Consumers' and their supporters' perspectives on barriers and strategies to reducing seclusion and restraint in mental health settings

Reducing seclusion and restraint in an acute adolescent psychiatric ward: A feasibility study

WHAT IS KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT

Restraining and secluding health consumers for safety reasons continue to be used in psychiatric inpatient facilities even though they have no therapeutic value and have negative effects on consumers, families and staff. Six Core Strategies (6CS) for reducing seclusion and restraint have been developed to address this problem but there are very few effectiveness studies in inpatient adolescent psychiatric facilities.

WHAT THE PAPER ADDS TO EXISTING KNOWLEDGE

We used a mixed methods approach to evaluate the implementation of 6CS in an adolescent psychiatric facility. The implementation was successful. It eliminated the use of seclusion, substantially reduced the use of restraints and significantly reduced staff absenteeism. Using thematic analysis on feedback surveys, we identified five dominant themes that described consumers' and carers' experiences during their stay at the facility: communication, service delivery, flexibility, consistency and internal feeling states.

WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

This study provides support for the feasibility of a comprehensive and broad-based intervention program such as 6CS to reduce seclusion and restraint practices in inpatient mental health facilities. This study also demonstrates the value of using surveys to gather consumer and carer feedback and improve outcomes for service users.

ABSTRACT

Introduction Seclusion and restraint practices are routinely used in psychiatric facilities but are controversial for ethical, legal and safety reasons, and can cause significant harm to consumers, staff and organisations. Six Core Strategies (6CS) for reducing seclusion and restraint were developed to address this problem but very few studies have examined their effectiveness in adolescent settings. Aim/Question To evaluate the implementation of 6CS in an adolescent inpatient psychiatric facility. Method We retrieved archival data from an acute adolescent psychiatric ward that implemented the 6CS. Using a mixed methods approach, we evaluated outcomes on the use of seclusion and restraint, nursing staff sick leave and feedback surveys. Results Findings showed an elimination of seclusion, and a significant reduction in restraint use and staff absenteeism in the 12 months after project implementation. Thematic analysis of feedback survey responses identified communication, service delivery, flexibility, consistency and internal feeling states as dominant themes in consumers' and carers' experience on the unit. Discussion The 6CS is feasible and may be effective in reducing seclusion and restraint, which in turn may have a positive impact on staff wellbeing. Implications for Practice Implementation of the 6CS with executive support, combined with staff and programmatic changes at a local level is recommended.

Reducing use of seclusion on a male medium secure forensic ward

The reduction of restrictive practices is a priority for mental health inpatient services. Often such practices are considered to increase patients' feelings of anger, loneliness, hopelessness and vulnerability. Moreover, such approaches are counterintuitive to both recovery-orientated and trauma-informed practice.Our project, based in a male 15-bed secure forensic ward, aimed to reduce the duration (outcome measure) and frequency (balancing measure) of the use of seclusion by 10% over 6 months. Following the analysis of our local data systems and feedback from both patients and staff, we identified the high levels of use of seclusion, and reluctance to terminate it. These included a lack of awareness of the effective and appropriate use of such a facility, a hesitancy to use de-escalation techniques and an over-reliance on multidisciplinary team and consultant decision making.We subsequently designed and implemented three tests of change which reviewed seclusion processes, enhanced de-escalation skills and improved decision making. Our tests of change were applied over a 6-month period. During this period, we surpassed our original target of a reduction of frequency and duration by 10% and achieved a 33% reduction overall. Patients reported feeling safer on the ward, and the team reported improvements in relationships with patients.Our project highlights the importance of relational security within the secure setting and provides a template for other wards wishing to reduce the frequency and duration of seclusions.

Seclusion within the first 24 h following admission into inpatient mental health services and associations with referral pathways, recent service contact and HoNOS ratings

