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

Effect of Seclusion on Mental Health Status in Hospitalized Psychiatric Populations: A Trial Emulation using Observational Data

The use of coercive practices, i.e., interventions against a person's will, is controversial. Recent observational studies highlighted their potential detrimental effects on patients' mental health, but this topic remains understudied. This study investigated the effect of a common coercive practice, seclusion (i.e., being locked in a closed room), on mental health using a trial emulation of observational data to allow causal inference. We used data from 1200 psychiatric inpatients, classified as being either secluded or non-secluded during their hospital stay. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to emulate the random assignment to the intervention. The primary outcome was the Health of the Nations Outcome Scales (HoNOS). The secondary outcome was the first item of the HoNOS, which focuses on overactive, aggressive, disruptive, or agitated behavior. Both outcomes were assessed at hospital discharge. There was a significant effect of seclusion with increases in both total HoNOS score (p = .002) and item 1 of the HoNOS (p = .01). Seclusion may have a negative causal effect of patients' mental health status and should therefore be avoided in mental health care settings. Training efforts should raise the awareness of the medical staff about potential adverse effects instead of therapeutic benefits.

An Evidence-Based Educational Intervention for Reducing Coercive Measures in Psychiatric Hospitals: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Investing in health care staffs' education can change the scope of action and improve care. The effectiveness of staff education remains inconclusive.

OBJECTIVE

To examine whether an evidence-based educational intervention for nurses decreases the use of seclusion rooms in psychiatric hospitals compared with usual practice.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

In this pragmatic, 2-arm parallel, stratified cluster randomized clinical trial, 28 wards in 15 psychiatric hospitals in Finland were screened for eligibility and randomly allocated (1:1). Nurses joined on either intervention (n = 13) or usual practice (n = 15) wards. The intervention was performed from May 1, 2016, to October 31, 2017. The follow-up data for January 1 to December 31, 2017, were collected from hospital registers in 2018. Data analysis was performed October 27, 2021.

INTERVENTIONS

Evidence-based education delivered during 18 months, including 8 months of active education, followed by a 10-month maintenance period.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was the occurrence of patient seclusion (events per total number of patients).

RESULTS

Of 28 psychiatric hospital wards screened (437 beds and 648 nurses), 27 wards completed the study. A total of 8349 patients were receiving care in the study wards, with 53% male patients and a mean (SD) age of 40.6 (5.7) years. The overall number of seclusions was 1209 (14.5%) in 2015 and 1349 (16.5%) in 2017. In the intervention group, the occurrence rate of seclusion at the ward level decreased by 5.3% from 629 seclusions among 4163 patients (15.1%) to 585 seclusions among 4089 patients (14.3%) compared with a 34.7% increase from 580 seclusions among 4186 patients (13.9%) to 764 seclusions among 4092 patients (18.7%) in the usual practice group. The adjusted rate ratio was 0.86 (95% CI, 0.40-1.82) in 2015 and 0.66 (95% CI, 0.31-1.41) in 2017 (P = .003). However, the number of forced injections increased in the intervention group from 317 events among 4163 patients (7.6%) in 2015 to 486 events among 4089 patients (11.9%) in 2017 compared with an increase in the usual practice group from 414 events among 4186 patients (9.9%) in 2015 to 481 events among 4092 patients (11.8%) in 2017. Seven adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this randomized clinical trial, the educational intervention had a limited effect on the change of occurrence rate of patient seclusion, whereas the use of forced injections increased. More studies are needed to better understand the reasons for these findings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02724748.

Psychiatric hospital reform in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review of literature

PURPOSE

Psychiatric hospitals or mental asylums grew across the world in the colonial era. Despite concerns over quality of care and human rights violations, these hospitals continue to provide the majority of mental health care in most low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We sought to review the evidence of reform of mental hospitals and associated patient outcomes.

