Containment strategies for people with serious mental illness

Locked external doors on inpatient mental health units: A scoping review

The principles of least restrictive care and recovery-focused practice are promoted as contemporary practice in the care of individuals with mental ill health, underpinning legislation concerning mental health and illness in many jurisdictions worldwide. Inpatient mental health units with locked doors are incompatible with this style of care and throwback to a time where care for mental illness was primarily custodial. The aim of this scoping review is to determine whether evidence exists for locking mental health unit doors, whether this practice is compatible with recovery-focused care and to determine whether door locking has changed since a review conducted by Van Der Merwe et al. (Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, 16, 2009, 293) found that door locking was not the preferred practice in the management of acute mental health units. We used Arksey and O'Malley's (International Journal of Social Research Methodology: Theory and Practice, 8, 2005, 19) framework for scoping reviews, with our initial search locating 1377 studies, with screening narrowing final papers for inclusion to 20. Methodologies for papers included 12 using quantitative methodology, 5 qualitative and 3 that used mixed methods designs. Poor evidence was found for door locking to mitigate risks such as absconding, aggression or illicit substance importation. Furthermore, locked doors had a detrimental impact on the therapeutic relationship, nurse job satisfaction and intention to leave the profession. This scoping review indicates that research is urgently needed to address a mental healthcare culture where door locking is an entrenched practice. Studies of alternative approaches to risk management are required to ensure inpatient mental health units are truly least-restrictive, therapeutic environments.

Patients' Perceptions of Safety and Debriefing in Forensic Mental Health Care in Finland

BACKGROUND

Safety is of paramount importance to patients and staff in forensic mental health hospitals. Previous research has focused on organizational and nurses' perceptions of safety and violence in psychiatric wards. However, little is known about how patients view their safety. This study aimed to describe how patient debriefing can improve safety.

METHODS

Qualitative research using thematic analysis was used. Data were collected by semistructured interviews and debriefing forms. Inpatient interviews ( n = 45) were conducted between June and July 2018, with debriefing forms ( n = 376) collected retrospectively.

RESULTS

Forensic inpatient responses were divided into two main categories: psychological and physical security. Psychological safety included care culture and patient-related themes. Responses on care culture highlighted weaknesses in nurse-patient communication, whereas patient-related themes related to respondents' descriptions of the challenges posed by mental illness. Physical safety related to both the environment and patient-related themes, with various restrictions and environmental distractions seen by respondents as negatively affecting patient safety.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who participated in the study felt that care culture, especially communication with nurses, most significantly impacted their safety. Forensic hospitals should consider patients' perceptions of their care while systematically gathering information through debriefing, as these practices can contribute to the development of a safer care environment. The next step will be clarifying how changes in nursing practices and the care environment can be used to prevent violence in psychiatric wards.

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.

De-escalation of conflict in forensic mental health inpatient settings: a Theoretical Domains Framework-informed qualitative investigation of staff and patient perspectives

Background

Violence and other harms that result from conflict in forensic inpatient mental health settings are an international problem. De-escalation approaches for reducing conflict are recommended, yet the evidence-base for their use is limited. For the first time, the present study uses implementation science and behaviour change approaches to identify the specific organisational and individual behaviour change targets for enhanced de-escalation in low and medium secure forensic inpatient settings. The primary objective of this study was to identify and describe individual professional, cultural and system-level barriers and enablers to the implementation of de-escalation in forensic mental health inpatient settings. The secondary objective was to identify the changes in capabilities, opportunities and motivations required to enhance de-escalation behaviours in these settings.

Methods

Qualitative design with data collection and analysis informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Two medium secure forensic mental health inpatient wards and one low secure mental health inpatient ward participated. 12 inpatients and 18 staff participated across five focus groups and one individual interview (at participant preference) guided by a semi-structured interview schedule informed by the TDF domains. Data were analysed via Framework Analysis, organised into the 14 TDF domains then coded inductively within each domain.

Results

The capabilities required to enhance de-escalation comprised relationship-building, emotional regulation and improved understanding of patients. Staff opportunities for de-escalation are limited by shared beliefs within nursing teams stigmatising therapeutic intimacy in nurse-patient relationships and emotional vulnerability in staff. These beliefs may be modified by ward manager role-modelling. Increased opportunity for de-escalation may be created by increasing service user involvement in antipsychotic prescribing and modifications to the physical environment (sensory rooms and limiting restrictions on patient access to ward spaces). Staff motivation to engage in de-escalation may be increased through reducing perceptions of patient dangerousness via post-incident debriefing and advanced de-escalation planning.