WHAT IS KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT?: Seclusion is a harmful and traumatising intervention for people accessing mental health services. People who are subject to seclusion in inpatient mental health services often first experience this within the first 24 h following admission. There is limited research examining how recent contact with services impacts the likelihood of seclusion when people are admitted to inpatient services. WHAT THE PAPER ADDS TO EXISTING KNOWLEDGE?: Males, Māori and Pasifika experience higher rates of seclusion within the first 24 h following inpatient admission. People perceived by clinicians as overactive, aggressive, disruptive or agitated are seven times more likely to be secluded within the first 24 h. People referred from police or justice services are three times more likely to be secluded within the first 24 h. People who had frequent contact with community mental health services prior to inpatient admission were less likely to be secluded. WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE?: The first 24 h of inpatient admission is a critical focus for eliminating the use of seclusion. Initial interactions with people recently admitted should focus on nurturing relationships and reducing distress. Mental health staff should consider the person's cultural needs, referral pathway, recent service contact and baseline ratings on the Health of the Nation Outcomes Scales (HoNOS) when working proactively to prevent the use of seclusion in the first 24 h following admission. Strengthening the focus on nurturing relationships, cultural understanding and non-coercive de-escalation approaches requires leadership support and strategic workforce development. ABSTRACT: Introduction People who experience seclusion in inpatient mental health services often do so within the first 24 h following admission. There is limited research examining the potential contributing factors, particularly recent contact with services. Aim/Question To identify factors associated with seclusion within the first 24 h following admission into acute inpatient mental health services. Method A retrospective analysis was undertaken using routinely collected data from Aotearoa New Zealand mental health services. Results A higher likelihood of seclusion within the first 24 h following admission was associated with: males, Māori, Pasifika, referrals from police/justice services, inpatient transfers, recent contact with crisis assessment teams and clinician perceptions of aggression, problematic substance use, cognitive problems and hallucinations or delusions. Recent contact with community mental health services was associated with a lower likelihood. Discussion People's cultural needs, referral pathway, recent service contact and HoNOS scores should be considered when working to prevent the use of seclusion in the first 24 h following admission. Implications for Practice The first 24 h following inpatient admission is a critical period for preventing the use of seclusion. Nurturing relationships, cultural understanding and use of non-coercive de-escalation approaches can support better outcomes for people recently admitted.

A qualitative integrative analysis of service users' and service providers' perspectives on ways to reduce coercion in mental health care

PURPOSE

The movement to develop and implement non-coercive alternatives in the provision of mental health care is gaining momentum globally. To strengthen the basis of potential interventions that will be contextually relevant, and to complement the body of literature which is largely from high-income settings, the current study sought to explore the suggestions of service users and providers in Nigeria on how to reduce the use of coercive measures in mental health settings.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews with 30 mental health professionals and four focus group discussions among 30 service users from two psychiatric hospitals in Nigeria were conducted. The data were analyzed thematically with the aid of MAXQDA.

RESULTS

The suggestions proposed by service users and mental health professionals were within the broad themes of communication, policies and legislation, and increased resources. Service users felt that improved communication, home consultations, non-legal advocates and clear rules and legislation would reduce the use of coercion, while service providers suggested increased public mental health literacy, better interpersonal relationships with patients, increased resources for mental health care, more research on the topic and regulation of coercive measures.

CONCLUSION

Many of the suggestions from this study reinforce strategies already in place to decrease coercion in other settings. However, additional recommendations that are relevant to the study setting, such as enhancing public mental health literacy, mental health legislation reform and increasing access to mental health services, deserve further consideration.

Getting a grip on Safewards: The cross impact of clinical supervision and Safewards model on clinical practice

The Safewards model is used across various mental health settings to reduce incidents of conflict and containment and its efficacy in reducing the use of seclusion and restraint, improving patients' experiences of care, and enhancing safety within clinical settings is well documented (Bowers, Journal of Psychiatric & Mental Health Nursing, 21, 2014, 499). However, there are barriers to successful implementation, including level of staff buy-in (Baumgardt et al., Frontiers in Psychiatry, 10, 2019, 340; Price et al., Mental Health Practice, 19, 2016, 14). This mixed-method study assessed the impact of adopting a Safewards model within a clinical supervision framework in an approach, named Group Reflective integrated Practice with Safewards (GRiP-S), which integrates Safewards theory within the clinical supervision framework. Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected using the questions derived from the Manchester Clinical Supervision Scale -26© (Winstanley & White, The Wiley International Handbook of Clinical Supervision. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2014). A total of 67 surveys and eight interviews were completed by nursing staff. Overall, the results showed that the GRiP-S approach improves the implementation of Safewards and nurses' clinical practice. Nursing staff satisfaction with clinical supervision and Safewards improved post GRiP-S pre-GRIP-S- 69.54 (SD 16.059); post-GRIP-S 71.47 (SD 13.978). The survey also identified nursing staff's perception of GRiP-S in the restorative and formative domains of clinical supervision improved. The restorative mean score pre-GRiP-S was 28.43 (SD 5.988) and post-GRiP-S 29.29 (SD 3.951). The formative mean score pre-GRiP-S was 20.10 (SD 5.617) and post-GRiP-S 20.63 (SD 13.978). The qualitative results further explained the satisfaction levels and the changes seen in perception domains. The GRiP-S approach reported (i) improved therapeutic relationships and patient centred care, (ii) improved staff communication and teamwork, (iii) barriers to GRiP-S engagement, and (iv) assistance with the change process. The results indicate that the GRiP-S approach had a positive impact on Safewards delivery and supports ongoing change of practice.