METHODS

We adopted an integrative review methodology by including experimental and non-experimental research. The review protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42019130399). A range of databases and systematic hand searches were conducted by two independent reviewers. Research conducted between 1980 and May 2019, that focused on any aspect of reform in mental hospitals for adults (age 18 and upwards) with severe mental illness and published in English, were considered.

RESULTS

16 studies were included in the review. 12 studies met inclusion criteria, and four additional reports emerged from the hand search. Studies covered-India, China, South Africa, Grenada, Georgia, Sri Lanka, Argentina and Brazil. Key findings emphasise the role of judicial intervention as a critical trigger of reform. Structural reform composed of optimisation of resources and renovations of colonial structures to cater to diverse patient needs. Process reforms include changes in medical management, admission processes and a move from closed to open wards. Staff engagement and capacity building have also been used as a modality of reform in mental hospital settings.

CONCLUSION

There is some documentation of reform in psychiatric hospitals. However, poor methodological quality and variation in approach and outcomes measured, make it challenging to extrapolate specific findings on process or outcomes of reform. Despite being integral service providers, psychiatric hospitals still do not adopt patient centric, recovery-oriented processes. Hence, there is an urgent need to generate robust evidence on psychiatric reform and its effect on patient outcomes.

Organisational interventions for preventing and minimising aggression directed towards healthcare workers by patients and patient advocates

BACKGROUND

Workplace aggression is becoming increasingly prevalent in health care, with serious consequences for both individuals and organisations. Research and development of organisational interventions to prevent and minimise workplace aggression has also increased. However, it is not known if interventions prevent or reduce occupational violence directed towards healthcare workers.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of organisational interventions that aim to prevent and minimise workplace aggression directed towards healthcare workers by patients and patient advocates.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic databases from inception to 25 May 2019: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Wiley Online Library); MEDLINE (PubMed); CINAHL (EBSCO); Embase (embase.com); PsycINFO (ProQuest); NIOSHTIC (OSH-UPDATE); NIOSHTIC-2 (OSH-UPDATE); HSELINE (OSH-UPDATE); and CISDOC (OSH-UPDATE). We also searched the ClinicalTrials.gov (www.ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portals (www.who.int/ictrp/en).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or controlled before-and-after studies (CBAs) of any organisational intervention to prevent and minimise verbal or physical aggression directed towards healthcare workers and their peers in their workplace by patients or their advocates. The primary outcome measure was episodes of aggression resulting in no harm, psychological, or physical harm.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods for data collection and analysis. This included independent data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessment by at least two review authors per included study. We used the Haddon Matrix to categorise interventions aimed at the victim, the vector or the environment of the aggression and whether the intervention was applied before, during or after the event of aggression. We used the random-effects model for the meta-analysis and GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included seven studies. Four studies were conducted in nursing home settings, two studies were conducted in psychiatric wards and one study was conducted in an emergency department. Interventions in two studies focused on prevention of aggression by the vector in the pre-event phase, being 398 nursing home residents and 597 psychiatric patients. The humour therapy in one study in a nursing home setting did not have clear evidence of a reduction of overall aggression (mean difference (MD) 0.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.00 to 0.34; very low-quality evidence). A short-term risk assessment in the other study showed a decreased incidence of aggression (risk ratio (RR) 0.36, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.78; very low-quality evidence) compared to practice as usual. Two studies compared interventions to minimise aggression by the vector in the event phase to practice as usual. In both studies the event was aggression during bathing of nursing home patients. In one study, involving 18 residents, music was played during the bathing period and in the other study, involving 69 residents, either a personalised shower or a towel bath was used. The studies provided low-quality evidence that the interventions may result in a medium-sized reduction of overall aggression (standardised mean difference (SMD -0.49, 95% CI -0.93 to -0.05; 2 studies), and physical aggression (SMD -0.85, 95% CI -1.46 to -0.24; 1 study; very low-quality evidence), but not in verbal aggression (SMD -0.31, 95% CI; -0.89 to 0.27; 1 study; very low-quality evidence). One intervention focused on the vector, the pre-event phase and the event phase. The study compared a two-year culture change programme in a nursing home to practice as usual and involved 101 residents. This study provided very low-quality evidence that the intervention may result in a medium-sized reduction of physical aggression (MD 0.51, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.91), but there was no clear evidence that it reduced verbal aggression (MD 0.76, 95% CI -0.02 to 1.54). Two studies evaluated a multicomponent intervention that focused on the vector (psychiatry patients and emergency department patients), the victim (nursing staff), and the environment during the pre-event and the event phase. The studies included 564 psychiatric staff and 209 emergency department staff. Both studies involved a comprehensive package of actions aimed at preventing violence, managing violence and environmental changes. There was no clear evidence that the psychiatry intervention may result in a reduction of overall aggression (odds ratio (OR) 0.85, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.15; low-quality evidence), compared to the control condition. The emergency department study did not result in a reduction of aggression (MD = 0) but provided insufficient data to test this.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found very low to low-quality evidence that interventions focused on the vector during the pre-event phase, the event phase or both, may result in a reduction of overall aggression, compared to practice as usual, and we found inconsistent low-quality evidence for multi-component interventions. None of the interventions included the post-event stage. To improve the evidence base, we need more RCT studies, that include the workers as participants and that collect information on the impact of violence on the worker in a range of healthcare settings, but especially in emergency care settings. Consensus on standardised outcomes is urgently needed.