Conclusions

Interventions to enhance de-escalation in forensic mental health settings should enhance ward staff’s understanding of patients and modify beliefs about therapeutic boundaries which limit the quality of staff-patient relationships. The complex interactions within the capabilities-opportunities-motivation configuration our novel analysis generated, indicates that de-escalation behaviour is unlikely to be changed through knowledge and skills-based training alone. De-escalation training should be implemented with adjunct interventions targeting: collaborative antipsychotic prescribing; debriefing and de-escalation planning; modifications to the physical environment; and ward manager role-modelling of emotional vulnerability and therapeutic intimacy in nurse-patient relationships.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40359-022-00735-6.

Evaluation of coercive measures in different psychiatric hospitals: the impact of institutional characteristics

BACKGROUND

Epidemiological studies have demonstrated considerable differences in the use of coercive measures among psychiatric hospitals; however, the underlying reasons for these differences are largely unclear. We investigated to what extent these differences could be explained by institutional factors.

METHODS

Four psychiatric hospitals with identical responsibilities within the mental health care system, but with different inpatient care organizations, participated in this prospective observational study. We included all patients admitted over a period of 24 months who were affected by mechanical restraint, seclusion, or compulsory medication. In addition to the patterns of coercive measures, we investigated the effect of each hospital on the frequency of compulsory medication and the cumulative duration of mechanical restraint and seclusion, using multivariate binary logistic regression. To compare the two outcomes between hospitals, odds ratios (OR) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated.

RESULTS

Altogether, coercive measures were applied in 1542 cases, corresponding to an overall prevalence of 8%. The frequency and patterns of the modalities of coercive measures were different between hospitals, and the differences could be at least partially related to institutional characteristics. For the two hospitals that had no permanently locked wards, certain findings were particularly noticeable. In one of these hospitals, the probability of receiving compulsory medication was significantly higher compared with the other institutions (OR 1.9, CI 1.1-3.0 for patients < 65 years; OR 8.0, CI 3.1-20.7 for patients ≥65 years); in the other hospital, in patients younger than 65 years, the cumulative duration of restraint and seclusion was significantly longer compared with the other institutions (OR 2.6, CI 1.7-3.9).

CONCLUSIONS

The findings are compatible with the hypothesis that more open settings are associated with a more extensive use of coercion. However, due to numerous influencing factors, these results should be interpreted with caution. In view of the relevance of this issue, further research is needed for a deeper understanding of the reasons underlying the differences among hospitals.

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.

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.

Constant observation of pediatric patients at risk for self-harm and suicide: An evidence-based practice inquiry

Suicide is a leading cause of death for pediatric patients in the United States. The utilization of protective observation strategies, namely constant observation, is a regulatory recommendation as part of a comprehensive suicide prevention plan for hospitalized behavioral health patients. Constant observation is the increased level of observation and supervision with continuous one-to-one monitoring techniques, taken to assure the safety and well-being of a patient and others in the patient care environment (Moore et al., 1995). This evidence-based practice inquiry describes a search for the best evidence on constant observation practices ensuring the safe care of pediatric patients at risk for self-harm or suicide. The findings included no high-level evidence, however four literary themes related to the challenges of constant observation emerged: confusing language and definitions, untested models of care, important privacy issues and lack of pediatric observation strategies for patients at risk for self-harm and suicide. Impaired communication underscored each of the themes.

[Open doors in psychiatric hospitals : An overview of empirical findings]

BACKGROUND

Currently, it is a topic of debate whether psychiatric hospitals can and should be managed with a full open door policy. The revised legislation of public law for involuntary commitment explicitly allows or even encourages such practice in several German federal states. In parts of Austria, open doors are required for legal reasons. A systematic literature search was conducted for articles providing empirical data related to this issue.

METHOD

Literature search in PubMed augmented by a manual search in references of retrieved papers and reviews with similar objectives.

RESULTS

A total of 26 articles reporting empirical data could be identified. Most of these articles came from Germany or Switzerland. The majority were published within the past 5 years. The definition of "open doors" ranged from an only vaguely defined open door policy up to explicit set time periods with open doors. Some studies reported a decrease in coercive interventions. No study reported any associated adverse events resulting from open doors in psychiatric wards.

DISCUSSION

Generally, all studies had methodological weaknesses. Prospective randomized controlled studies or quasi-experimental studies are missing in the context of European healthcare systems. The risk of bias was considerable in most studies. A final conclusion regarding the possible extent of psychiatry with open doors and the associated risks is currently not possible. There is an urgent need for future high-quality prospective studies.