A qualitative synthesis of patients' experiences of re-traumatization in acute mental health inpatient settings

WHAT IS KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT?: Research indicates many people accessing mental healthcare have trauma history and often experience re-traumatization in acute mental health inpatient settings. Treatment for trauma is not routinely explored as a treatment option in mental health inpatient settings and consequently mental health professionals do not draw connections between the person with trauma history and their presenting mental health problems. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS TO EXISTING KNOWLEDGE?: People in acute mental health inpatient units are not asked about their previous trauma histories on admission and their trauma history is not taken into consideration during interventions in particular coercive practices such as seclusion, restraint, forced medication, and involuntary admission. This paper provides an understanding on how to address trauma-related issues within in-patient settings and identifies practical examples of how to reduce the risk of re-traumatization. WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE?: Staff induction and training development needs can be used to help mental health professionals to be more confident and competent in assessing and identifying the history of trauma so that they can improve recognition, provide post-disclosure support, and avoid the potential for re-traumatization for inpatients. Physical environments need to be welcoming, homely, and have comfortable furnishing. They also require adequate space for inpatients to move around freely and have a quiet space to go to de-escalate themselves when required.

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Rates of re-traumatization among mentally ill-health patients have risen significantly over the past decade and clinical guidelines place mental health nurses at the heart of their care.

AIM

To gather, analyse, and synthesize the evidence on people's experiences on re-traumatization in acute mental health inpatient settings.

METHOD

A systematic search for qualitative studies (CINAHL, MEDLINE, ASSIA, PsycINFO, and EMBASE) was conducted. Two authors independently assessed eligibility and appraised methodological quality using Joanna Briggs's quality appraisal tool and extracted data. The analysis followed the principles of interpretative synthesis.

RESULTS

Fourteen papers were included for thematic synthesis. Three themes emerged: (1) Quality of staff interaction; (2) Specific interventions, (Sub-theme nature of symptoms); and (3) Nature of the environment.

DISCUSSION

Our findings demonstrate that patients are experiencing re-traumatization in acute mental health inpatient settings and that there is little being done to prevent it from occurring.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

This study is the first to analyse the factors that contribute to re-traumatization and make recommendations to mental healthcare professionals to reduce the harmful practices in place in inpatient settings. It is suggested that training staff in trauma-informed care and allowing patients to be experts in their own care can reduce the rates of re-traumatization.

What do we know about the experience of seclusion in a forensic setting? An integrative literature review

Seclusion is used in forensic and general mental health settings to protect a person or others from harm. However, seclusion can result in trauma-related harm and re-traumatization with little known about the experience of seclusion for consumers in forensic mental health settings from their perspectives. This article explores consumer experiences of seclusion in forensic mental health settings and explores the differences between female and male experiences of seclusion. Five electronic databases were systematically searched using keywords and variations of experience, attitude, seclusion, coercion, forensic mental health, and forensic psychiatry. Inclusion criteria were original peer-reviewed studies conducted in adult forensic mental health settings reporting data on the experiences of or attitudes towards seclusion. Seven studies met the criteria for inclusion and a quality assessment was undertaken. Results found consumers in forensic mental health settings perceive seclusion to be harmful, a punishment for their behaviour, and largely a negative experience that impacts their emotional health. Some consumers report positive experiences of seclusion. Differences in the experience of seclusion for females and males are unclear. Further research is required to understand the experience of seclusion for women in forensic mental health settings. Identification and consideration of differences in the experience of seclusion for males and females may assist in identifying sex-specific interventions and may inform policy and practices to eliminate or reduce the trauma associated with seclusion use.