A Population Study of Safety and Security in Admission Psychiatric Wards in the Kingdom of Bahrain

Assaultive behavior is a feature of mental health services. Psychiatric staff may experience significant psychological effects in relation to assaultive behavior and aggression. The international literature highlights a lack of clarity on matters of procedure and policy pertaining to safety and security in psychiatric hospitals. There are no published studies from the Kingdom of Bahrain on safety and security in mental health services. The aim of the study is to describe the safety and security measures currently applied in the 18 psychiatric admission wards of the one and only psychiatric hospital in the Kingdom of Bahrain. A descriptive cross-sectional survey research design was used. Questionnaires were completed by the charge nurse in each psychiatric admission ward in the Kingdom of Bahrain. The instrument has previously been validated and used in Ireland and the UK. There was a response rate of 100%. The results identified deficiencies when compared to established international practice. There was a lack of security features related to the use of a swipe card system, personal panic alarms for staff, metal detectors, and rapid response team always on call. A wide range of differing practices were noted concerning the banning of items including searching of patients on admission and return from leave. The results provide important data and the impetus to guide the development of policy for best practice in safety and security in psychiatric services. Mental health managers must audit and regularly review work safety and security practices and ensure up to date policies and procedures.

Seclusion versus mechanical restraint in psychiatry - a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Seclusion and mechanical restraint are coercive interventions used at psychiatric hospitals when patients are at imminent risk of harming themselves and/or others. Although these interventions have been used for decades, it remains unclear whether seclusion or mechanical restraint is superior in terms of efficacy and safety. Therefore, we aimed to systematically review studies comparing the intended and unintended effects of seclusion and mechanical restraint.

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed and Embase was conducted in adherence to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guideline. Quantitative studies comparing the intended and unintended effects of seclusion and mechanical restraint were included.

RESULTS

The search identified 868 unique records. Fourteen of these (3 reporting on randomized controlled trials and 11 reporting on observational studies) met the predefined inclusion criteria. The study methodology including outcome measures varied significantly across studies. The results of the 11 studies using a subjective outcome measure (patient preference/emotions) were in favour of seclusion, while the 3 studies using an objective outcome measure (duration of coercion/need for transition to other coercive measure) favoured mechanical restraint. There was a high risk of residual confounding by indication and/or bias affecting the reported results.

CONCLUSION

Based on the available literature, it cannot be determined whether seclusion is superior to mechanical restraint or vice versa. Further studies using stringent methodology are required to answer this question. A cautious conclusion based on this review is that the availability of both methods seems necessary - as both have their pros and cons.

