Implementing an ecological approach to violence reduction at a forensic psychiatric hospital: approaches and lessons learned

Is mental health staff training in de-escalation techniques effective in reducing violent incidents in forensic psychiatric settings? - A systematic review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Inpatient violence is a relevant issue in forensic psychiatric settings. Relevant guidelines recommend that restrictive measures are to be used exclusively if de-escalation and other preventive strategies have failed and there is a risk of harm to patients or staff if no action is taken. However, restrictive measures are untherapeutic and can be harmful. In order to enable staff to intervene before inpatient violence or other serious incidents occur and thus to avoid restrictive measures, mental health staff training programs including de-escalation components are being adopted in general as well as forensic mental health settings. There is growing evidence for the efficacy of mental health staff training in de-escalation techniques in the field of general psychiatry. However, there are no reviews evaluating the effectiveness of these interventions in reducing violent incidents in forensic psychiatric settings. Here we present the first literature review on the effectiveness staff training in de-escalation techniques in the field of forensic psychiatry.

METHOD

We searched relevant databases for original research on the effectiveness of reducing violence in forensic psychiatric settings. Studies were included if they investigated staff training programs with de-escalation techniques in forensic mental health settings.

RESULTS

A total of 5 relevant studies were identified. None of the studies was a randomized controlled trial. Four studies were before and after comparisons without control group. A one group post-test-only design was used in one study. Methodological quality was low. The maximum sample size was 112 participants. Results indicated no relevant impact of mental health staff training in de-escalation techniques on the rate of violent incidents in forensic psychiatric wards. However, staff seemed to feel safer following the training. Results have to be interpreted cautiously due to several methodological and content-related limitations.

DISCUSSION

Evidence for the effectiveness of staff training in de-escalation techniques on reducing verbal and physical aggression in forensic settings remains very limited. The existing definitions of terms like de-escalation, de-escalation training and de-escalation techniques in the healthcare context appear rather vague. Although some positive changes are reported across a variety of outcome measures it remains unclear to what extent staff training in de-esclation techniques contributes to a reduction in aggressive incidents and restrictive measures in forensic psychiatry. The clinical implications of this review are therefore limited. Yet, an important implication for future research is that a more comprehensive approach might prove worthwhile. Conducting a further review integrating a wide range of complex interventions aimed at the reduction of inpatient violence rather than focusing on de-escalation only, might be a worthwhile approach.

Risk Factors Associated With Inpatient Violence During Medium Security Treatment

Violence is a common phenomenon both in regular and forensic psychiatric settings, and has a profound impact on staff and other patients. Insight into the individual risk factors associated with violence in forensic psychiatric settings is rare and is therefore the subject of this research. A retrospective file study in three medium security units in Flanders was conducted to compare non-violent inpatients with inpatients who engaged in (verbal and physical) violent behavior. Binary logistic regression analyses were used to examine which variables contributed independently to the risk of violence. The results showed that absconding during treatment was independently associated with physical violence. A personality disorder diagnosis and general non-compliance with treatment were associated with verbal violence. Both types of violence predicted early termination of treatment. Contrary to previous research, the results from the risk assessment tools were not associated with inpatient violence. Clinical implications are discussed and include, among others, that clinicians should remain vigilant for early warning signs of non-compliance during treatment.

Trends in the use of coercive measures in Finnish psychiatric hospitals: a register analysis of the past two decades

BACKGROUND

Coercive measures is a topic that has long been discussed in the field of psychiatry. Despite global reports of reductions in the use of restraint episodes due to new regulations, it is still questionable if practices have really changed over time. For this study, we examined the rates of coercive measures in the inpatient population of psychiatric care providers across Finland to identify changing trends as well as variations in such trends by region.

METHODS

In this nationwide registry analysis, we extracted patient data from the national database (The Finnish National Care Register for Health Care) over a 20-year period. We included adult patients admitted to psychiatric units (care providers) and focused on patients who had faced coercive measures (seclusion, limb restraints, forced injection and physical restraints) during their hospital stay. Multilevel logistical models (a polynomial model of quadratic form) were used to examine trends in prevalence of any coercive measures as well as the other four specified coercive measures over time, and to investigate variation in such trends among care providers and regions.

RESULTS

Between 1995 and 2014, the dataset contained 226,948 inpatients who had been admitted during the 20-year time frame (505,169 treatment periods). The overall prevalence of coercive treatment on inpatients was 9.8%, with a small decrease during 2011-2014. The overall prevalence of seclusion, limb restraints, forced injection and physical restraints on inpatients was 6.9, 3.8, 2.6 and 0.8%, respectively. Only the use of limb restraints showed a downward trend over time. Geographic and care provider variations in specific coercive measures used were also observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the decreasing national level of coercive measures used in Finnish psychiatric hospitals, the overall reduction has been small during the last two decades. These results have implications on the future development of structured guidelines and interventions for preventing and more effectively managing challenging situations. Clinical guidelines and staff education related to the use of coercive measures should be critically assessed to ensure that the staff members working with vulnerable patient populations in psychiatric hospitals are ethically competent.