Patients' preference and experiences of forced medication and seclusion

Physical Restraint Experience of Patients with Mental Disorders in Mainland China: A Qualitative Study

Introduction

The use of physical restraint (PR) is considered a controversial practice and research in Western countries has demonstrated negative physical and psychological consequences for patients, as well as staff, family members/carers, organisations and society as a whole. However, there are few research reports on restraint experiences of patients with mental disorders in non-Western countries, especially in mainland China.

Aim

This study aims to explore the subjective experiences and perceptions of patients with psychiatric disorders who have experienced PR in mainland China.

Methods

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 8 inpatients with mental disorders in convalescence at a specialized mental health hospital in Shanghai. Interviews were recorded on audiotape and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis.

Results

Five themes emerged: "perception and understanding of PR", "response to PR", "negative physical and psychological experiences", "unmet care needs during PR" and "changes after PR", which together characterize patients' perceptions, experiences, feelings, and needs in PR.

Conclusion

The use of PR involves ethical issues and brings negative experiences to patients with mental disorders that cannot be ignored and should be used as a last resort. Different patients have different attitudes and reactions to PR. During PR, patients' physical and psychological needs are not adequately met. Medical staff should give more attention to patients in PR, meet their physical and psychological needs, and actively seek PR alternatives and reduction options based on evidence-based resources on restraint reduction available in the West and the national context and culture of China.

Psychiatric Nurses' Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practice Regarding Physical Restraint in China: A Multicentre Cross-Sectional Study

Background

Physical restraint is widely used in mental health services to address safety concerns. However, studies have shown that improper physical restraint can result in adverse effects. Nurses are the main practitioners of physical restraint and play a crucial role in physical restraint decisions and nursing. In China, there is a lack of large-scale investigations into the current status of psychiatric physical restraint use.

Aim

This study aims to explore the situation and influencing factors of the psychiatric nurses' knowledge, attitudes and practices regarding physical restraint in China.

Methods

A cross-sectional multicenter descriptive study was conducted from December 2022 to February 2023, consecutively. A convenience sampling method was used to recruit 345 staff from three psychiatric hospitals in Shanghai. A psychiatric nurses' physical restraint use status questionnaire was administered to examine their knowledge, attitude, and practice regarding physical restraint. The data were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U-test and the Kruskal-Wallis test. Multivariate linear stepwise regression analysis was used for multi-factor analysis.

Results

Overall, nurses had a good level of knowledge with positive attitudes and adequate practices. However, they had some misunderstandings and undesirable practices. Multiple linear regression analysis revealed that educational background, position and training experience were the main factors influencing physical restraint knowledge, attitudes and practice among psychiatric nurses (p<0.05).

Conclusion

This study highlights some important misconceptions and improper practices of psychiatric nurses about using physical restraint. It is necessary to strengthen education and training on physical restraint for nursing staff to reduce unnecessary physical restraint use.

[The Attitude of the Public Concerning Coercive Measures in Psychiatric Patients]

OBJECTIVE

To examine the attitude of the general public in Basel concerning the use of coercive measures while dealing with psychiatric patients. The common population indirectly governs the use of coercive measures in psychiatry by its stigmatization of people with psychiatric illnesses, and its attitude towards treatment in psychiatry and by local opinion leaders and reactions of social networks.

METHODS

The answers of 1,112 persons from a representative population survey were evaluated. Participants were mailed case vignettes and questionnaires, and asked if they considered involuntary admission, coercive medication, and/or seclusion as acceptable measures in dealing with psychiatric patients.

RESULTS

When symptoms of a psychotic disorder were present, 31.5% approved of at least one coercive measure, with 22% approval in the case of a borderline personality disorder, and 20.7% in the case of alcohol dependency. However, the overall rejection of coercive measures by the general public in Basel was high. The differential approval of the examined coercive measures depending on psychiatric symptoms was in line with professional medical and ethical guidelines.

CONCLUSION

Public attitudes have an indirect influence on the local use of coercive measures and should be included in the specialist psychiatric discourse.

Use of the least intrusive coercion at Danish psychiatric wards: A register-based cohort study of 131,632 first and subsequent coercive episodes within 35,812 admissions

OBJECTIVE

Psychiatric legislation in Denmark implies a principle of using the least intrusive types of coercion first. The intrusiveness is not universally agreed upon. We examined the order in which coercive measures during admission were used, implying that the first used should be less intrusive than the following types.

METHODS

For coercive episodes reported to the national administrative register for the period 2011-16, the order of 12 legal coercive interventions during each admission was examined. Comparing with mechanical restraint, the odds ratio (OR) and confidence interval (95%CI) of being first or subsequent used types were estimated using conditioned (96,611 episodes) and unconditioned (131,632 episodes) logistic regression models, stratified on sex.

RESULTS

Totally 17,796 patients aged 18+ were subjected to at least one coercive episode. The median time between admission and the first episode was 4 days in men and 6 for women. For females, involuntary detention, forced feeding, coercive treatment of somatic disorder, locking of doors and close observations in females were used before mechanical restraint, and forced follow-up, involuntary electro convulsive therapy (ECT), forced treatment, use of gloves and straps, physical restraint and forced intramuscular medication was used later. In men, only involuntary detention was used before mechanical restraint, while involuntary ECT, close observations, administration of drugs, use of gloves and straps, physical restraint and forced intramuscular medication was used after mechanical restraint.

CONCLUSION

The order of used coercive measures is not consistent with the international ranking of the least intrusive types, especially in men and in younger adults.

Social Isolation and Psychosis: Perspectives from People with Psychosis, Family Caregivers and Mental Health Professionals

This paper explores the subjective experiences of mental health practitioners, people with psychosis and carers, on social isolation and community integration of people with psychosis. Focus groups and one-to-one interviews with 80 adult participants across three sites in the UK were conducted. Audio recordings were transcribed and analysed using thematic analysis. Participants commented on various aspects that may cause social isolation or enable community integration, including institutional factors (lack of resources, hospitalisation impact), illness symptoms (e.g., paranoia; over-pathologising vs individual choice), stigma (particularly the psychosis label), and the importance of communities that foster agency and embrace change. Hospitalisation maybe be a cause for isolation and psychiatric wards should consider allowing for socialisation as a therapeutic tool. Initiatives should consider the social fabric of our communities, socioeconomic inequalities and stigmatisation. Building communities that are accepting, kind and flexible can create opportunities that could lead to independence from mental health services.

