and quality of life. Results: Thirty-five articles were included, out of 6,854 records. Studies on the effects of seclusion and restraint in adult psychiatry comprise a wide range of outcomes and designs. The identified literature provides some evidence that seclusion and restraint have deleterious physical or psychological consequences. Estimation of post-traumatic stress disorder incidence after intervention varies from 25% to 47% and, thus, is not negligible, especially for patients with past traumatic experiences. Subjective perception has high interindividual variability, mostly associated with negative emotions. Effectiveness and adverse effects of seclusion and restraint seem to be similar. Compared to other coercive measures (notably forced medication), seclusion seems to be better accepted, while restraint seems to be less tolerated, possibly because of the perception of seclusion as "non-invasive." Therapeutic interaction appears to have a positive influence on coercion perception. Conclusion: Heterogeneity of the included studies limited drawing clear conclusions, but the main results identified show negative effects of seclusion and restraint. These interventions should be used with caution and as a last resort. Patients' preferences should be taken into account when deciding to apply these measures. The therapeutic relationship could be a focus for improvement of effects and subjective perception of coercion. In terms of methodology, studying coercive measures remains difficult but, in the context of current research on coercion reduction, is needed to provide workable baseline data and potential targets for interventions. Well-conducted prospective cohort studies could be more feasible than randomized controlled trials for interventional studies.

Physical Harm and Death in the Context of Coercive Measures in Psychiatric Patients: A Systematic Review

Background: For centuries coercive measures in psychiatry have been means of averting acute danger. It has been known for almost as long that these measures can lead to harm or even death to those affected. Over the past two decades the topic has increasingly been the subject of scientific discussion and research. While the legal and ethical preconditions for coercive measures in psychiatry as well as epidemiological studies on their incidence and patients' subjective experiences have increasingly come into focus, research on possible adverse events has lagged behind. To our knowledge there is no systematic review on the harmful or even fatal physical adverse effects of coercive interventions in psychiatry. Methods: We searched the databases PubMed and CINAHL for primary literature with a search string based on the PICO framework including key words describing different psychiatric diagnoses, coercive measures, and harms. Results: In total, 67 eligible studies (mainly case reports and case series) of very heterogeneous quality were included. Two RCTs were found reporting position-dependent cardiac deterioration, but were, however, carried out with healthy people and were characterized by a small number of cases. Death was the most frequently reported harm: cardiac arrest by chest compression in 14 studies, cardiac arrest by strangulation in 9, and pulmonary embolism in 8 studies. Further harms were, among others, venous thromboembolism and injuries. Injuries during physical restraint were reported in 0.8-4% of cases. For other kinds of coercive interventions, there are no sufficient data. Venous thromboembolism occurred in a considerable percentage of cases during mechanical restraint, also under prophylaxis. The most commonly reported coercive measure was restraint, distinguishing in mechanical restraint (43 studies), physical restraint (22 studies), bedrails (eight studies), vest restraint (7 studies), and chair restraint (6 studies). Forced medication was explicitly mentioned only in two, but seems to have occurred in nine studies. Six studies included seclusion. Conclusion: Coercive measures can lead to physical harm or even death. However, there is a significant lack of data on the incidence of such adverse events related to coercive interventions. Though reported anecdotally, physical adverse events during seclusion appear to be highly underresearched.

Requirements for the implementation of open door policies in acute psychiatry from a mental health professionals' and patients' view: a qualitative interview study

BACKGROUND

Treating legally committed patients on open, instead of locked wards is controversially discussed and the affected stakeholders (patients, mental health professionals) have ambiguous views on the benefits and disadvantages. The study aims to assess the opinions and values of relevant stakeholders with regard to the requirements for implementing open wards in psychiatric hospitals.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 psychiatrists, 15 psychiatric nurses and 15 patients, and were analyzed using qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

The interviewees identified conceptual, personnel and spatial requirements necessary for an open door policy. Observation and door watch concepts are judged to be essential for open wards, and patients appreciate the therapeutic value they hold. However, nurses find the door watch problematic. All groups suggest seclusion or small locked divisions as a possible way of handling agitated patients. All stakeholders agree that such concepts can only succeed if sufficient, qualified staff is available. They also agree that freedom of movement is a key element in the management of acutely ill patients, which can be achieved with an open door policy. Finally, the interviewees suggested removing the door from direct view to prevent absconding.