[Open doors, open mind : Plea for an open treatment psychiatry]

Patients who are committed against their natural will are regularly accommodated in closed wards in Germany. Only a few clinics treat patients who have been involuntarily committed on open wards. On the basis of own clinical experience and relevant study results, closed and open wards are compared with respect to the extent of aggression and coercive measures, the risks of absconding and suicide. Compared to open wards, closed wards are unlikely to reduce the risk of absconding, do not result in a decreased suicide rate and do not result in a reduction of aggressive behavior. In contrast, coercive measures seem to be practiced more frequently in closed wards. Therefore, the regular practice of accommodation in closed wards should be revised.

Open doors by fair means: Study protocol for a 3-year prospective controlled study with a quasi-experimental design towards (or to implement) an open Ward policy in acute care units

BACKGROUND

Acute psychiatric wards in Germany are often locked due to the assumption that opening could endanger patients and society. On the contrary, some findings suggest that aversive events such as absconding and attempted suicides do not occur more often on wards with an open-door policy. However, these data are probably biased with regard to differing patient populations on open and locked wards. To our best knowledge, the present study is the first prospective controlled study with a quasi-experimental design dealing with this issue.

METHODS

This study investigates whether indicators of an open-door policy, as measured by a priori determined outcomes, can be improved by a defined complex intervention on two intervention wards in two psychiatric hospitals, compared to two control wards with otherwise very similar conditions. Both hospitals contain two wards identical in structure and patient admittance policies, so that a similar study protocol can be followed with similar patient populations. Both hospitals have a defined catchment area and receive voluntary and involuntary admissions. In a baseline phase, wards will be opened facultatively (i.e., if it seems possible to staff). In the following intervention period, one ward per hospital will establish an enhanced open-door policy by applying additional strategic and personnel support. As a control group, the control ward will continue to be opened facultatively. After one year, control wards will be opened according to the open-door policy as well. Interventions will include the continuous identification of patients at risk as well as the development of individual care concepts and additional staffing. For this purpose, nursing and medical staff will be methodically supported on an ongoing basis by study staff. Outcomes variables will be the percentage of door opening on each ward between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., the percentage of all treatment days with the door opened and the number of involuntary treatment days with open doors. Data on frequencies of aggressive incidents, absconding, police searches, and seclusion or restraint will be used as control variables. Additional costs will be calculated.

DISCUSSION

Treating mentally ill patients on locked wards is a highly relevant and critically discussed topic. In particular, it is controversially discussed whether changes in door policy can be established without increasing risks to patients and others. This study aims to gain robust data on this issue, going beyond beliefs and questionable retrospective observational studies.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Our trial "Open Doors By Fair Means" is retrospectively registered with DRKS (DRKS00015154) on Sept. 10th 2018 and displayed on the public web site. It is searchable via its Meta-registry ( http://apps.who.int/trialsearch/ ).

Validation of a short version of the Coercion Experience Scale (CES-18): Psychometric characteristics in a Spanish sample

The Coercion Experience Scale (CES) is a questionnaire that evaluates the subjective experience of coercion during psychiatric hospitalization. This study aimed to assess a short version of the Coercion Experience Scale (CES-18) in a Spanish Sample (N = 114). Two authors independently selected the items, choosing those that could also be applied to the experience of coercion after the use of forced medication. Reliability was estimated using internal consistency coefficients. Internal validity was assessed by means of a factorial analysis based on the method of extraction of main components and using orthogonal rotation VARIMAX. Convergent and discriminatory validity was evaluated by correlation between the total score of the CES-18 with the original CES and a Visual Analogue Scale, The Davidson Trauma Scale and the Client Assessment of Treatment Scale. The CES-18 showed adequate internal consistency (Cronbach α = 0.940). Factor analysis resulted in a two-factor solution (Coercion and Humiliation and Fear) explaining 64.2% of the total variance. The correlation between the original CES and CES-18 was adequate (r = 0.968). The scores suggested good divergent and convergent validity. The Spanish language CES-18 demonstrated adequate psychometric proprieties in order to assess perceived coercion during psychiatric hospitalization.

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.

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.

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.