Safewards Secure: A Delphi study to develop an addition to the Safewards model for forensic mental health services

WHAT IS KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT?: The Safewards model has been introduced to forensic mental health wards with mixed results. Research has identified a need to consider the addition of factors that may be relevant to forensic mental health services to enhance the introduction of Safewards. WHAT THE PAPER ADDS TO EXISTING KNOWLEDGE?: This study elicits factors specific to forensic mental health settings missing from the original Safewards model, which have the potential to enhance nursing care, improve safety and improve adherence to Safewards in a forensic mental health setting. WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE?: This study provides the adaptation required in a forensic mental health setting to enhance the implementation of the Safewards model of care, originally developed to assist nurses to prevent and manage conflict and containment in acute general mental health settings. The development of Safewards Secure has incorporated perspectives from expert Safewards and forensic mental health nurse leaders and healthcare clinicians and is inclusive of consumer and carer perspectives to ensure the model is applicable and broadly acceptable. ABSTRACT: Introduction Safewards is a model designed specifically for acute mental inpatient wards. Research investigating the introduction of Safewards has identified a need to consider factors relevant in forensic mental health services, such as offence and risk issues. Aim To identify adaptations needed to address gaps in the Safewards model to assist forensic mental health nurses to prevent and manage conflict and containment. Method A Delphi study was employed to engage a group of international Safewards and forensic mental health experts (n = 19), to elucidate adaptation of the Safewards model. Results Experts identified necessary elements and reached consensus on key considerations for Safewards interventions. To ensure the Safewards Secure model was robust and developed on a platform of research, all items suggested by Delphi experts were cross-referenced and dependent on empirical evidence in the literature. Discussion This study identified a number of key differences between civil and forensic mental health services, which informed the development of Safewards Secure, an adjunct to the original Safewards model. Implications for Practice The development of person-centred models of nursing care adapted to specific settings, such as forensic mental health, provides a potential solution to preventing and managing conflict and containment, and improving consumer outcomes. Relevance Statement Managing conflict and containment in mental health services remains an ongoing challenge for mental health nurses. Safewards is a model of care designed for acute mental health inpatient settings to prevent conflict and containment. To date, there has been mixed results when introducing Safewards in forensic mental health settings, and reported reluctance and scepticism. To address these issues, this study employed a Delphi design to elicit possible adaptions to the original Safewards model. From this study, Safewards Secure was developed with adaptations designed for forensic services, to enhance the management of conflict and containment, assist implementation and improve consumer outcomes.

Contextual Barriers and Enablers to Safewards Implementation in Victoria, Australia: Application of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research

Background: Safewards is a complex psychosocial intervention designed to reduce conflict and containment on inpatient mental health units. There is mounting international evidence of the effectiveness and acceptability of Safewards. However, a significant challenge exists in promising interventions, such as Safewards, being translated into routine practice. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) provides a framework through which to understand implementation in complex health service environments. The aim was to inform more effective implementation of Safewards using the CFIR domains and constructs, capitalizing on developing an understanding of variations across wards. Method: Seven Safewards Leads completed the Training and Implementation Diary for 18 wards that opted in to a trial of Safewards. Fidelity Checklist scores were used to categorize low, medium and high implementers of Safewards at the end of the 12-week implementation period. Results: Qualitative data from the diaries were analyzed thematically and coded according to the five CFIR domains which included 39 constructs. Twenty-six constructs across the five domains were highlighted within the data to have acted as a barrier or enabler. Further analysis revealed that six constructs distinguished between low, medium, and high implementing wards. Discussion: Our findings suggest that for implementation of Safewards to succeed, particular attention needs to be paid to engagement of key staff including managers, making training a priority for all ward staff, adequate planning of the process of implementation and creating an environment on each inpatient unit that prioritize and enables Safewards interventions to be undertaken by staff regularly.

Design features that reduce the use of seclusion and restraint in mental health facilities: a rapid systematic review

Increasing efforts are being made to prevent and/or eliminate the use of seclusion and restraint in mental health facilities. Recent literature recognises the importance of the physical environment in supporting better outcomes in mental health services. This rapid review scoped the existing literature studying what physical design features of mental health facilities can reduce the use of seclusion and physical restraint.

DESIGN

A rapid review of peer-reviewed literature.

METHODS

Peer-reviewed literature was searched for studies on architectural design and the use of restraint and seclusion in mental health facilities. The following academic databases were searched: Cochrane Library, Medline, PsycINFO, Scopus and Avery for English language literature published between January 2010 and August 2019. The Joanna Briggs Institute's critical appraisal tool was used to assess the quality of included studies.

RESULTS

We identified 35 peer-reviewed studies. The findings revealed several overarching themes in design efforts to reduce the use of seclusion and restraint: a beneficial physical environment (eg, access to gardens or recreational facilities); sensory or comfort rooms; and private, uncrowded and calm spaces. The critical appraisal indicated that the overall quality of studies was low, as such the findings should be interpreted with caution.