Exploring the complexity of acute inpatient mental health nurses experience of chemical restraint interventions: Implications on policy, practice and education

Chemical restraint research is growing with multiple healthcare disciplines increasing focused on understanding uses, harms of restraint and restraint reduction in inpatient mental health settings. Despite increased restraint research relatively little is known about nurses' experiences of administering chemical restraint. The research question guiding this study was: what are mental health nurses' experiences of using chemical restraint interventions in times of behavioural emergency on adult inpatient acute mental health units? The purpose of the research was to understand direct care nurses' first-hand experiences in use of chemical restraint interventions. Eight adult acute inpatient mental health nurses were interviewed using hermeneutic phenomenological method. The aim of this paper to discuss three themes that emerged in the research which clearly highlight the complex ethical issues and education needs of mental health nurses who use chemical restraint: working within constraints, making medication choices, and transitioning from novice to expert. Research findings indicated a need for further focus on medication best practice, policy development and nurse education. These exploratory research findings can be used to both inform and challenge dominant inpatient mental health practice to guide nurses, health care leaders, and policy makers by increasing understanding of the complex ethical decision-making required for use of chemical restraint interventions. Education strategies can be developed from the findings which highlight integral ways that nurses make meaning in their administering of chemical restraint, and their accompanied insights into the complex clinical and ethical decision-making aspects involved in nursing care.

Measuring Seclusion in Psychiatric Intensive Care: Development and Measurement Properties of the Clinical Seclusion Checklist

Background: Acute psychiatric units in general hospitals must ensure that acutely disturbed patients do not harm themselves or others, and simultaneously provide care and treatment and help patients regain control of their behavior. This led to the development of strategies for the seclusion of a patient in this state within a particular area separated from other patients in the ward. While versions of this practice have been used in different countries and settings, a systematic framework for describing the various parameters and types of seclusion interventions has not been available. The aims of the project were to develop and test a valid and reliable checklist for characterizing seclusion in inpatient psychiatric care. Methods: Development and testing of the checklist were accomplished in five stages. Staff in psychiatric units completed detailed descriptions of seclusion episodes. Elements of seclusion were identified by thematic analysis of this material, and consensus regarding these elements was achieved through a Delphi process comprising two rounds. Good content validity was ensured through the sample of seclusion episodes and the representative participants in the Delphi process. The first draft of the checklist was revised based on testing by clinicians assessing seclusion episodes. The revised checklist with six reasons for and 10 elements of seclusion was tested with different response scales, and acceptable interrater reliability was achieved. Results: The Clinical Seclusion Checklist is a brief and feasible tool measuring six reasons for seclusion, 10 elements of seclusion, and four contextual factors. It was developed through a transparent process and exhibited good content validity and acceptable interrater reliability. Conclusion: The checklist is a step toward achieving valid and clinically relevant measurements of seclusion. Its use in psychiatric units may contribute to quality assurance, more reliable statistics and comparisons across sites and periods, improved research on patients' experiences of seclusion and its effects, reduction of negative consequences of seclusion, and improvement of psychiatric intensive care.

Medication Use and Physical Assaults in the Psychiatric Emergency Department

Objective: To evaluate the relationship between medications used to treat acute agitation (antipsychotics, mood stabilizers, and benzodiazepines) and subsequent assault incidence in the psychiatric emergency department. Methods: Medication orders and assault incident reports were obtained from electronic health records for 17,056 visits to an urban psychiatric emergency department from 2014 to 2019. Assault risk was modeled longitudinally using Poisson mixed-effects regression. Results: Assaults were reported during 0.5% of visits. Intramuscular (IM) medications were ordered in 23.3% of visits overall and predominantly were ordered within the first 4 hours of a visit. IM medication orders were correlated with assault (incident rate ratio [IRR] = 24.2; 95% CI, 5.33-110.0), often because IM medications were ordered immediately subsequent to reported assaults. Interacted with time, IM medications were not significantly associated with reduction in subsequent assaults (IRR = 0.700; 95% CI, 0.467-1.04). Neither benzodiazepines nor mood stabilizers were associated with subsequent changes to the risk of reported assault. By contrast, antipsychotic medications were associated with decreased assault risk across time (IRR = 0.583; 95% CI, 0.360-0.942). Conclusions: Although assault prevention is not the sole reason for ordering IM medications, IM medication order rates are high relative to overall assault incident risk. Of the 3 major categories of medications ordered commonly in the psychiatric emergency setting, only antipsychotic medications were associated with measurable decreases in subsequent assault risk. As antipsychotic medication can have a significant side effect burden, careful weighing of the risks and benefits of medications is encouraged.

Physical Restraint in Psychiatric Care: Soon to Fall Out of Use?

International directives all recommend that using restraints on psychiatric patients should be avoided, yet scientific literature shows that such practices are still largely in use. This article aims to lay out strategies that could be put in place in order to gradually discard the use of restraints, particularly through a "restraint-free" approach, nursing, logistic-environmental pathways, and locally centered health care provision. All such tools have proven valuable for the purpose of safeguarding the health of psychiatric patients. Hence, the failure to put in place such measures may lead to litigation and lawsuits against physicians and particularly health care facilities. Undoubtedly, the ability to effectively implement such methods largely depends on the financial resources available, which in countries such as Italy are poorer than in others. Still, the risk of being sued and held professionally liable may constitute a factor in raising awareness among operators, facilities, and public health care management, leading to the implementation of policy changes aimed at minimizing the use of restraints.

Psychiatric admission as a risk factor for posttraumatic stress disorder

Psychiatric hospitalization poses a risk for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), partly because of coercion. However, the role of legal status is less clear, while factors like insight, exposure to violence and affective disorders have not been addressed adequately. The present study aims at assessing PTSD rates after hospitalization and evaluating the potential role of these factors. 98 inpatients were assessed for PTSD, insight, main diagnosis, adverse events during hospitalization and legal status. Assessment took place at discharge (T1) and three months later (T2). Three months after discharge, 74.2% of patients with affective disorders met symptom-criteria for PTSD. Voluntarily hospitalized patients had more severe PTSD-symptoms. This relation vanished after controlling for affective disorders. The latter, as well as exposure to violence were the most significant risk factors at T2. Female gender, marital status (not married) and employment status (not employed), were additional risk factors at T1, while involuntary medication had a negative effect on PTSD-symptoms. Voluntarily hospitalized patients are more vulnerable to PTSD, due to higher rates of affective disorders. Females suffering from affective disorders who are not married and not employed should be monitored for PTSD symptoms during and after hospitalization, especially if exposed to violence.

The Compulsory Care Act: Early Observations and Expectations of In- or Outpatient Involuntary Treatment

BACKGROUND

On January 1, 2020, the Dutch Compulsory Care Act (WvGGZ) replaced the Special Admissions Act (BOPZ). While the old law only allowed compulsory treatment in hospitals, the new law allows it both inside and outside the hospital. Moreover, the new law prioritizes the patient's own opinion on coercive measures. By following patients' own choices, the Compulsory Care Act is hoped to lead to fewer admission days and less inpatient compulsory treatment in involuntarily admitted patients.