De-escalation techniques for managing non-psychosis induced aggression in adults

BACKGROUND

Aggression occurs frequently within health and social care settings. It can result in injury to patients and staff and can adversely affect staff performance and well-being. De-escalation is a widely used and recommended intervention for managing aggression, but the efficacy of the intervention as a whole and the specific techniques that comprise it are unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of de-escalation techniques for managing non-psychosis-induced aggression in adults in care settings, in both staff and service users.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and 14 other databases in September 2017, plus three trials registers in October 2017. We also checked references, and contacted study authors and authorities in the field to identify additional published and unpublished studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing de-escalation techniques with standard practice or alternative techniques for managing aggressive behaviour in adult care settings. We excluded studies in which participants had psychosis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

This review includes just one cluster-randomised study of 306 older people with dementia and an average age of 86 years, conducted across 16 nursing homes in France. The study did not measure any of our primary or secondary outcomes but did measure behavioural change using three measurement scales: the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI; 29-item scale), the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI; 12-item scale), and the Observation Scale (OS; 25-item scale). For the CMAI, the study reports a Global score (29 items rated on a seven-point scale (1 = never occurs to 7 = occurs several times an hour) and summed to give a total score ranging from 29 to 203) and mean scores (evaluable items (rated on the same 7-point scale) divided by the theoretical total number of items) for the following four domains: Physically Non-Aggressive Behaviour, such as pacing (13 items); Verbally Non-Aggressive Behaviour, such as repetition (four items); Physically Aggressive Behaviour, such as hitting (nine items); and Verbally Aggressive Behaviour, such as swearing (three items). Four of the five CMAI scales improved in the intervention group (Global: change mean difference (MD) -5.69 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) -9.59 to -1.79; Physically Non-Aggressive: change MD -0.32 points, 95% CI -0.49 to -0.15; Verbally Non-Aggressive: change MD -0.44 points, 95% CI -0.69 to -0.19; and Verbally Aggressive: change MD -0.16 points, 95% CI -0.31 to -0.01). There was no difference in change scores on the Physically Aggressive scale (MD -0.08 points, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.21). Using GRADE guidelines, we rated the quality of this evidence as very low due to high risk of bias and indirectness of the outcome measures. There were no differences in NPI or OS change scores between groups by the end of the study.We also identified one ongoing study.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The limited evidence means that uncertainty remains around the effectiveness of de-escalation and the relative efficacy of different techniques. High-quality research on the effectiveness of this intervention is therefore urgently needed.

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

BACKGROUND

Aggressive, agitated or violent behaviour due to psychosis constitutes an emergency psychiatric treatment where fast-acting interventions are required. Risperidone is a widely accessible antipsychotic that can be used to manage psychosis-induced aggression or agitation.

OBJECTIVES

To examine whether oral risperidone alone is an effective treatment for psychosis-induced aggression or agitation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials (up to April 2017); 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. There are no language, date, document type, or publication status limitations for inclusion of records into the register.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing rapid use of risperidone and other drugs, combinations of drugs or placebo for people exhibiting aggression or agitation (or both) thought to be due to psychosis.

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) and for continuous data we calculated mean difference (MD), all with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and used a fixed-effect model. We assessed risk of bias for the included studies and used the GRADE approach to produce a 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