CONCLUSION

This study found preliminary evidence that the physical environment has a role in supporting the reduction in the use of seclusion and restraint. This is likely to be achieved through a multilayered approach, founded on good design features and building towards specific design features which may reduce occurrences of seclusion and restraint. Future designs should include consumers in a codesign process to maximise the potential for change and innovation that is genuinely guided by the insights of lived experience expertise.

Violence against children and adolescents by nursing staff: prevalence rates and implications for practice

BACKGROUND

International studies show that child maltreatment is a widespread but often underestimated problem that causes high individual, social and economic costs. Child maltreatment is an important topic for the medical sector as well. On the one hand, affected persons often seek support and help from healthcare professionals, but on the other hand, assaults can also occur in medical institutions by healthcare professionals. Surprisingly, there is hardly any data on the frequency of child maltreatment by healthcare professionals in general and particularly by nursing staff.

METHODS

Therefore, in a large representative survey of the German population of 2,516 subjects aged between 14 and 91, the experience of child maltreatment in medical institutions by nursing staff was assessed retrospectively.

RESULTS

Of the 46 subjects who had an inpatient stay in a child and adolescent psychiatry before the age of 18, 33.3% reported to have experienced maltreatment by nursing staff, while 17.3% of the 474 persons who had an inpatient stay in general or pediatric hospitals experienced maltreatment by nursing staff. All forms of maltreatment were significantly more frequent in psychiatric compared to general and pediatric hospitals.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of our representative retrospective survey demonstrate that maltreatment by nursing staff are not rare individual cases, but that medical facilities bear systemic risks for assault. Therefore, it is necessary that all medical institutions, in particular psychiatric hospitals, address this issue. In order to reduce the risk for assaults, it is important not only to implement structural measures but also to develop an attitude that emphasizes zero tolerance for violence against children and adolescents.

'Only ever as a last resort': Mental health nurses' experiences of restrictive practices

Nurses play a crucial role in the implementation of restrictive practices such as seclusion and restraint. Restrictive practices have been widely recognized as harmful practices and efforts to reduce their use have been in place for several years. While some reductions have been achieved, more information and insight into the perspectives and experiences of front-line mental health nursing staff is required if further changes are to be realized. Sixty-five respondents participated in an online survey to investigate Australian mental health nurses' personal experiences and opinions regarding restrictive practices. Analysis revealed restrictive practices as a complex, contested and challenging area of practice. Analysis of data revealed five main ways that restrictive practices were framed by respondents. These were as follows: as a response to fear; to maintain safety for all; a legacy of time and place; the last resort; and, a powerful source of occupational distress. In addition, findings revealed the need to support staff involved in restrictive practices. This need could be satisfied through the implementation of procedures to address post-restrictive distress at all levels of the organization. Ensuring an optimal work environment that includes appropriate staffing, availability of supportive education and structured routine debriefing of all episodes of restrictive practice is critical in achieving further reductions in seclusion and restraint.

Minimizing the Use of Restraint in Patients with Mental Disorders at a Mental Hospital: A Systematic Review

Background: Restraint in the psychiatric unit is a common practice but it is very controversial and it has undergone a poor evaluation according to methodological investigations. Using restraint is a common problem and has a significant impact on patients, families and health care staff. Therefore, this systematic review will discuss the important reasons as to why restraint should be reduced. It will also explain several alternative treatments for aggressive patients in mental hospitals.Method: The database searches were used to identify potential articles: Scopus and Proquest were the focus. The search was limited to those published in the range of the last 5 years from 2013 to 2018. The keywords that were used were ‘restraint in the hospital’, ‘restraint reduction’, ‘the elimination of restraint’ and ‘physical restraint’.Result: Only 15 articles met the inclusion criteria. The results suggest that restraint is considered to be a violation of human rights and that it traumatizes the patients. It is inhuman and degrading. Besides this, restraint can result in physical complications in the form of lacerations, asphyxia, thrombosis and death. Restraint is permitted when other methods fail and in emergency conditions.Conclusion: Some of the ways to reduce the use of restraint are by constant monitoring and through the control of individual behavior, including verbal management and attitudes, reducing the environmental risks, and administering drugs. Some of the efforts to avoid restraint are the "Positive and Safe in Calderstones" program, sensory modulation and peer advice and support.