Brief interventions to de-escalate disturbances in emergency departments

This study aimed to systematically review evidence to assess the efficacy of non-pharmacological brief interventions in the emergency department to reduce the incidence, severity and impact of acute behavioural disturbances. The literature search was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. A total of 18 articles were identified as meeting the inclusion criteria and read in full. Following a full read and a consensus discussion, it was subsequently considered the studies chosen had not met the inclusion criteria. Research into the use of non-pharmacological brief interventions in the management of acute behavioural disturbance in the emergency department is warranted given the absence of evidence found by this systematic review.

Experience coercion, post-traumatic stress, and satisfaction with treatment associated with different coercive measures during psychiatric hospitalization

Coercive measures are frequently used in psychiatric hospitalization. However, there are few studies that analyse perceived coercion, post-traumatic stress, and subjective satisfaction with the hospitalization treatment associated with different types of coercive measures. The sample consisted of 111 patients admitted to two psychiatric units and divided into three groups based on the measure applied: involuntary medication (N = 41), mechanical restraint (N = 32), and combined measures (mechanical restraint and involuntary medication; N = 38). The outcome variables were perceived coercion evaluated with the Coercion Experience Scale (CES), post-traumatic stress evaluated with the Davidson Trauma Scale (DTS), and satisfaction with the treatment evaluated with the Client's Assessment of Treatment (CAT). The results found higher levels of perceived coercion associated with the use of mechanical restraint (P = 0.002) and combined measures (P < 0.001) in comparison with involuntary medication. Additionally, in relation to post-traumatic stress, mechanical restraint (P = 0.013) and combined measures (P = 0.004) were more stressful compared to involuntary medication. Finally, the use of combined measures was associated with lower satisfaction with inpatient psychiatric treatment compared to the use of involuntary medication (P = 0.006). The following recommendation would be consistent with the results found: if a patient does not specify a preference for some type of measure, involuntary medication could be used and mechanical restraint avoided, especially when used in combination with involuntary medication.

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.

Brazilian guidelines for the management of psychomotor agitation. Part 1. Non-pharmacological approach

Objective:

To present the essential guidelines for non-pharmacological management of patients with psychomotor agitation in Brazil.

Methods:

These guidelines were developed based on a systematic review of articles published from 1997 to 2017, retrieved from MEDLINE (PubMed), Cochrane Database of Systematic Review, and SciELO. Other relevant articles identified by searching the reference lists of included studies were also used to develop these guidelines. The search strategy used structured questions formulated using the PICO model, as recommended by the Guidelines Project of the Brazilian Medical Association. Recommendations were summarized according to their level of evidence, which was determined using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine system and critical appraisal tools.

Results:

We initially selected 1,731 abstracts among 5,362 articles. The final sample included 104 articles that fulfilled all the inclusion criteria. The management of agitated patients should always start with the least coercive approach. The initial non-pharmacological measures include a verbal strategy and referral of the patient to the appropriate setting, preferably a facility designed for the care of psychiatric patients with controlled noise, lighting, and safety aspects. Verbal de-escalation techniques have been shown to decrease agitation and reduce the potential for associated violence in the emergency setting. The possibility of underlying medical etiologies must be considered first and foremost. Particular attention should be paid to the patient’s appearance and behavior, physical signs, and mental state. If agitation is severe, rapid tranquilization with medications is recommended. Finally, if verbal measures fail to contain the patient, physical restraint should be performed as the ultimate measure for patient protection, and always be accompanied by rapid tranquilization. Healthcare teams must be thoroughly trained to use these techniques and overcome difficulties if the verbal approach fails. It is important that healthcare professionals be trained in non-pharmacological management of patients with psychomotor agitation as part of the requirements for a degree and graduate degree.