The review now contains data from nine trials (total n = 582) reporting on five comparisons. Due to risk of bias, small size of trials, indirectness of outcome measures and a paucity of investigated and reported 'pragmatic' outcomes, evidence was graded as very-low quality. None of the included studies provided useable data on our primary outcome 'tranquillisation or asleep' by 30 minutes, repeated need for tranquillisation or any economic outcomes. Data were available for our other main outcomes of agitation or aggression, needing restraint, and incidence of adverse effects.Risperidone versus haloperidol (up to 24 hours follow-up)For the outcome, specific behaviour - agitation, no clear difference was found between risperidone and haloperidol in terms of efficacy, measured as at least 50% reduction in the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale - Psychotic Agitation Sub-score (PANSS-PAS) (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.26; participants = 124; studies = 1; very low-quality evidence) and no effect was observed for need to use restraints (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.43 to 9.21; participants = 28; studies = 1; very low-quality evidence). Incidence of adverse effects was similar between treatment groups (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.66; participants = 124; studies = 1; very low-quality evidence).Risperidone versus olanzapineOne small trial (n = 29) reported useable data for the comparison risperidone versus olanzapine. No effect was observed for agitation measured as PANSS-PAS endpoint score at two hours (MD 2.50, 95% CI -2.46 to 7.46; very low-quality evidence); need to use restraints at four days (RR 1.43, 95% CI 0.39 to 5.28; very-low quality evidence); specific movement disorders measured as Behavioural Activity Rating Scale (BARS) endpoint score at four days (MD 0.20, 95% CI -0.43 to 0.83; very low-quality evidence).Risperidone versus quetiapineOne trial reported (n = 40) useable data for the comparison risperidone versus quetiapine. Aggression was measured using the Modified Overt Aggression Scale (MOAS) endpoint score at two weeks. A clear difference, favouring quetiapine was observed (MD 1.80, 95% CI 0.20 to 3.40; very-low quality evidence). No evidence of a difference between treatment groups could be observed for incidence of akathisia after 24 hours (RR 1.67, 95% CI 0.46 to 6.06; very low-quality evidence). Two participants allocated to risperidone and one allocated to quetiapine experienced myocardial ischaemia during the trial.Risperidone versus risperidone + oxcarbazepineOne trial (n = 68) measured agitation using the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale - Excited Component.(PANSS-EC) endpoint score and found a clear difference, favouring the combination treatment at one week (MD 2.70, 95% CI 0.42 to 4.98; very low-quality evidence), but no effect was observed for global state using Clinical Global Impression - Improvement (CGI-I) endpoint score at one week (MD -0.20, 95% CI -0.61 to 0.21; very-low quality evidence). Incidence of extrapyramidal symptoms after 24 hours was similar between treatment groups (RR 1.59, 95% CI 0.49 to 5.14; very-low quality evidence).Risperidone versus risperidone + valproic acidTwo trials compared risperidone with a combination of risperidone plus valproic acid. No clear differences between the treatment groups were observed for aggression (MOAS endpoint score at three days: MD 1.07, 95% CI -0.20 to 2.34; participants = 54; studies = 1; very low-quality evidence) or incidence of akathisia after 24 hours: RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.28 to 2.03; participants = 122; studies = 2; very low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, results for the main outcomes show no real effect for risperidone. The only data available for use in this review are from nine under-sampled trials and the evidence available is of very low quality. This casts uncertainty on the role of risperidone in rapid tranquillisation for people with psychosis-induced aggression. High-quality pragmatic RCTs are feasible and are needed before clear recommendations can be drawn on the use of risperidone for psychosis-induced aggression or agitation.

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.

Positive Effects of an Anti-Aggression and De-Escalation Training on Ward Atmosphere and Subjective Safety May Depend on Previous Training Experience

Anti-aggression and de-escalation (ADE) trainings of health-care professionals working on psychiatric inpatient wards have been shown to increase staff knowledge and confidence, which could be connected with higher subjective safety. Additionally, a potential reduction of aggressive incidents could improve ward atmosphere. Thus, the current study aimed to investigate the effects of ADE training on ward atmosphere and subjective safety. In 2015, an ADE training was established at the Psychiatric University Clinics (UPK), University of Basel. Nursing staff from 22 wards received theoretical and practical training over the course of 5 days. Ward atmosphere and subjective safety were assessed using the Essen Climate Evaluation Schema (EssenCES). A total of 46 people had been assessed in 2012 before training implementation (baseline), and 45 persons in 2016 after implementation. In the 2016 group, 23 people had previously participated in an ADE training, and 22 were first-time participants. Patients' coherence (p = 0.004), subjective safety (p = 0.004), and ward atmosphere (p = 0.001) were rated significantly higher by first-time ADE training participants compared to baseline, and patients' coherence (p = 0.029) and ward atmosphere (p = 0.011) were rated significantly higher by first-time ADE training participants than by nurses with prior ADE training. There were no significant differences regarding any EssenCES ratings by nurses with prior ADE training compared to baseline. ADE training was exclusively connected with higher ratings on most EssenCES scales for first-time participants. This indicates that the positive effects of ADE training may depend on previous training experience.

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.

Suicide by mental health in-patients under observation

BACKGROUND

Observations in psychiatric in-patient settings are used to reduce suicide, self-harm, violence and absconding risk. The study aims were to describe the characteristics of in-patients who died by suicide under observation and examine their service-related antecedents.

METHOD

A national consecutive case series in England and Wales (2006-2012) was examined.

RESULTS

There were 113 suicides by in-patients under observation, an average of 16 per year. Most were under intermittent observation. Five deaths occurred while patients were under constant observation. Patient deaths were linked with the use of less experienced staff or staff unfamiliar with the patient, deviation from procedures and absconding.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified key elements of observation that could improve safety, including only using experienced and skilled staff for the intervention and using observation levels determined by clinical need not resources.

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.