A Matter of Trust and Distrust: A Qualitative Investigation of Parents' Perceptions About the Use of Mechanical Restraint on Their Adult Children in a Forensic Psychiatric Setting

INTRODUCTION

Increased knowledge about forensic psychiatric patients' relatives' perceptions in regard to the use of mechanical restraint (MR) is necessary, if clinical practice is to be improved and to achieve a reduction in the use and frequency of MR. However, a specific knowledge deficit about relatives' perspectives on the use of MR limits the evidence base considerably.

AIM

The aim of this study was to investigate the perceptions of MR held by relatives of forensic psychiatric patients' including factors impacting its use and duration.

METHOD

Qualitative interviews were conducted with 15 parents of patients within a forensic psychiatry setting and thematically analyzed.

FINDINGS

Two main themes were identified, namely, "care and protection" and "inclusion and involvement," and one subtheme, "information." These themes revealed the framework used by parents to construct a sense of "trust or distrust" about the ability of staff to provide adequate and safe care for their adult children in the forensic psychiatric setting.

CONCLUSION

Some parents in this study considered that forensic psychiatric staff used MR as a necessary protection. However, most parents held strong negative perceptions regarding the use of MR and the quality and safety of care provision. It is apparent that parents in this study believed they should be included and involved in the care in situations associated with the use of MR, because they considered that this could reduce its use. Further research is required to target interventions to reduce the use and duration of MR episodes and to improve clinical practice in forensic psychiatry.

Variation in seclusion rates across New Zealand's specialist mental health services: Are sociodemographic and clinical factors influencing this?

Rates of seclusion vary across New Zealand's publicly funded district health board (DHB) adult mental health inpatient services as indicated by national data. Anecdotally, this variation has been attributed to a range of factors directly relating to the people admitted to acute inpatient services. This study examined the extent to which variation in seclusion rates could be explained by the sociodemographic and clinical differences between populations admitted into adult mental health inpatient services. Retrospective data were obtained from the Programme for the Integration of Mental Health Data (PRIMHD). A logistic regression model was fitted to these data, with seclusion (yes/no) as the dependent variable and DHB groups as the independent variable. The DHBs were classified into four groups based on their seclusion rates. The model adjusted for ethnicity, age, number of bed nights, total Health of the Nation Outcome Scales (HoNOS) scores, and compulsory treatment status. Odds ratios remained virtually unchanged after adjustment for sociodemographic and clinical factors. People admitted to DHB Group 4 (highest secluding DHBs) were 11 times more likely to be secluded than people in Group 1 (lowest secluding DHBs), adjusted OR = 11.1, 95% CI [7.5,16.4], P < 0.001. Results indicate DHB variation in seclusion rates cannot be attributed to the sociodemographic and clinical factors of people admitted into DHB adult mental health inpatient services. Instead, this variation may be explained by differences in service delivery models and practice approaches. A model of system improvements aimed at reducing seclusion is discussed.

People who experience seclusion in adult mental health inpatient services: An examination of health of the nation outcome scales scores

The Health of the Nation Outcomes Scales (HoNOS) provides an overview of a person's behaviour, impairment, clinical symptoms, and social functioning. This study investigated the profile of people who had been secluded in New Zealand's adult mental health inpatient services using 12 individual HoNOS ratings. Routinely collected clinical data were extracted from the Programme for the Integration of Mental Health Data (PRIMHD). This is the national data set for mental health and addiction services. A logistic regression model was fitted to the data which adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity, bed nights, compulsory treatment, and district health board. After adjustment, three HoNOS items significantly predicted the risk of seclusion: overactive, aggressive, disruptive, or agitated behaviour (adjusted OR = 4.82, 95% CI [3.88, 5.97], P < 0.001); problem drinking or drug-taking (adjusted OR = 1.51, 95% CI [1.25, 1.82], P < 0.001); and problems with hallucinations and delusions (adjusted OR = 1.33, 95% CI [1.09, 1.63], P = 0.006). In addition, two HoNOS items were protective for seclusion: nonaccidental self-injury (adjusted OR = 0.65, 95% CI [0.51, 0.83], P < 0.001) and depressed mood (adjusted OR = 0.58, 95% CI [0.47, 0.72], P < 0.001). Thus, responding effectively to agitation and/or aggression, substance use, and psychosis plays an important role in reducing the use of seclusion. Mental health nurses and other workers can reduce seclusion through early assessment, effective communication, de-escalation techniques, reduction tools, trauma-informed care, and consulting with consumers and whānau.