CONCLUSIONS

For psychiatric institutions seeking to implement (partially) open wards, the present results may have high practical relevance. The stakeholders' suggestions also illustrate that fundamental clinical changes depend on resource investments which - at least at a certain point - might not be feasible for individual psychiatric institutions but presumably require initiatives on the level of mental health care providers or policy makers.

Managing acutely aggressive or agitated people in a psychiatric setting: a survey in Lebanon

Background: Violent patients constitute 10% of all psychiatric admissions. Treatment options and clinical practice interventions vary across the globe and no survey of practice in a Middle Eastern setting exists. Surveying treatments in Lebanon will show treatment interventions used in this part of the world and, most importantly, provide the treatment options that could potentially be used for clinical trials pertaining to emergency psychiatry. Methods: A survey of clinicians' opinions and practice was conducted between July and August 2017 at the largest psychiatric hospital in Lebanon. Results: Five of seven experienced psychiatrists provided opinions when interviewed of their preferred intervention when dealing with an emergency psychiatric episode. Whilst this varied in detail, there was a consistent view that there should first be verbal control, then use of medications, and finally physical restrain of the patient. A total of 39 emergency episodes (28 people) occurred in the one month (64% men in their 30s). Bipolar disorder was the most frequent single diagnosis behind the aggression (n=16, 41%; 12 people 43%) but the combined schizophrenia-like illnesses underlay 18 of the 39 episodes (46%; 13/28 people 46%). In clinical life, we found evidence of high family involvement, but little attempts made at initial verbal control in the hospital. All 39 episodes involved administration of pharmacological interventions. Medications were used in 29 of cases (74%) and non-medication interventions used in the remaining 10/39 (26%). Conclusion: This survey provides some evidence that clinicians' preferences may not fully reflect clinical practice but also that experienced clinicians are using several clearly effective techniques to manage these very difficult situations. However, as for other parts of the world, treatment in Lebanon has limited or no underpinning by evidence from well-designed, conducted and reported evaluative studies.

Listening to the Patient Perspective: Psychiatric Inpatients' Attitudes Towards Physical Restraint

When other options fail, physical restraint is used in inpatient psychiatric units as a means to control violent behavior of agitated inpatients and to prevent them from harm. The professional and social discourse regarding the use of restrictive measures and the absence of the inpatients' attitudes towards these measures is notable. Our research therefore tries to fill this gap by interviewing inpatients about these issues. To assess the subjective experience and attitudes of inpatients who have undergone physical restraint. Forty inpatients diagnosed with psychiatric disorders were interviewed by way of a structured questionnaire. Descriptive statistics were conducted via use of SPSS statistical software. 1.Inpatients reported that physical restraint evoked an experience of loneliness (77.5%) and loss of autonomy (82.5%). 2.Staff visits during times of physical restraint were reported as beneficial according to 73.6% of the inpatients interviewed. 3.Two thirds of the inpatients viewed the use of physical restraints as justified when an inpatient was dangerous. 4.Two thirds of the inpatients regarded physical restraint as the most aversive experience of their hospitalization. Our pilot study explored the subjective experience and attitudes of psychiatric inpatients towards the use of physical restraint. Inpatients viewed physical restraint as a practice that was sometimes justified but at the same time evoked negative subjective feelings. We conclude that listening to inpatients' perspectives can help caregivers to evaluate these measures.

Long-Term Impact of a Tailored Seclusion Reduction Program: Evidence for Change?

International comparative studies show that Dutch seclusion rates are relatively high. Therefore, several programs to change this practice were developed and implemented. The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of a seclusion reduction program over a long time frame, from 2004 until 2013. Three phases could be identified; the phase of development and implementation of the program (2004-2007), the project phase (2008-2010) and the consolidation phase (2011-2013). Five inpatient wards of a mental health institute were monitored. Each ward had one or more seclusion rooms. Primary outcome were the number and the duration of seclusion incidents. Involuntary medication was monitored as well to rule out substitution of one coercive measure by another. Case mix correction for patient characteristics was done by a multi-level logistic regression analysis with patient characteristics as predictors and hours seclusion per admission hours as outcome. Seclusion use reduced significantly during the project phase, both in number (-73%) and duration (-80%) and was not substituted by the use of enforced medication. Patient compilation as analyzed by the multi- level regression seemed not to confound the findings. Findings show a slight increase in number and seclusion days over the last year of monitoring. Whether this should be interpreted as a continuous or temporary trend remains unclear and is subject for further investigation.