METHODS

We studied the seclusion and enforced-medication events before and after January 1, 2020, using coercive measures monitoring data in a Mental Health Trust. Trends in hours of seclusion and the number of enforced-medication events per month from 2012 to 2019 were compared with 2020. We used generalized linear models to perform time series analysis. Logistic regression analyses and generalized linear models were performed to investigate whether patient compilation determined some of the observed changes in seclusion use or enforced-medication events.

RESULTS

The mean number of hours of seclusion between 2012 and 2019 was 27,124 per year, decreasing from 48,542 in 2012 to 21,133 in 2019 to 3,844 h in 2020. The mean incidence of enforced-medication events between 2012 and 2019 was 167, increasing from 90 in 2012 to 361 in 2019 and then fell to 294 in 2020. In 2020, we observed 3,844 h of seclusion and 294 enforced-medication events. Near to no outpatient coercion was reported, even though it was warranted. The time series analysis showed a significant effect of the year 2020 on seclusion hours (β = -1.867; Exp(β) = 0.155, Wald = 27.22, p = 0.001), but not on enforced-medication events [β = 0.48; Exp(β) = 1.616, Wald = 2.33, p = 0.13].

DISCUSSION

There was a reduction in the number of seclusion hours after the introduction of the Compulsory Care Act. The number of enforced-medication events also increased from a very low baseline, but from 2017 onwards. To see whether these findings are consistent over time, they need to be replicated in the near future.

CONCLUSION

We observed a significant increase in enforced-medication use and a decrease in seclusion hours. The year 2020 predicted seclusion hours, but not enforced-medication events.

Correlates of Patient Satisfaction in Psychiatric Inpatient Care: A Survey Study from a Tertiary Hospital in Turkey

In the current study, a questionnaire to evaluate satisfaction levels and related factors upon discharge was completed by 100 patients receiving care for mental illness in a tertiary care hospital in Turkey. The relationships among sociodemographic variables, nonpharmacological interventions, and participants' views about the treatment course and quality of care they received were investigated. Overall satisfaction levels of participants were good. Older participants reported more positive opinions. Involuntary hospitalization, use of restraints/seclusion, or electroconvulsive therapy did not change overall satisfaction. Participants who were hospitalized for the first time were more afraid of other patients, which may imply that this population needs special care from the treatment team. Spending an adequate amount of time and providing necessary information about their treatment plan impact patients' treatment experience positively. [Journal of Psychosocial Nursing and Mental Health Services, 59(4), 38-47.].

Les substances chimiques utilisées à des fins de contrôle : un statut juridique controversé

Au Québec, les mesures de contrôle – isolement, contentions et substances chimiques – font l’objet d’un encadrement législatif depuis 1998. Or, depuis cette date, les substances chimiques sont au coeur d’un débat sur leur statut juridique, entre thérapie et contrôle. En 2015, le ministère de la Santé et des Services Sociaux publie un Cadre de référence révisé sensé établir des normes directrices en matière de substances chimiques utilisées à des fins de contrôle. Un examen de ce cadre laisse pourtant transparaître plusieurs incohérences, entretenant l’indétermination sur leur statut. D’une part, l’exception prévue en matière de consentement ne correspond pas au cadre juridique québécois en matière de soins, laissant penser qu’il s’agit bien d’une mesure de contrôle. D’autre part, les actes réservés sont les mêmes, que les substances chimiques soient utilisées à des fins de contrôle ou à des fins thérapeutiques, laissant penser qu’il s’agit plutôt d’une mesure thérapeutique.

International research into 22 years of use of chemical restraint: An evidence overview

BACKGROUND

Chemical restraint (CR) (also known as rapid tranquilisation) is the forced (non-consenting) administration of medications to manage uncontrolled aggression, anxiety, or violence in people who are likely to cause harm to themselves or others. Our population of interest was adults with mental health disorders (with/without substance abuse). There has been a growing international movement over the past 22 years towards reducing/eliminating restrictive practices such as CR. It is appropriate to summarise the research that has been published over this time, identify trends and gaps in knowledge, and highlight areas for new research to inform practice.

AIMS

To undertake a comprehensive systematic search to identify, and describe, the volume and nature of primary international research into CR published since 1995.

METHODS

This paper reports the processes and overall findings of a systematic search for all available primary research on CR published between 1 January 1996 and 31 July 2018. It describes the current evidence base by hierarchy of evidence, country (ies) producing the research, CR definitions, study purpose, and outcome measures.

RESULTS

This review identified 311 relevant primary studies (21 RCTs; 46 non-controlled experimental or prospective observational studies; 77 cross-sectional studies; 69 retrospective studies; 67 opinion pieces, position or policy statements; and 31 qualitative studies). The USA, UK, and Australia contributed over half the research, whilst cross-country collaborations comprised 6% of it. The most common research settings comprised acute psychiatric wards (23.3%), general psychiatric wards (21.6%), and general hospital emergency departments (19.0%).

DISCUSSION

A key lesson learnt whilst compiling this database of research into CR was to ensure that all papers described non-consenting administration of medications to manage adults with uncontrolled aggression, anxiety, or violence. There were tensions in the literature between using effective CR without producing adverse events, and how to decide when CR was needed (compared with choosing non-chemical intervention for behavioural emergencies), respecting patients' dignity whilst safeguarding their safety, and preserving safe workplaces for staff, and care environments for other patients. The range of outcome measures suggests opportunities to standardise future research.

Increased use of coercive procedures and prolonged hospitalization in compulsory admitted psychotic patients, who refuse antipsychotic medication

Objective: Current Danish legislation imposes that compulsory admitted psychotic patients have the right to refuse antipsychotic medication, which markedly delays pertinent medical treatment.Material and methods: In a retrospective, observational cohort study, we analyzed data from a 1-year period on 34 consecutively admitted patients with schizophrenia, who had been compulsory admitted due to need of treatment, or because they were judged to constitute an acute danger to themselves or others. We compared the use of other coercive procedures and hospitalization time.Results: Twenty-three patients accepted to commence antipsychotic treatment immediately, and 11 patients submitted an official complaint, which significantly delayed initiation of antipsychotic treatment (1 day ±0.9 versus 14 days ±10.1, p = 0.002). The 11 complaining patients were subjected to 6.8 times more coercive procedures of forced sedative medication compared to the 23 patients without delay (2.7 ± 2.3 episodes versus 0.4 ± 0.7 episodes, p = 0.007). Moreover, the treatment-delay prolonged duration of hospitalization by a factor 2.3 (73.3 ± 28.3 days versus 31.7 ± 22.0 days, p < 0.001).Conclusion: The current legislation intends to preserve patient rights and promote voluntary treatment alliance but may instead lead to prolonged hospitalization and increased use of other coercive measures such as forced sedative medication. Modification of current legislation may therefore be considered.