Sensory strategies in adult mental health: A qualitative exploration of staff perspectives following the introduction of a sensory room on a male adult acute ward

In recent years, there has been growing interest in the use of sensory techniques to help with emotional regulation in adult mental health populations. This is against a backdrop of international policies aimed at reducing restrictive interventions and improving the effectiveness of de-escalation techniques. A sensory room was designed and implemented on a male adult acute psychiatric ward. Staff perspectives were sought to evaluate the effectiveness of the room in managing emotional distress by exploring staff awareness of a broader range of de-escalation strategies and by exploring what effect the room had on staff behaviours with respect to sensory interventions. A series of semi-structured interviews were carried out, analysed, and grouped into themes. Three themes emerged as follows: enhancing de-escalation, sensory interventions, and impact on staff. Findings showed that increased awareness of sensory processing and use of sensory strategies such as the sensory room were perceived by staff to have a positive impact on reducing distress with male service users. Staff use of the room was also discovered to have benefits that included staff attending to their own emotional needs and the use of the room supporting reflective learning during critical incident debriefing.

Fear and blame in mental health nurses' accounts of restrictive practices: Implications for the elimination of seclusion and restraint

Restrictive practices continue to be used in mental health care despite increasing recognition of their harms and an international effort to reduce and ultimately eliminate their use. The aim of this qualitative study was to explore mental health nurses' views of the potential elimination of these practices. Nine focus groups were conducted with 44 mental health nurses across Australia, and the data analysed using thematic analysis. Overall, the nurses expressed significant fear about the potential elimination of restrictive practices and saw themselves as being blamed for both the use of these practices and the consequences should they be eliminated. Findings detail the conflicts facing staff in balancing the need for ward safety for everyone present while at the same time providing person-centred care. Nurses described the changing role of the mental health nurse in acute settings, being more focussed on risk assessment and medication while at the same time attempting to practise in trauma-informed person-centred ways. The impact on ward safety with increasing acuity of consumers plus the presence of forensic consumers and those affected by methamphetamine was emphasized. Change initiatives need to take into account nurses' deep concerns about the consequences of eliminating all forms of control measures in hospitals and respond to the symptoms and behaviours consumers present with and associated unpredictable and concerning behaviours. Attempts to eliminate restrictive practices should, therefore, be carefully considered and come with a clear articulation of alternatives to ensure the safety of consumers, visitors, and staff.

Requirements for the implementation of open door policies in acute psychiatry from a mental health professionals' and patients' view: a qualitative interview study

BACKGROUND

Treating legally committed patients on open, instead of locked wards is controversially discussed and the affected stakeholders (patients, mental health professionals) have ambiguous views on the benefits and disadvantages. The study aims to assess the opinions and values of relevant stakeholders with regard to the requirements for implementing open wards in psychiatric hospitals.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 psychiatrists, 15 psychiatric nurses and 15 patients, and were analyzed using qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

The interviewees identified conceptual, personnel and spatial requirements necessary for an open door policy. Observation and door watch concepts are judged to be essential for open wards, and patients appreciate the therapeutic value they hold. However, nurses find the door watch problematic. All groups suggest seclusion or small locked divisions as a possible way of handling agitated patients. All stakeholders agree that such concepts can only succeed if sufficient, qualified staff is available. They also agree that freedom of movement is a key element in the management of acutely ill patients, which can be achieved with an open door policy. Finally, the interviewees suggested removing the door from direct view to prevent absconding.

CONCLUSIONS

For psychiatric institutions seeking to implement (partially) open wards, the present results may have high practical relevance. The stakeholders' suggestions also illustrate that fundamental clinical changes depend on resource investments which - at least at a certain point - might not be feasible for individual psychiatric institutions but presumably require initiatives on the level of mental health care providers or policy makers.

A paradigm shift: relationships in trauma-informed mental health services

Trauma-informed approaches emerged partly in response to research demonstrating that trauma is widespread across society, that it is highly correlated with mental health and that this is a costly public health issue. The fundamental shift in providing support using a trauma-informed approach is to move from thinking ‘What is wrong with you?’ to considering ‘What happened to you?’. This article, authored by trauma survivors and service providers, describes trauma-informed approaches to mental healthcare, why they are needed and how barriers can be overcome so that they can be implemented as an organisational change process. It also describes how past trauma can be understood as the cause of mental distress for many service users, how service users can be retraumatised by ‘trauma-uninformed’ staff and how staff can experience vicariously the service user's trauma and can themselves be traumatised by practices such as restraint and seclusion. Trauma-informed mental healthcare offers opportunities to improve service users' experiences, improve working environments for staff, increase job satisfaction and reduce stress levels by improving the relationships between staff and patients through greater understanding, respect and trust.