Seclusion and Psychiatric Intensive Care Evaluation Study (SPICES): combined qualitative and quantitative approaches to the uses and outcomes of coercive practices in mental health services

Background

Seclusion (the isolation of a patient in a locked room) and transfer to a psychiatric intensive care unit (PICU; a specialised higher-security ward with higher staffing levels) are two common methods for the management of disturbed patient behaviour within acute psychiatric hospitals. Some hospitals do not have seclusion rooms or easy access to an on-site PICU. It is not known how these differences affect patient management and outcomes.

Objectives

To (1) assess the factors associated with the use of seclusion and PICU care, (2) estimate the consequences of the use of these on subsequent violence and costs (study 1) and (3) describe differences in the management of disturbed patient behaviour related to differential availability (study 2).

Design

The electronic patient record system at one trust was used to compare outcomes for patients who were and were not subject to seclusion or a PICU, controlling for variables, including recent behaviours. A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed (study 1). Nursing staff at eight hospitals with differing access to seclusion and a PICU completed attitudinal measures, a video test on restraint-use timing and an interview about the escalation pathway for the management of disturbed behaviour at their hospital. Analyses examined how results differed by access to PICU and seclusion (study 2).

Participants

Patients on acute wards or PICUs in one NHS trust during the period 2008–13 (study 1) and nursing staff at eight randomly selected hospitals in England, with varying access to seclusion and to a PICU (study 2).

Main outcome measures

Aggression, violence and cost (study 1), and utilisation, speed of use and attitudes to the full range of containment methods (study 2).

Results

Patients subject to seclusion or held in a PICU were more likely than those who were not to be aggressive afterwards, and costs of care were higher, but this was probably because of selection bias. We could not derive satisfactory estimates of the causal effect of either intervention, but it appeared that it would be feasible to do so for seclusion based on an enriched sample of untreated controls (study 1). Hospitals without seclusion rooms used more rapid tranquillisation, nursing of the patient in a side room accompanied by staff and seclusion using an ordinary room (study 2). Staff at hospitals without seclusion rated it as less acceptable and were slower to initiate manual restraint. Hospitals without an on-site PICU used more seclusion, de-escalation and within-eyesight observation.

Limitations

Official record systems may be subject to recording biases and crucial variables may not be recorded (study 1). Interviews were complex, difficult, constrained by the need for standardisation and collected in small numbers at each hospital (study 2).

Conclusions

Closing seclusion rooms and/or restricting PICU access does not appear to reduce the overall levels of containment, as substitution of other methods occurs. Services considering expanding access to seclusion or to a PICU should do so with caution. More evaluative research using stronger designs is required.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

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.

Safety in psychiatric inpatient care: The impact of risk management culture on mental health nursing practice

The discourse of safety has informed the care of individuals with mental illness through institutionalization and into modern psychiatric nursing practices. Confinement arose from safety: out of both societal stigma and fear for public safety, as well as benevolently paternalistic aims to protect individuals from self‐harm. In this paper, we argue that within current psychiatric inpatient environments, safety is maintained as the predominant value, and risk management is the cornerstone of nursing care. Practices that accord with this value are legitimized and perpetuated through the safety discourse, despite evidence refuting their efficacy, and patient perspectives demonstrating harm. To illustrate this growing concern in mental health nursing care, we provide four exemplars of risk management strategies utilized in psychiatric inpatient settings: close observations, seclusion, door locking and defensive nursing practice. The use of these strategies demonstrates the necessity to shift perspectives on safety and risk in nursing care. We suggest that to re‐centre meaningful support and treatment of clients, nurses should provide individualized, flexible care that incorporates safety measures while also fundamentally re‐evaluating the risk management culture that gives rise to and legitimizes harmful practices.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

DISCUSSION

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION

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

De-escalation techniques for psychosis-induced aggression or agitation

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

A descriptive survey study of violence management and priorities among psychiatric staff in mental health services, across seventeen european countries

Background

In mental health services what is commonplace across international frontiers is that to prevent aggressive patients from harming themselves, other patients or staff, coercive measures and foremost, violence management strategies are required. There is no agreement, recommendations or direction from the EU on which measures of coercion should be practiced across EU countries, and there is no overall one best practice approach.

Methods

The project was conceived through an expert group, the European Violence in Psychiatry Research Group (EViPRG). The study aimed to incorporate an EU and multidisciplinary response in the determination of violence management practices and related research and education priorities across 17 European countries. From the EVIPRG members, one member from each country agreed to act as the national project coordinator for their country. Given the international spread of respondents, an eDelphi survey approach was selected for the study design and data collection. A survey instrument was developed, agreed and validated through members of EVIPRG.