Using patient experience data to support improvements in inpatient mental health care: the EURIPIDES multimethod study

Background

All NHS providers collect data on patient experience, although there is limited evidence about what to measure or how to collect and use data to improve services. We studied inpatient mental health services, as these are important, costly and often unpopular services within which serious incidents occur.

Aims

To identify which approaches to collecting and using patient experience data are most useful for supporting improvements in inpatient mental health care.

Design

The study comprised five work packages: a systematic review to identify evidence-based patient experience themes relevant to inpatient mental health care (work package 1); a survey of patient experience leads in NHS mental health trusts in England to describe current approaches to collecting and using patient experience data in inpatient mental health services, and to populate the sampling frame for work package 3 (work package 2); in-depth case studies at sites selected using the work package 2 findings, analysed using a realist approach (work package 3); a consensus conference to agree on recommendations about best practice (work package 4); and health economic modelling to estimate resource requirements and potential benefits arising from the adoption of best practice (work package 5). Using a realist methodology, we analysed and presented our findings using a framework based on four stages of the patient experience data pathway, for which we coined the term CRAICh (collecting and giving, receiving and listening, analysing, and quality improvement and change). The project was supported by a patient and public involvement team that contributed to work package 1 and the development of programme theories (work package 3). Two employed survivor researchers worked on work packages 2, 3 and 4.

Setting

The study was conducted in 57 NHS providers of inpatient mental health care in England.

Participants

In work package 2, 47 NHS patient experience leads took part and, in work package 3, 62 service users, 19 carers and 101 NHS staff participated, across six trusts. Forty-four individuals attended the work package 4 consensus conference.

Results

The patient experience feedback cycle was rarely completed and, even when improvements were implemented, these tended to be environmental rather than cultural. There were few examples of triangulation with patient safety or outcomes data. We identified 18 rules for best practice in collecting and using inpatient mental health experience data, and 154 realist context–mechanism–outcome configurations that underpin and explain these.

Limitations

The study was cross-sectional in design and we relied on examples of historical service improvement. Our health economic models (in work package 5) were therefore limited in the estimation and modelling of prospective benefits associated with the collection and use of patient experience data.

Conclusions

Patient experience work is insufficiently embedded in most mental health trusts. More attention to analysis and interpretation of patient experience data is needed, particularly to ways of triangulating these with outcomes and safety data.

Future work

Further evaluative research is needed to develop and evaluate a locally adapted intervention based on the 18 rules for best practice.

Study registration

The systematic review (work package 1) is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016033556.

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 in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 8, No. 21. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The effectiveness of chemical restraint in managing acute agitation and aggression: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials

One approach to manage people with behaviours of concern including agitated or aggressive behaviours in health care settings is through the use of fast-acting medication, called chemical restraint. Such management often needs to be delivered in crisis situations to patients who are at risk of harm to themselves or others. This paper summarizes the available evidence on the effectiveness and safety of chemical restraint from 21 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 3788 patients. The RCTs were of moderate to high quality and were conducted in pre-hospital, hospital emergency department, or ward settings. Drugs used in chemical restraint included olanzapine, haloperidol, droperidol, risperidol, flunitrazepam, midazolam, promethazine, ziprasidone, sodium valproate, or lorazepam. There was limited comparability between studies in drug choice, combination, dose, method of administration (oral, intramuscular, or intravenous drip), or timing of repeat administrations. There were 31 outcome measures, which were inconsistently reported. They included subjective measures of behaviours, direct measures of treatment effect (time to calm; time to sleep), indirect measures of agitation (staff or patient injuries, duration of agitative or aggressive episodes, subsequent violent episodes), and adverse events. The most common were time to calm and adverse events. There was little clarity about the superiority of any chemical method of managing behaviours of concern exhibited by patients in Emergency Departments or acute mental health settings. Not only is more targeted research essential, but best practice recommendations for such situations requires integrating expert input into the current evidence base.

Freedom Restrictive Coercive Measures in Forensic Psychiatry

Background: In Germany, people suffering from severe mental illness who have committed serious offenses and have considerably reduced or suspended criminal responsibility can be detained and treated in forensic psychiatric hospitals. In the German federal state of Baden-Wuerttemberg, all psychiatric hospitals including forensic psychiatric hospitals are obliged to record data on every coercive intervention and to submit them to a central registry. The objective of this study was to determine key measures for the use of seclusion and restraint and to compare them with data from the same registry on the use of coercion in general inpatient mental health care. Methods: Data on the main psychiatric diagnosis according to ICD-10, type and duration of each coercive measure and number of treated cases according to diagnoses, and cumulated number of days of treatment from all 8 forensic facilities in the state of Baden-Wuerttemberg covering a catchment area with about 11 million inhabitants were collected at the treated-case-level for 3 years. Results: 22.6% of the cases treated in 2017 in forensic psychiatric hospitals were subjected to seclusion, and 3.8% were subjected to mechanical restraint. The mean cumulated duration of seclusion episodes per affected case was 343.9 h and the mean cumulated duration of restraint episodes was 261.7 h. 13.2% of the treated cases were subjected to room confinement with a mean cumulated duration of 539.1 h per affected case. Involuntary medication was applied in 1.9% of the cases. In general psychiatry, 2.9% of the treated cases were subjected to seclusion, and 4.7% were subjected to mechanical restraint. The mean cumulated duration per affected case amounted to 32.2 h for seclusion episodes and to 37.6 h for restraint episodes. Involuntary medication was applied in 0.6% of cases. Conclusion: Compared to general psychiatry, mechanical restraint is used in forensic psychiatry substantially less frequently and seclusion substantially more frequently. Room confinement is used only in forensic psychiatric hospitals. Use of involuntary medication is rare. On the one hand, recorded involuntary medication comprises only clear actions against the patient's expressed will as defined by law. Psychological pressure to take medication to avoid other forms of coercion and to achieve higher levels of freedom within the facility is not recorded. On the other hand, the low numbers of clear involuntary medication probably reflect the high legal threshold for such interventions, and, consequently, efforts by staff to motivate voluntary acceptance. The long duration of freedom-restricting coercive measures in forensic psychiatry probably reflects the selection of patients at high risk of violence.