Attitudes towards seclusion and restraint in mental health settings: findings from a large, community-based survey of consumers, carers and mental health professionals

AIMS

There are growing calls to reduce, and where possible eliminate, the use of seclusion and restraint in mental health settings, but the attitudes and beliefs of consumers, carers and mental health professionals towards these practices are not well understood. The aim of this study was to compare the attitudes of mental health service consumers, carers and mental health professionals towards seclusion and restraint in mental health settings. In particular, it aimed to explore beliefs regarding whether elimination of seclusion and restraint was desirable and possible.

METHODS

In 2014, an online survey was developed and widely advertised in Australia via the National Mental Health Commission and through mental health networks. The survey adopted a mixed-methods design, including both quantitative and qualitative questions concerning participants' demographic details, the use of seclusion and restraint in practice and their views on strategies for reducing and eliminating these practices.

RESULTS

In total 1150 survey responses were analysed. A large majority of participants believed that seclusion and restraint practices were likely to cause harm, breach human rights, compromise trust and potentially cause or trigger past trauma. Consumers were more likely than professionals to view these practices as harmful. The vast majority of participants believed that it was both desirable and feasible to eliminate mechanical restraint. Many participants, particularly professionals, believed that seclusion and some forms of restraint were likely to produce some benefits, including increasing consumer safety, increasing the safety of staff and others and setting behavioural boundaries.

CONCLUSIONS

There was strong agreement across participant groups that the use of seclusion and restraint is harmful, breaches human rights and compromises the therapeutic relationship and trust between mental health service providers and those who experience these restrictive practices. However, some benefits were also identified, particularly by professionals. Participants had mixed views regarding the feasibility and desirability of eliminating these practices.

Outcomes of the Victorian Safewards trial in 13 wards: Impact on seclusion rates and fidelity measurement

Restrictive practices are used in response to conflict and aggression in psychiatric inpatient settings. Reducing such practices is the focus internationally of policy and legislative change, many initiatives, and a growing body of research. Safewards is a model and a set of 10 interventions designed to reduce conflict and containment in inpatient services. In the current study, we aimed to assess the impact of implementing Safewards on seclusion in Victorian inpatient mental health services in Australia. The study used a before-and-after design, with a comparison group matched for service type. Thirteen wards opted into a 12-week trial to implement Safewards and 1-year follow up. The comparison group was all other wards (n = 31) with seclusion facilities in the jurisdiction, matched to service type. Mandatorily-reported seclusion event data for all 44 wards over a 15-month period were analysed using negative binomial regression. Adherence to Safewards was measured via fidelity checklists at four time points: twice during the trial, post-trial, and at 1-year follow up. Seclusion rates were reduced by 36% in Safewards trial wards by the 12-month follow-up period (incidence rate ratios (IRR) = 0.64,) but in the comparison wards seclusion rates did not differ from baseline to post-trial (IRR = 1.17) or to follow-up period (IRR = 1.35). Fidelity analysis revealed a trajectory of increased use of Safewards interventions after the trial phase to follow up. The findings suggest that Safewards is appropriate for practice change in Victorian inpatient mental health services more broadly than adult acute wards, and is effective in reducing the use of seclusion.

Who experiences seclusion? An examination of demographics and duration in a public acute inpatient mental health service

Restrictive interventions such as seclusion may occur during an acute mental health crisis. Such interventions are experienced by people as traumatic and counter to recovery. The current study aimed to investigate the use of seclusion and who was secluded amongst patients presenting with psychotic symptomology. All acute inpatient admissions were examined across a 12-month period January-December 2013. Electronic and paper records were accessed and audited for all 655 admissions. There were 91 admissions that included a seclusion and 200 seclusion events. There were 79 unique patients who experienced seclusion. For those experiencing seclusion: two-thirds were male, 49% were either homeless or had no fixed abode, 32% received case management in the community prior to their inpatient stay, and 56% were unemployed or not in the workforce. The median and mode duration of seclusion was 4 h. By understanding seclusion interventions better, changes can be made to enhance practice. This descriptive research into seclusion has clarified the demographics of who is most likely to experience seclusion, for how long, and the implications for reducing restrictive interventions. How the social work role could contribute to reforms to protect and enhance the rights and well-being of marginalized members of our communities, at their most vulnerable, is considered.

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.