Conclusion:

The non-pharmacological management of agitated patients should follow the hierarchy of less invasive to more invasive and coercive measures, starting with referral of the patient to an appropriate environment, management by a trained team, use of verbal techniques, performance of physical and mental assessment, use of medications, and, if unavoidable, use of the mechanical restraint.

Systematic review registry number:

CRD42017054440.

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

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

Mechanical restraint in an emergency department: a consecutive series of 593 cases

The objective is to describe the characteristics of mechanically restrained patients in the emergency department (ED) of a university hospital and to evaluate the quality of restraint documentation that was filled out according to the dedicated protocol with respect to the law on restraint. All adult patients (≥16 years) who were admitted to the ED from January 2009 to December 2010 and were mechanically restrained were included. We assessed medical and demographic characteristics, the completeness of the dedicated protocol, and the concomitant use of chemical sedation. 72,844 patients were admitted to the ED. Of these, 593 (0.81%) were mechanically restrained. Two types of patients were restrained: young patients under the influence of psychoactive substances who were usually discharged home, and confused older patients who were hospitalized. 186 dedicated protocols were missing (31.4%). From the 407 filled-out protocols, only 119 (29.2%) were complete. Of the mechanically restrained patients, 215 (36.2%) received additional chemical sedation. Even though restraint is strictly regulated by law, many protocols justifying the privation of liberty were not filled out. This emphasizes the need for strict respect of the dedicated protocol and the use of guidelines and training sessions for nursing and medical staff that address specific procedures for the two categories of patients needing to be restrained.

Psychological assessment of acute schizophrenia patients who experienced seclusion either alone or in combination with restraint

Objective Numerous studies on the effects of seclusion and/or restraint in acute psychiatric treatment have reported both positive and negative effects. However, no studies to date have evaluated the effects of seclusion and/or restraint on schizophrenia patients using a rating scale. Thus, to examine the effects of seclusion and/or restraint on schizophrenia patients, we used the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale and assessed the psychological condition of patients. Methods Factor analysis was conducted to create subscales of Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale, and psychiatric changes were assessed with respect to each subscale using multiple logistic regression analyses. Analyses were performed on three groups (i.e. entire, higher functioning, and lower functioning groups) involving a total of 1559 schizophrenia patients aged 18 to 65 years. Results In the entire and lower functioning groups, seclusion was a significant predictor of improvements related to the "hostility/suspiciousness" subscale. Seclusion combined with restraint was associated with improvements related to the "psychosis/thinking disorder" subscale. In the higher functioning group, there were no significant predictors. Conclusions It is implied that seclusion and/or restraint is related to improved psychiatric symptoms only among patients whose functioning is impaired. To verify the present findings, further studies involving multiple sites and additional psychiatric measures are necessary.

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.

Haloperidol plus promethazine for psychosis-induced aggression

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Psychiatric patients' perception of physical restraint

OBJECTIVE

To investigate psychiatric patients' subjective perception during and after belt fixation.

METHOD

All patients who were involuntarily admitted and physically restrained at a psychiatric intensive care unit within an 18-month study period were analysed. Ratings were obtained at four visits when questioning was possible.

RESULTS

Within a heterogeneous diagnostic sample of 47 patients, only 12 patients were eligible to participate during belt fixation. After cessation of fixation, eight patients lacked any memory of restraint, while 36 could be questioned. Visual analogue scale median scores indicated powerlessness and depressiveness rather than anxiety and aggression. Patients' acceptance of the coercive measure was significantly higher (P = 0.003), while patients' memory was significantly lower than expected (P < 0.001). About 50% of the patients documented high perceived coercion, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) could be supposed in a quarter of the restrained individuals. Subjective perceptions concerning fixation showed no significant changes over time. Results showed high interindividual variability.

CONCLUSION

Visual analogue scale revealed that belt fixation seemed to be forgotten or accepted in the majority of patients, probably due to psychiatric intensive care, psychopharmacological treatment and clinical improvements. The responses of a quarter of the patients assessed before discharge may be in accordance with symptoms of PTSD.