Patient safety in inpatient mental health settings: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Patients in inpatient mental health settings face similar risks (eg, medication errors) to those in other areas of healthcare. In addition, some unsafe behaviours associated with serious mental health problems (eg, self-harm), and the measures taken to address these (eg, restraint), may result in further risks to patient safety. The objective of this review is to identify and synthesise the literature on patient safety within inpatient mental health settings using robust systematic methodology.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-synthesis. Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Health Management Information Consortium, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Web of Science were systematically searched from 1999 to 2019. Search terms were related to 'mental health', 'patient safety', 'inpatient setting' and 'research'. Study quality was assessed using the Hawker checklist. Data were extracted and grouped based on study focus and outcome. Safety incidents were meta-analysed where possible using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Of the 57 637 article titles and abstracts, 364 met inclusion criteria. Included publications came from 31 countries and included data from over 150 000 participants. Study quality varied and statistical heterogeneity was high. Ten research categories were identified: interpersonal violence, coercive interventions, safety culture, harm to self, safety of the physical environment, medication safety, unauthorised leave, clinical decision making, falls and infection prevention and control.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient safety in inpatient mental health settings is under-researched in comparison to other non-mental health inpatient settings. Findings demonstrate that inpatient mental health settings pose unique challenges for patient safety, which require investment in research, policy development, and translation into clinical practice.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42016034057.

What are adult psychiatric inpatients' experience of seclusion: A systematic review of qualitative studies

WHAT IS KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT?: Seclusion involves isolating a patient in a room away from other patients in order to contain aggressive behaviour, and it is used in psychiatric hospitals. Research has found that seclusion is often viewed by patients as negative; however, there is limited in-depth understanding of the deeply personal experience. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS TO EXISTING KNOWLEDGE?: This systematic review found that the published research may have flaws with the quality of analysis, mainly due to limited researcher reflexivity. The review of qualitative research revealed that during seclusion, patients feel vulnerable, neglected and abused, disconnected from the experience and that it is dangerous to their mental health. WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE?: For clinicians facilitating the seclusion process to use their therapeutic skills to provide patients with a sense of being cared for. For clinical supervision to allow space to explore interpersonal dynamics during seclusion in order to enhance therapeutic staff-patient interaction. Abstract Introduction There is limited understanding of patients' seclusion experience. A 2013 systematic review provides some insight; however, more knowledge is required in order to improve patient care. This is a systematic review of qualitative research into the patient experience of seclusion. The qualitative focus enables the phenomena to be the central focus. Question "What are adult psychiatric inpatients' experience of seclusion?" and "What is the quality of the applicable research?" Method Electronic searches for qualitative research published between 2006 and 2017 were undertaken. Data were excluded if it was not explicitly related to seclusion. Research was appraised using three standardized appraisal criterion. Themes were generated through thematic synthesis. Results Eight papers met inclusion criteria; four had been translated into English. Four themes were identified: "feeling vulnerable," "feeling neglected and abused," "disconnecting" and "seclusion is dangerous to mental health." Participants felt vulnerable and without control. They experienced staff and room as neglectful and abusive. Participants mentally disconnected. The experience threatened participants' mental health. Discussion Participants' experience is an amalgamation of interpersonal experience and the environment. Disconnecting may be a coping strategy. Implications for practice The findings have implications for seclusion practice, staff training and clinical supervision. Specific attention needs to be paid to the staff-patient interaction.

Factors influencing decisions of mental health professionals to release service users from seclusion: A qualitative study

AIM

This study aims to explore and understand factors influencing the decisions of mental health professionals releasing service users from seclusion.

BACKGROUND

Seclusion should only be used as a last resort and for the minimum possible duration. Current evidence outlines which service users are more likely to be secluded, why and what influences professionals' decision to seclude. Little is known about factors professionals consider when releasing service users.

DESIGN

A qualitative study was undertaken to explore factors which influence decision-making of mental health professionals when terminating episodes of seclusion.

METHODS

Semi-structured face-to-face interviews with 21 professionals were undertaken between May 2017-January 2018. Framework analysis was used to systematically manage, analyse, and identify themes, while maintaining links to primary data and providing a transparent audit trail.

RESULTS

Six themes were identified where professionals looked for service users to demonstrate cooperation and compliance before they would be released. Decisions were subjective, being influenced by the experience and composition of the review team, the availability of resources plus the emotional tone and physical environment of the ward. Release could be delayed by policy and protocol.

CONCLUSION

Professionals should have greater awareness of factors that hinder or facilitate decisions to release service from seclusion and an understanding of how service user views and involves in decisions regarding seclusion should be explored.

IMPACT

Senior staff should be available to facilitate release at the earliest opportunity. Staff should ensure that policy and procedures do not prolong the time service users remain secluded.

Experiences of in-patient mental health services: systematic review

BACKGROUND

In-patients in crisis report poor experiences of mental healthcare not conducive to recovery. Concerns include coercion by staff, fear of assault from other patients, lack of therapeutic opportunities and limited support. There is little high-quality evidence on what is important to patients to inform recovery-focused care.AimsTo conduct a systematic review of published literature, identifying key themes for improving experiences of in-patient mental healthcare.

METHOD

A systematic search of online databases (MEDLINE, PsycINFO and CINAHL) for primary research published between January 2000 and January 2016. All study designs from all countries were eligible. A qualitative analysis was undertaken and study quality was appraised. A patient and public reference group contributed to the review.

RESULTS

Studies (72) from 16 countries found four dimensions were consistently related to significantly influencing in-patients' experiences of crisis and recovery-focused care: the importance of high-quality relationships; averting negative experiences of coercion; a healthy, safe and enabling physical and social environment; and authentic experiences of patient-centred care. Critical elements for patients were trust, respect, safe wards, information and explanation about clinical decisions, therapeutic activities, and family inclusion in care.

CONCLUSIONS

A number of experiences hinder recovery-focused care and must be addressed with the involvement of staff to provide high-quality in-patient services. Future evaluations of service quality and development of practice guidance should embed these four dimensions.Declaration of interestK.B. is editor of British Journal of Psychiatry and leads a national programme (Synergi Collaborative Centre) on patient experiences driving change in services and inequalities.

Attitudinal variance among patients, next of kin and health care professionals towards the use of containment measures in three psychiatric hospitals in Switzerland

BACKGROUND

In psychiatric treatment containment measures are used to de-escalate high-risk situations. These measures can be characterized by their immanent amount of coercion. Previous research could show that the attitudes towards different containment measures vary throughout countries. The aim of this study was to compare the attitudes towards containment measures between three study sites in Switzerland which differ in their clinic traditions and policies and their actual usage of these measures.

METHODS

We used the Attitude to Containment Measures Questionnaire (ACMQ) in three psychiatric hospitals in Switzerland (Zurich, Muensingen and Monthey) in patients, their next of kin (NOK) and health care professionals (HCP). Furthermore, we assessed the cultural specifics and rates of coercive measures for these three hospitals.

