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

Identifying predictors of adverse outcomes after termination of seclusion in psychiatric intensive care units

BACKGROUND

Seclusion is a restrictive practice that many healthcare services are trying to reduce. Previous studies have sought to identify predictors of seclusion initiation, but few have investigated factors associated with adverse outcomes after seclusion termination.

AIMS

To assess the factors that predict an adverse outcome within 24 h of seclusion termination.

METHOD

In a cohort study of individuals secluded in psychiatric intensive care units, we investigated factors associated with any of the following outcomes: actual violence, attempted violence, or reinitiation of seclusion within 24 h of seclusion termination. Among the seclusion episodes that were initiated between 29 March 2018 and 4 March 2019, we investigated the exposures of medication cooperation, seclusion duration, termination out of working hours, involvement of medical staff in the final seclusion review, lack of insight, and agitation or irritability. In a mixed-effects logistic regression model, associations between each exposure and the outcome were calculated. Odds ratios were calculated unadjusted and adjusted for demographic and clinical variables.

RESULTS

We identified 254 seclusion episodes from 122 individuals (40 female, 82 male), of which 106 (41.7%) had an adverse outcome within 24 h of seclusion termination. Agitation or irritability was associated with an adverse outcome, odds ratio 1.92 (95% CI 1.03 to 3.56, P = 0.04), but there was no statistically significant association with any of the other exposures, although confidence intervals were broad.

CONCLUSIONS

Agitation or irritability in the hours preceding termination of seclusion may predict an adverse outcome. The study was not powered to detect other potentially clinically significant factors.

Staff perspectives on the effects of seclusion in adolescent psychiatric inpatient care

Nurses are at the forefront of seclusion in adolescent psychiatric units. Understanding nurses and other staff perspectives on the effects of seclusion is critical in the ongoing effort to minimize and eliminate seclusion. The aim of this study was to gain a better understanding of staff attitudes, experiences, and beliefs about the effects of seclusion on both themselves and patients. Thirty-one staff members (including 20 nurses) completed the Attitudes to Seclusion Survey and 24 participated in semi-structured interviews to explore their beliefs and experiences of seclusion use in adolescent psychiatric inpatient care. Analysis of the questionnaire showed overwhelming agreement in the negative impacts of seclusion on patients, while there was uncertainty around the positive impacts of seclusion. Using a combination of the intuitive approach and thematic analysis, five themes were identified from interviews with staff, three unique to nurses: (i) staff were reluctant to use seclusion but felt it was necessary, (ii) nurses felt under-resourcing led to increased chances of seclusion, (iii) staff believed seclusion negatively impacted the patients, (iv) nurses felt their relationships with patients were negatively impacted, and (v) seclusion also had a negative effect on nurses. Clinical recommendations included a systematic and structured approach to debriefing to repair ruptures in the therapeutic relationship; staffing to be based on the acuity of the unit rather than occupancy; alternatives to seclusion that meet the needs of service providers and consumers. Future research should compare staff and patient perspectives, include multiple sites, and greater participation of non-nursing staff.

How may cultural and political ideals cause moral distress in acute psychiatry? A qualitative study

BACKGROUND

There is growing public criticism of the use of restraints or coercion. Demands for strengthened patient participation and prevention of coercive measures in mental health care has become a priority for care professionals, researchers, and policymakers in Norway, as in many other countries. We have studied in what ways this current ideal of reducing the use of restraints or coercion and attempting to practice in a least restrictive manner may raise morals issues and create experiences of moral distress in nurses working in acute psychiatric contexts.

METHODS

Qualitative interview study, individual and focus group interviews, with altogether 30 nurses working in acute psychiatric wards in two mental health hospitals in Norway. Interviews were recorded and transcribed. A thematic analytic approach was chosen.

RESULTS

While nurses sense a strong expectation to minimise the use of restraints/coercion, patients on acute psychiatric wards are being increasingly ill with a greater tendency to violence. This creates moral doubt and dilemmas regarding how much nurses should endure on their own and their patients' behalf and may expose patients and healthcare personnel to greater risk of violence. Nurses worry that new legislation and ideals may prevent acutely mentally ill and vulnerable patients from receiving the treatment they need as well as their ability to create a psychological safe climate on the ward. Furthermore, persuading the patient to stay on the ward can cause guilt and uneasiness. Inadequate resources function as external constraints that may frustrate nurses from realising the treatment ideals set before them.

CONCLUSIONS

Mental health nurses working in acute psychiatric care are involved in a complex interplay between political and professional ideals to reduce the use of coercion while being responsible for the safety of both patients and staff as well as creating a therapeutic atmosphere. External constraints like inadequate resources may furthermore hinder the healthcare workers/nurses from realising the treatment ideals set before them. Caught in the middle nurses may experience moral distress that may lead to physical discomfort, uneasiness and feelings of guilt, shame, and defeat. Pressure on nurses and care providers to reduce or eliminate the use of coercion and reduction of health care spending are incompatible demands.