Contenção física no hospital psiquiátrico: estudo transversal das práticas e fatores de risco

RESUMO Objetivos Descrever a utilização da contenção física em um hospital psiquiátrico público e analisar os fatores de risco associados com seu uso, no contexto da implantação de um protocolo clínico. Métodos Em um hospital psiquiátrico público de Belo Horizonte-MG, os formulários de registro e monitoramento de contenção física (2011-2012) foram analisados e comparados com os registros das demais internações englobadas no mesmo período. Neste estudo transversal, além das análises descritivas das características clínicas e demográficas dos pacientes contidos, das técnicas utilizadas e das complicações reportadas, os fatores de risco associados com o uso da contenção foram analisados por meio de regressão logística múltipla. Resultados A contenção foi utilizada em 13,4% das internações, sendo mais comum em pacientes jovens, do sexo masculino, portadores de psicoses não orgânicas, apresentando agitação/agressividade. A técnica foi geralmente de quatro pontos, durando entre 61-240 minutos. Os únicos fatores de risco significativos para o uso da contenção incluíram a idade (OR = 0,98; p = 0,008) e o tempo de permanência (OR = 1,01; p < 0,001). Conclusões A contenção física foi utilizada usualmente na abordagem aguda do paciente agitado/agressivo inabordável verbalmente, no contexto de um transtorno psicótico. O registro dos dados vitais e dos efeitos adversos foram os itens menos aderentes aos protocolos vigentes.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Pragmatic design in randomized controlled trials

At more than 10 years after the paper by Hotopf and colleagues regarding pragmatic trials in psychiatry, the field has evolved and is evolving further. There have been many developments in our understanding of what pragmatism really means, and excellent examples of truly pragmatic trials in psychiatry are currently available. Funders have helped encourage more emphasis on the need for such studies, but 'local' and trans-national regulations could help more. Consumers of the evidence should have a greater voice in generating the research agenda and, as this happens, the questions generated are more likely to be answered by a pragmatic approach to trials.

The use of restraint in four general hospital emergency departments in Australia

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to investigate restraint use in Australian emergency departments (EDs).

METHOD

A retrospective audit of restraint incidents in four EDs (from 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2011).

RESULTS

The restraint rate was 0.04% of total ED presentations. Males and females were involved in similar numbers of incidents. Over 90% of restrained patients had a mental illness diagnosis and were compulsorily hospitalised. Mechanical restraint with the use of soft shackles was the main method used. Restraint was enacted to prevent harm to self and/or others. Median incident duration was 2 hours 5 minutes.

CONCLUSIONS

In order to better integrate the needs of mental health clients, consideration is needed as to what improvements to procedures and the ED environment can be made. EDs should particularly focus on reducing restraint duration and the use of hard shackles.

Use of coercive measures in mental health practice and its impact on outcome: a critical review

Although coercive measures have always been part of the psychiatric armamentarium, the ethical dilemma between the use of a "therapeutic" coercion and the loss of patients' dignity is one of the major controversial issues in mental health research and practice. The aims of the present review are to explore the existing literature on predictors of use of coercive measures and to explore the relationship between coercive measures and patient outcome. A literature search was conducted using MEDLINE, PsychyINFO, Scopus, Web of Knowledge and the Cochrane Database. In all selected papers, references were cross-checked to identify other possible eligible papers. The use of coercive measures was predicted by patients' clinical and socio-demographic features, staff characteristics and ward-related factors. Coercive measures have only a limited impact on patients' clinical and social outcome. At the current level of knowledge, coercion is still a controversial issue in mental health practice. Only few studies with a solid methodology have been carried out. Large multicenter and rigorous studies, with long-term follow-ups, are highly needed.