RESULTS

We found substantial differences in the usage of and the attitudes towards some containment measures between the three study sites. The study site accounted for a variance of nearly zero in as needed medication to 15% in seclusion. The differences between study sites were bigger in the HCPs' attitudes (up to 50% of the variance), compared to NOK and patients. In the latter the study site accounted for up to 6% of the variance. The usage/personal experience of containment measures in general was associated with higher agreement.

CONCLUSIONS

Although being situated in the same country, there are substantial differences in the rates of containment measures between the three study sites. We showed that the HCP's attitudes are more associated with the clinic traditions and policies compared to patients' and their NOKs' attitudes. One can conclude that patients' preferences depend less on clinic traditions and policies. Therefore, it is important to adapt treatment to the individual patients' attitudes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study was reviewed and approved by the Cantonal Ethics Commission of Zurich, Switzerland (Ref.-No. EK: 2016-01526, decision on 28.09.2016) and the Cantonal Ethics Commission of Bern, Switzerland (Ref.-Nr.

KEK-BE

2015-00074). This study has been performed in accordance with the ethical standards laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments. The permission for conduction of the study was granted by the medical directors at the three study sites. The authors informed the respondents (patients, NOK, HCP) of their rights in the study in an oral presentation and/or a cover letter. They assured the participants of the confidentiality and anonymity of the data, and the voluntariness of participation. Patients were given an information sheet with the possibility to consent in the conduction of the study. Return of the completed questionnaires from HCP and NOK was constituted as confirmation of their consent. No identifying factors were collected to ensure privacy. This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

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.

What factors influence the decisions of mental health professionals to release service users from seclusion?

Mental health policy stipulates seclusion should only be used as an intervention of last resort and for the minimum possible duration. Current evidence details which service users are more likely to be secluded, why they are secluded, and what influences the decision to seclude them. However, very little is known about the decision to release service users from seclusion. An integrative review was undertaken to explore the decision-making processes of mental health professionals which guide the ending of seclusion. The review used a systematic approach to gather and thematically analyse evidence within a framework approach. The twelve articles identified generated one overriding theme, maintaining safety. In addition, several subthemes emerged including the process of risk assessing which was dependent upon interaction and control, mediated by factors external to the service user such as the attitude and experience of staff and the acuity of the environment. Service users were expected to demonstrate compliance with the process ultimately ending in release and reflection. Little evidence exists regarding factors influencing mental health professionals in decisions to release service users from seclusion. There is no evidence-based risk assessment tool, and service users are not routinely involved in the decision to release them. Support from experienced professionals is vital to ensure timely release from seclusion. Greater insight into influences upon decisions to discontinue episodes may support initiatives aimed at reducing durations and use of seclusion.

Rapid tranquilization: An audit of Irish mental health nursing practice

Rapid tranquillization is a pharmacological intervention sometimes employed in mental health care for the management of acute behavioural disturbance. It is a form of restrictive practice, which, along with seclusion and restraint, is a conventional and controversial intervention in the therapeutic management of risk in mental health settings. This study surveyed mental health nurses practice in rapid tranquillization. A self-report questionnaire was utilized which addressed aspects such as definitions of rapid tranquillization, presence of rapid tranquillization policy, types of incidents where it is used and postintervention monitoring. The results demonstrate that rapid tranquillization is an intervention used in the management of acute behavioural disturbance in various mental health settings in Ireland. Respondents showed a basic understanding of rapid tranquillization as an intervention; however, some areas reported not having a specific rapid tranquillization policy. There was some evidence of a variation in postrapid tranquillization monitoring of psychiatric/mental health and physical health. Service user debriefing following rapid tranquillization was reported to be common; however, the content of this was not elaborated on. In the light of variations in practice, specific training and the development of rapid tranquillization policies are recommended.

[Coercive interventions: historical summary and review of subjective experience]

Psychiatric treatment has always been associated with violence and coercion. Involuntary admission and coercive measures are still frequently occurring components in everyday clinical practice.Up to 15% of psychiatric inpatients experience coercive treatment at least once during hospital stay. Particularly patients suffering from schizophrenia, organic mental disorders and mania have a high risk for such incidents.There is an ongoing intense debate on the need and justification of coercive measures, although most clinicians and scientists currently agree that there is no alternative. Several investigations have shown that seclusion and mechanical restraint go along with physical and psychological problems affecting both, patients and staff. However, it was possible to identify aspects that could be improved: Maintaining an objective and professional communication during coercive treatment seems just as important as making comprehensible decisions. Alternative treatment options should be focus of further investigations.

A case report of guardian-consent forced paliperidone palmitate for behavioral disturbance due to traumatic brain injury

Psychosis after traumatic brain injury (TBI) occurs in up to 10% of cases. Although guideline consensus is lacking regarding drugs of choice for this condition, current literature points to the use of atypical antipsychotics. This case describes a 58-year-old male with major neurocognitive disorder due to TBI with behavioral disturbance that was successfully treated with paliperidone palmitate. In addition to the off-label use of paliperidone, this case also explores the use of forced medication as the initial injection was given per guardian consent. After completion of a literature review, this appears to be the first case report describing the use of a long-acting antipsychotic for the treatment of TBI-related psychosis. This case suggests that paliperidone palmitate may be efficacious for psychosis following TBI; however, further study is warranted.

Joint BAP NAPICU evidence-based consensus guidelines for the clinical management of acute disturbance: De-escalation and rapid tranquillisation

The British Association for Psychopharmacology and the National Association of Psychiatric Intensive Care and Low Secure Units developed this joint evidence-based consensus guideline for the clinical management of acute disturbance. It includes recommendations for clinical practice and an algorithm to guide treatment by healthcare professionals with various options outlined according to their route of administration and category of evidence. Fundamental overarching principles are included and highlight the importance of treating the underlying disorder. There is a focus on three key interventions: de-escalation, pharmacological interventions pre-rapid tranquillisation and rapid tranquillisation (intramuscular and intravenous). Most of the evidence reviewed relates to emergency psychiatric care or acute psychiatric adult inpatient care, although we also sought evidence relevant to other common clinical settings including the general acute hospital and forensic psychiatry. We conclude that the variety of options available for the management of acute disturbance goes beyond the standard choices of lorazepam, haloperidol and promethazine and includes oral-inhaled loxapine, buccal midazolam, as well as a number of oral antipsychotics in addition to parenteral options of intramuscular aripiprazole, intramuscular droperidol and intramuscular olanzapine. Intravenous options, for settings where resuscitation equipment and trained staff are available to manage medical emergencies, are also included.