Results

The results included a total of 2809 respondents from 17 countries with 999 respondents who self-selected for round 2 eDelphi. The majority of respondents worked in acute psychiatry, 54% (n = 1511); outpatient departments, 10.5% (n = 295); and Forensic, 9.3% (n = 262). Other work areas of respondents include Rehabilitation, Primary Care and Emergency. It is of concern that 19.5% of respondents had not received training on violence management. The most commonly used interventions in the management of violent patients were physical restraint, seclusion and medications. The top priorities for education and research included: preventing violence; the influence of environment and staff on levels of violence; best practice in managing violence; risk assessment and the aetiology and triggers for violence and aggression.

Conclusion

In many European countries there is an alarming lack of clarity on matters of procedure and policy pertaining to violence management in mental health services. Violence management practices in Europe appear to be fragmented with no identified ideological position or collaborative education and research. In Europe, language differences are a reality and may have contributed to insular thinking, however, it must not be seen as a barrier to sharing best practice.

Acceptability and use of coercive methods across differing service configurations with and without seclusion and/or psychiatric intensive care units

Aims

The aim of this study was to compare across different service configurations the acceptability of containment methods to acute ward staff and the speed of initiation of manual restraint.

Background

One of the primary remits of acute inpatient psychiatric care is the reduction in risks. Where risks are higher than normal, patients can be transferred to a psychiatric intensive care unit or placed in seclusion. The abolition or reduction in these two containment methods in some hospitals may trigger compensatory increases in other forms of containment which have potential risks. How staff members manage risk without access to these facilities has not been systematically studied.

Design

The study applied a cross‐sectional design.

Methods

Data were collected from 207 staff at eight hospital sites in England between 2013 ‐ 2014. Participants completed two measures; the first assessing the acceptability of different forms of containment for disturbed behaviour and the second assessing decision‐making in relation to the need for manual restraint of an aggressive patient.

Results

In service configurations with access to seclusion, staff rated seclusion as more acceptable and reported greater use of it. Psychiatric intensive care unit acceptability and use were not associated with its provision. Where there was no access to seclusion, staff were slower to initiate restraint. There was no relationship between acceptability of manual restraint and its initiation.

Conclusion

Tolerance of higher risk before initiating restraint was evident in wards without seclusion units. Ease of access to psychiatric intensive care units makes little difference to restraint thresholds or judgements of containment acceptability.

Droperidol for psychosis-induced aggression or agitation

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

The Therapeutic Relationship in Inpatient Psychiatric Care: A Narrative Review of the Perspective of Nurses and Patients

PURPOSE

To study the significance of 'therapeutic relationship' between nurses and patients within the context of a psychiatric hospital.

METHOD

Narrative literature review. Content analysis.

FINDINGS

The significance of the therapeutic relationship is quite similar for both nurses and patients in psychiatric hospital units. Nevertheless, several factors may separate the two positions: the time available for the relationship, the negative perceptions on the part of both parties, and the insecurity of the setting.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Increased knowledge and understanding of the significance of the therapeutic relationship from the perspective of nurses and patients would allow the strengthening of areas of mutual interest.

Care planning for aggression management in a specialist secure mental health service: An audit of user involvement

This paper describes an audit of prevention and management of violence and aggression care plans and incident reporting forms which aimed to: (i) report the compliance rate of completion of care plans; (ii) identify the extent to which patients contribute to and agree with their care plan; (iii) describe de-escalation methods documented in care plans; and (iv) ascertain the extent to which the de-escalation methods described in the care plan are recorded as having been attempted in the event of an incident. Care plans and incident report forms were examined for all patients in men's and women's mental health care pathways who were involved in aggressive incidents between May and October 2012. In total, 539 incidents were examined, involving 147 patients and 121 care plans. There was no care plan in place at the time of 151 incidents giving a compliance rate of 72%. It was documented that 40% of patients had contributed to their care plans. Thematic analysis of de-escalation methods documented in the care plans revealed five de-escalation themes: staff interventions, interactions, space/quiet, activities and patient strategies/skills. A sixth category, coercive strategies, was also documented. Evidence of adherence to de-escalation elements of the care plan was documented in 58% of incidents. The reasons for the low compliance rate and very low documentation of patient involvement need further investigation. The inclusion of coercive strategies within de-escalation documentation suggests that some staff fundamentally misunderstand de-escalation.

