A randomized clinical trial to compare the use of safety net enclosures with standard restraints in agitated hospitalized patients

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.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHOD

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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