The Impact of 'Being There': Psychiatric Staff Attitudes on the Use of Restraint

The practice of mechanically restraining psychiatric patients is constantly under debate, and staff attitudes are considered a central factor influencing restraining practices. The aim of this study was to explore associations between psychiatric staff members' presence and participation in incidences of restraint and attitudes towards mechanical restraints.

METHODS

Staff members (psychiatrists, nurses, paramedical staff; N = 143 working in a government psychiatric hospital in Israel) completed a questionnaire including personal information, participation in incidents of restraint and attitudes towards mechanical restraints. Items were categorized into the following categories: security and care; humiliation and offending; control; order; education and punishment.

RESULTS

Compared to those who were not present during restraint, staff members who were present agreed significantly less with statements indicating that restraints are humiliating and offending and agreed more with statements indicating that restraints are used primarily for security and care (p < .05). Among those present in incidences of restraint, staff members who physically participated in restraint agreed significantly more with statements indicating that restraints are a means for security, care and order, and less with statements indicating restraints are humiliating and offending, compared to those present but not physically participating in restraint (p < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings highlight the importance of proximity of staff members to incidences of restraints. This may have implications in understanding the professional and social discourse concerning mechanical restraints.

Aripiprazole (intramuscular) for psychosis-induced aggression or agitation (rapid tranquillisation)

BACKGROUND

People experiencing psychosis may become aggressive. Antipsychotics, such as aripiprazole in intramuscular form, can be used in such situations.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of intramuscular aripiprazole in the treatment of psychosis-induced aggression or agitation (rapid tranquillisation).

SEARCH METHODS

On 11 December 2014 and 11 April 2017, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-based Register of Trials which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, BIOSIS, AMED, Embase, PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and registries of clinical trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that randomised people with psychosis-induced aggression or agitation to receive either intramuscular aripiprazole or another intramuscular intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently inspected citations and, where possible, abstracts, ordered papers and re-inspected and quality assessed these. We included studies that met our selection criteria. At least two review authors independently extracted data from the included studies. We chose a fixed-effect model. We analysed dichotomous data using risk ratio (RR) and the 95% confidence intervals (CI). We analysed continuous data using mean differences (MD) and their CIs. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and used GRADE to create 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

Searching found 63 records referring to 21 possible trials. We could only include three studies, all completed over the last decade, with 885 participants, of which 707 were included for quantitative analyses in this systematic review. Due to limited comparisons, small size of trials and a paucity of investigated and reported 'pragmatic' outcomes, evidence was mostly graded as low or very low quality. No trials reported useful data for one of our primary outcomes of tranquil or asleep by 30 minutes. Economic outcomes were also not reported in the trials.When compared with placebo, fewer people in the aripiprazole group needed additional injections compared to the placebo group (2 RCTs, n = 382, RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.85, very low-quality evidence). Clinically important improvement in agitation at two hours favoured the aripiprazole group (2 RCTs, n = 382, RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.92, very low-quality evidence). The numbers of non-responders after the first injection also favoured aripiprazole (1 RCT, n = 263, RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.71, low-quality evidence). Although no effect was found, more people in the aripiprazole compared to the placebo group experienced adverse effects (1 RCT, n = 117, RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.93 to 2.46, very low-quality evidence).Aripiprazole required more injections compared to haloperidol (2 RCTs, n = 477, RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.63, very low-quality evidence), with no significant difference in agitation (2 RCTs, n = 477, RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.11, very low-quality evidence), and similar non-responders after first injection (1 RCT, n = 360, RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.79, low-quality evidence). Aripiprazole and haloperidol did not differ when taking into account the overall number of people that experienced at least one adverse effect (1 RCT, n = 113, RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.35, very low-quality evidence).Compared to aripiprazole, olanzapine was better at reducing agitation (1 RCT, n = 80, RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.99, low-quality evidence) and had a more favourable effect on global state change scores (1 RCT, n = 80, MD 0.58, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.15, low-quality evidence), both at two hours. No differences were found in terms of experiencing at least one adverse effect during the 24 hours after treatment (1 RCT, n = 80, RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.24, very low-quality evidence). However, participants allocated to aripiprazole experienced less somnolence (1 RCT, n = 80, RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.82, low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The available evidence is of poor quality but there is some evidence aripiprazole is effective compared to placebo and haloperidol, but not when compared to olanzapine. However, considering that evidence comes from only three studies, caution is required in generalising these results to real-world practice. This review firmly highlights the need for more high-quality trials on intramuscular aripiprazole in the management of people with acute aggression or agitation.

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.