Patients' attitudes towards and acceptance of coercion in psychiatry

Coercive interventions for psychiatric patients are controversial. Research on different preventive measures has increased over the last years. The present study examined patients' attitudes towards and understanding of previously experienced coercive measures as well as their preferences related to coercive measures and possible alternatives. In total, 213 patients who had experienced coercion and 51 patient controls (patients staying voluntarily on a closed ward with no coercive treatment) from three acute wards were examined via expert interviews and questionnaires in the framework of a naturalistic trial. Assessments included a new self-developed questionnaire as well as instruments measuring psychopathology. Patients who had experienced coercion differed from controls in both symptoms and insight into their illness. As expected, "noninvasive measures" (e.g., the use of a "soft room," observation in seclusion) were better accepted by patients than "invasive measures" (e.g., mechanical restraint, forced medication). Forced medication and mechanical restraint were less well accepted than involuntary hospitalization, seclusion, or video surveillance. The retrospective understanding of coercive measures increased over the course of treatment. In addition, patients rated a number of options for reducing coercion on the wards, particularly music or exercises. A large subgroup indicated they would like to discuss future admissions with the staff.

Comparing Attitudes to Containment Measures of Patients, Health Care Professionals and Next of Kin

Background: In clinical psychiatric practice, health care professionals (HCP) must decide in exceptional circumstances after the weighing of interests, which, if any, containment measures including coercion are to be used. Here, the risk for patients, staff, and third parties, in addition to therapeutic considerations, factor into the decision. Patients' preference and the inclusion of relatives in these decisions are important; therefore, an understanding of how patients and next of kin (NOK) experience different coercive measures is crucial for clinical decision making. The aim of this study is to compare how patients, HCP, and NOK assess commonly used coercive measures. Methods: A sample of 435 patients, 372 HCP, and 230 NOK completed the Attitudes to Containment Measures Questionnaire (ACMQ). This standardized self-rating questionnaire assessed the degree of acceptance or rejection of 11 coercive measures. Results: In general, HCPs rated the coercive measures as more acceptable than did NOK and patients. The largest discrepancy in the ratings was found in regard to the application of coercive intramuscular injection of medication (effect size: 1.0 HCP vs. patients). However, the ratings by NOK were significantly closer to the patients' ratings compared to patients and HCP. The only exception was the acceptance of treatment in a closed acute psychiatric ward, which was deemed significantly more acceptable by NOK than by patients. Also, patients who had experienced coercive measures themselves more strongly refused other measures. Conclusion: Patients most firmly rejected intramuscular injections, and the authors agree that these should only be used with reservation considering a high threshold. This knowledge about the discrepancy of the ratings should therefore be incorporated into professional training of HCP.

Don't Label Me: A Qualitative Study of Patients' Perceptions and Experiences of Sedation During Behavioral Emergencies in the Emergency Department

OBJECTIVES

Behavioral emergencies are commonly seen in emergency departments (EDs). Acutely agitated patients can be difficult to manage and sedation may be required to decrease dangerous behavior and to ensure the safety of both the patient and the staff. While the experience of staff caring for this population has been reported, patients' experiences with their overall management remains unknown. We aimed to describe the perceptions and experiences of patients regarding the use of sedation during acute behavioral emergencies.

METHODS

Face-to-face semistructured interviews were conducted with adults aged 18 years or older, who had received parenteral sedative medication for the management of a behavioral emergency and were deemed capable to participate. The participants were asked about their experiences of receiving care in the ED during the episode and their perceptions of sedation. All interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed thematically.

RESULTS

Data saturation was reached after 13 interviews. Two broad themes emerged: trusting relationships and needs or wants following sedation. A trusting relationship is built through 1) confidence in care, 2) sedation as an appropriate treatment, 3) insight into own behavior, and 4) humane treatment. Four subthemes of needs or wants were identified: 1) empathy, 2) debrief, 3) addressing concerns, and 4) follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

A trusting relationship was identified as crucial to minimize the negative impact of coercive measures used to manage behavioral emergencies. Participants expressed similar needs to patients presenting with medical problems. This study illustrates their needs for compassionate communication, adequate information about the treatment provided, and follow-up care.

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

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

Seclusion and enforced medication in dealing with aggression: A prospective dynamic cohort study

BACKGROUND

In the Netherlands, seclusion is historically the measure of first choice in dealing with aggressive incidents. In 2010, the Mediant Mental Health Trust in Eastern Netherlands introduced a policy prioritising the use of enforced medication to manage aggressive incidents over seclusion. The main goal of the study was to investigate whether prioritising enforced medication over seclusion leads to a change of aggressive incidents and coercive measures.

METHODS

The study was carried out with data from 2764 patients admitted between 2007 and 2013 to the hospital locations of the Mediant Mental Health Trust in Eastern Netherlands, with a catchment area of 500,000 inhabitants. Seclusion, restraint and enforced medications as well as other coercive measures were gathered systematically. Aggressive incidents were assessed with the SOAS-R. An event sequence analysis was preformed, to assess the whether seclusion, restraint or enforced medication were used or not before or after aggressive incidents.

RESULTS

Enforced medication use went up by 363% from a very low baseline. There was a marked reduction of overall coercive measures by 44%. Seclusion hours went down by 62%. Aggression against staff or patients was reduced by 40%.

CONCLUSIONS

When dealing with aggression, prioritising medication significantly reduces other coercive measures and aggression against staff, while within principles of subsidiarity, proportionality and expediency.

Subjective experience of coercion in psychiatric care: a study comparing the attitudes of patients and healthy volunteers towards coercive methods and their justification

Under certain conditions, coercive interventions in psychotic patients can help to regain insight and alleviate symptoms, but can also traumatize subjects. This study explored attitudes towards psychiatric coercive interventions in healthy individuals and persons suffering from schizophrenia, schizoaffective or bipolar disorder. The impact of personal history of coercive treatment on preferences concerning clinical management of patients unable to consent was investigated. Six case vignettes depicting scenarios of ethical dilemmas and demanding decisions in favour of or against coercive interventions were presented to 60 healthy volunteers and 90 patients. Structured interviews focusing on experienced coercion were performed in conjunction with the Coercion Experience Scale and the Admission Experience Survey. Symptom severity, psychosocial functioning and insight into illness were assessed as influencing variables. Student's t tests compared patients' and controls' judgments, followed by regression analyses to define the predictive value of symptoms and measures of coercion on judgments regarding the total patient sample and patients with experience of fixation. Patients and non-psychiatric controls showed no significant difference in their attitudes towards involuntary admission and forced medication. Conversely, patients more than controls significantly disapproved of mechanical restraint. Subjective experience of coercive interventions played an important role for the justification of treatment against an individual's "natural will". Factors influencing judgments on coercion were overall functioning and personal experience of treatment effectiveness and fairness. Qualitative and quantitative aspects of perceived coercion, in addition to insight into illness, predicted judgments of previously fixated patients. Results underline the importance of the quality of practical implementation and care, if coercive interventions cannot be avoided.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHOD

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Do patient and ward-related characteristics influence the use of coercive measures? Results from the EUNOMIA international study

PURPOSE

This study aims to identify whether selected patient and ward-related factors are associated with the use of coercive measures. Data were collected as part of the EUNOMIA international collaborative study on the use of coercive measures in ten European countries.