Haloperidol for long-term aggression in psychosis

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Haloperidol plus promethazine for psychosis-induced aggression

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Effective ingredients of verbal de-escalation: validating an English modified version of the 'De-Escalating Aggressive Behaviour Scale'

WHAT IS KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT?: Verbal de-escalation is an intervention aimed at calmly managing an agitated client to prevent violence. Effective de-escalation can help reduce the use of seclusion and restraint in psychiatric settings. Despite its importance in practice, there is little agreement on the necessary techniques of de-escalation and most of the research on the topic is based on expert opinion. To our knowledge, only one attempt at quantifying de-escalation skill has been pursued through the German-language De-Escalating Aggressive Behaviour Scale (DABS). While the DABS identified seven qualities necessary for de-escalation, it has not been validated in English and may lack important descriptors. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS TO EXISTING KNOWLEDGE?: The present study enhanced the original DABS with best, acceptable and least desirable staff de-escalation practice descriptions for each of the seven items. This enhancement of the DABS lead to the creation of the English modified DABS (EMDABS). The EMDABS was psychometrically validated for use in research and practice: raters could use the EMDABS with a high level of agreement and consistency. Also, the scale appeared to measure a single cohesive construct - de-escalation. WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE?: With further validation, the EMDABS has potential to be the first English quantitative measure of de-escalation. The EMDABS offers seven items, with associated best practice descriptions, that may be used to inform de-escalation practice. The EMDABS can be used to evaluate training and education programmes and inform how these programmes and independent de-escalation practice may be improved.

ABSTRACT

Introduction Verbal de-escalation is crucial to a non-coercive psychiatric environment. Despite its importance, the literature on de-escalation is sparse and mostly qualitative. To address this, Nau et al. (2009) quantified de-escalation by creating the German-language De-Escalating Aggressive Behaviour Scale (DABS). The DABS provides seven skills necessary for de-escalation, however it has not been validated in English and lacks the necessary anchor descriptions to make it useful. Aim To modify the DABS to include descriptions of best, acceptable and least desirable staff practice and to validate the English modified DABS (EMDABS). Method To develop item descriptions for the EMDABS, 50 conflictual staff-patient interactions were reviewed, summarized and cross-referenced with the literature (n = 19). Three raters then used the EMDABS to evaluate 272 simulations depicting these interactions. Results The EMDABS demonstrated very good inter-rater reliability [ICC (3, 1) = 0.752] and strong internal consistency (α = 0.901). A factor analysis revealed that the seven items were best represented by a single factor. Discussion The EMDABS was validated for future use in research and practice. Additional validation and future research directions are discussed. Implications for practice The EMDABS holds promise as a quantitative measure of de-escalation. Its seven items and best practice guidelines have clinical implications for improving practice and training.

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

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

INTRODUCTION

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

AIM

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

METHOD

An integrative review using Cooper's framework was undertaken.

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

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

Conclusions

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

Collecting Information for Rating Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF): Sources of Information and Methods for Information Collection

INTRODUCTION

Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) is an assessment instrument that is known worldwide. It is widely used for rating the severity of illness. Results from evaluations in psychiatry should characterize the patients. Rating of GAF is based on collected information. The aim of the study is to identify the factors involved in collecting information that is relevant for rating GAF, and gaps in knowledge where it is likely that further development would play a role for improved scoring.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted with a combination of thorough hand search and search in the bibliographic databases PubMed, PsycINFO, Google Scholar, and Campbell Collaboration Library of Systematic Reviews.

RESULTS

Collection of information for rating GAF depends on two fundamental factors: the sources of information and the methods for information collection. Sources of information are patients, informants, health personnel, medical records, letters of referral and police records about violence and substance abuse. Methods for information collection include the many different types of interview - unstructured, semi-structured, structured, interviews for Axis I and II disorders, semistructured interviews for rating GAF, and interviews of informants - as well as instruments for rating symptoms and functioning, and observation. The different sources of information, and methods for collection, frequently result in inconsistencies in the information collected. The variation in collected information, and lack of a generally accepted algorithm for combining collected information, is likely to be important for rated GAF values, but there is a fundamental lack of knowledge about the degree of importance.

CONCLUSIONS

Research to improve GAF has not reached a high level. Rated GAF values are likely to be influenced by both the sources of information used and the methods employed for information collection, but the lack of research-based information about these influences is fundamental. Further development of GAF is feasible and proposals for this are presented.

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

Background:

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Benzodiazepines for psychosis-induced aggression or agitation

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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