Rivers of evidence

There has been too much of a one-way flow drift down a river of evidence. Researchers from rich countries have produced the primary evidence which they proceed to summarise within reviews. These summaries have directed care worldwide. However, things are changing and the river of evidence can flow in the other direction. The care of women with eclampsia has been changed or refined throughout the world because of a large low and middle income country trial. The global care of people with heart disease has been greatly modified by studies originating in China. The care of people who are acutely aggressive because of psychosis has to be reconsidered in the light of the evidence coming from Brazil and India. Healthcare is an issue everywhere and evaluation of care is not the premise of any one culture-the evidence-river must run both ways.

Schizophrenia trials conducted in African countries: a drop of evidence in the ocean of morbidity?

Objective

To quantify schizophrenia trialling activity in African countries and to describe the main features of these trials.

Methods

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Register, which contains 16,000 citations to 13,000 studies relating only to people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like illness, to identify schizophrenia trials conducted in Africa without time limitation.

Results

A total of 38 trials met the inclusion criteria and were included in our analysis. Of the 54 countries of Africa, only 8 produced at least one trial: South Africa produced the majority of trials (20 out of 38 trials, 53%), followed by Nigeria (7 out of 38 trials, 18%) and Egypt (4 out of 38 trials, 11%). The majority of studies investigated the efficacy of pharmacological interventions, were short in duration, and employed a double-blind design. The quality of reporting was generally poor. We found six trials comparing antipsychotics from the WHO Essential List of Medicine versus new generation antipsychotics. In terms of efficacy and acceptability, these studies failed to show any advantage of newer antipsychotics over first-generation agents.

Conclusions

We observed an impressive mismatch between the number of individuals with schizophrenia living in African countries, estimated to be around 10 million, and the overall number of patients included in African trials, which is less than 2,000. These few trials were of low quality and appeared not to reflect the real needs of the population. We argue that the concept of pragmatism should be introduced into the design of randomized trials in African countries. Pragmatic trials should investigate whether treatments, given in real-world circumstances, really have clinically meaningful effects.

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.

Seclusion and restraint for people with serious mental illnesses

BACKGROUND

Seclusion and restraint are interventions used in the treatment and management of disruptive and violent behaviours in psychiatry. The use of seclusion varies widely across institutions. The literature does offer numerous suggestions for interventions to reduce or prevent aggression.

OBJECTIVES

1. To estimate the effects of seclusion and restraint compared to the alternatives for those with serious mental illnesses. 2. To estimate the effects of strategies to prevent seclusion and restraint in those with serious mental illnesses.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Electronic searches of The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (Issue 1, 1999) and The Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register (January 1999) were supplemented with additional searches of Biological Abstracts (1989-1999), CINAHL (1982-1999), EMbase (1980-1999), MEDLINE (1966-1999), MEDIC (1979-1999), PsycLIT (1974-1999), Sociofile (1974-1999), SPRI & SWEMED (1982-1999), Social Sciences Citation Index (1996-1999), and WILP (1983-1999). In addition, trials were sought by hand searching the reference lists of all identified studies and conference abstracts and contacting the first author of each relevant study.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials were included if they focused on the use (i) of restraint or seclusion; or (ii) of strategies designed to reduce the need for restraint or seclusion in the treatment of serious mental illness.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Studies were reliably selected, quality rated and data extracted. For dichotomous data relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated. Normal continuous data were summated using the weighted mean difference (WMD).

MAIN RESULTS

1. Effect of seclusion and restraint The search strategy yielded 2155 citations. Of these, the full articles for 35 studies were obtained. No studies met minimum inclusion criteria and no data were synthesised. Most of the 24 excluded studies focused upon the restraint of elderly, confused people and preventing them from wandering or falling. 2. Prevention of seclusion and restraint Work ongoing.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

No controlled studies exist that evaluate the value of seclusion or restraint in those with serious mental illness. There are reports of serious adverse effects for these techniques in qualitative reviews. Alternative ways of dealing with unwanted or harmful behaviours need to be developed. Continuing use of seclusion or restraint must therefore be questioned from within well-designed and reported randomised trials that are generalisable to routine practice.