METHODS

Involuntarily admitted patients (N = 2,027) were divided into two groups. The first group (N = 770) included patients that had been subject to at least one of these coercive measures during hospitalization: restraint, and/or seclusion, and/or forced medication; the other group (N = 1,257) included patients who had not received any coercive measure during hospitalization. To identify predictors of use of coercive measures, both patients' sociodemographic and clinical characteristics and centre-related characteristics were tested in a multivariate logistic regression model, controlled for countries' effect.

RESULTS

The frequency of the use of coercive measures varied significantly across countries, being higher in Poland, Italy and Greece. Patients who received coercive measures were more frequently male and with a diagnosis of psychotic disorder (F20-F29). According to the regression model, patients with higher levels of psychotic and hostility symptoms, and of perceived coercion had a higher risk to be coerced at admission. Controlling for countries' effect, the risk of being coerced was higher in Poland. Patients' sociodemographic characteristics and ward-related factors were not identifying as possible predictors because they did not enter the model.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of coercive measures varied significantly in the participating countries. Clinical factors, such as high levels of psychotic symptoms and high levels of perceived coercion at admission were associated with the use of coercive measures, when controlling for countries' effect. These factors should be taken into consideration by programs aimed at reducing the use of coercive measures in psychiatric wards.

The use of coercive interventions in mental health care in Germany and the Netherlands. A comparison of the developments in two neighboring countries

In this review, we compare the use of coercion in mental health care in Germany and in the Netherlands. Legal frameworks and published data on involuntary commitment, involuntary medication, seclusion, and restraint are highlighted as well as the role of guidelines, training, and attitudes held by psychiatrists and the public. Legal procedures regulating involuntary admission and commitment are rather similar, and so is the percentage of involuntary admissions and the rate per 100,000 inhabitants. However, opposing trends can be observed in the use of coercive interventions during treatment, which in both countries are considered as a last resort after all other alternative approaches have failed. In the Netherlands, for a long time seclusion has been considered as preferred intervention while the use of medication by force was widely disapproved as being unnecessarily invasive. However, after increasing evidence showed that number and duration of seclusions as well as the number of aggressive incidents per admission were considerably higher than in other European countries, attitudes changed within recent years. A national program with spending of 15 million € was launched to reduce the use of seclusion, while the use of medication was facilitated. A legislation is scheduled, which will allow also outpatient coercive treatment. In Germany, the latter was never legalized. While coercive treatment in Germany was rather common for involuntarily committed patients and mechanical restraint was preferred to seclusion in most hospital as a containment measure, the decisions of the Constitutional Court in 2011 had a high impact on legislation, attitudes, and clinical practice. Though since 2013 coercive medication is approvable again under strict conditions, it is now widely perceived as very invasive and last resort. There is evidence that this change of attitudes lead to a considerable increase of the use of seclusion and restraint for some patients.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

Background

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

Aim

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

Method

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Mechanical and pharmacological restraints in acute psychiatric wards--why and how are they used?

Restraint use has been reported to be common in acute psychiatry, but empirical research is scarce concerning why and how restraints are used. This study analysed data from patients' first episodes of restraint in three acute psychiatric wards during a 2-year study period. Logistic regression analyses were used to identify predictors for type and duration of restraint. The distribution of restraint categories for the 371 restrained patients was as follows: mechanical restraint, 47.2%; mechanical and pharmacological restraint together, 35.3%; and pharmacological restraint, 17.5%. The most commonly reported reason for restraint was assault (occurred or imminent). It increased the likelihood of resulting in concomitant pharmacological restraint. Female patients had shorter duration of mechanical restraint than men. Age above 49 and female gender increased the likelihood of pharmacological versus mechanical restraint, whereas being restrained due to assault weakened this association. Episodes with mechanical restraint and coinciding pharmacological restraint lasted longer than mechanical restraint used separately, and were less common among patients with a personality disorder. Diagnoses, age and reason for restraint independently increased the likelihood for being subjected to specific types of restraint. Female gender predicted type of restraint and duration of episodes.

Understanding psychiatric institutionalization: a conceptual review

BACKGROUND

Since Goffman's seminal work on psychiatric institutions, deinstitutionalization has become a leading term in the psychiatric debate. It described the process of closure or downsizing of large psychiatric hospitals and the establishment of alternative services in the community. Yet, there is a lack of clarity on what exactly the concept of institutionalization means in present-day psychiatry. This review aims to identify the meaning of psychiatric institutionalization since the early 1960s to present-day.

METHOD

A conceptual review of institutionalization in psychiatry was conducted. Thematic analysis was used to synthesize the findings.

RESULTS

Four main themes were identified in conceptualizing institutionalization: bricks and mortar of care institutions; policy and legal frameworks regulating care; clinical responsibility and paternalism in clinician-patient relationships; and patients' adaptive behavior to institutionalized care.

CONCLUSIONS

The concept of institutionalization in psychiatry reflects four distinct themes. All themes have some relevance for the contemporary debate on how psychiatric care should develop and on the role of institutional care in psychiatry.

Reducing seclusion through involuntary medication: a randomized clinical trial

The study evaluated whether seclusion and coercive incidents would be reduced in extent and number if involuntary medication was the first choice of intervention. Patients admitted to an acute psychiatric ward were randomly allocated to two groups. In Group 1, involuntary medication was the intervention of first choice for dealing with agitation and risk of violence. In Group 2, seclusion was the intervention of first choice. Patients' characteristics between the groups were compared by Pearson χ(2) and two-sample t-tests; the incidence rates and risk ratios (RRs) were calculated to examine differences in number and duration of coercive incidents. In Group 1, the relative risk of being secluded was lower than in Group 2, whereas the risk of receiving involuntary medication was higher. However, the mean duration of the seclusion incidents did not differ significantly between the two groups; neither did the total number of coercive incidents. Although the use of involuntary medication could successfully replace and reduce the number of seclusions, alternative interventions are needed to reduce the overall number and duration of coercive incidents. A new policy for managing acute aggression - such as involuntary medication - can be implemented effectively only if certain conditions are met.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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