Effects of Ending the Use of Seclusion and Mechanical Restraint in the Pennsylvania State Hospital System, 2011-2020

A systematic review of interventions to reduce mechanical restraint in adult mental health inpatient settings

Mechanical restraint is a commonly used restrictive practice worldwide, although reducing its use is an international priority. Interventions to reduce mechanical restraint are needed if reducing mechanical restraint is to succeed. Therefore, this systematic review aimed to examine evaluated evidence-based interventions that seek to reduce the incidence of and/or time in mechanical restraint in adult mental health inpatient settings. The JBI framework was used to guide this systematic review. The search strategy included peer-reviewed primary research literature published between 1999 and 2023. Two authors independently conducted the systematic search, selection process and data extraction process. Forty-one studies were included in this review. Using content analysis, we grouped interventions into four categories: (I) calm-down methods, (II) staff resources, (III) legal and policy changes and (IV) changing staff culture. Interventions to reduce mechanical restraint in adult mental health inpatient settings have shown some promise. Evidence suggests that a range of interventions can reduce the incidence of and/or time in mechanical restraint. However, controlled trials were lacking and consensus was lacking across studies. Furthermore, specific findings varied widely, and reporting was inconsistent, hampering the development of interventions for this issue. Further research is needed to strengthen the evidence base for reducing mechanical restraint in mental health inpatient settings.

Staff responses to interventions aiming to reduce mechanical restraint in adult mental health inpatient settings: a questionnaire-based survey

PURPOSE

To explore mental health staff's responses towards interventions designed to reduce the use of mechanical restraint (MR) in adult mental health inpatient settings.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional, questionnaire-based survey. The questionnaire, made available online via REDCap, presented 20 interventions designed to reduce MR use. Participants were asked to rate and rank the interventions based on their viewpoints regarding the relevance and importance of each intervention.

RESULTS

A total of 128 mental health staff members from general and forensic mental health inpatient units across the Mental Health Services in the Region of Southern Denmark completed the questionnaire (response rate = 21.3%). A total of 90.8% of the ratings scored either 'agree' (45.2%) or 'strongly agree' (45.6%) concerning the relevance of the interventions in reducing MR use. Overall and in the divided analysis, interventions labelled as 'building relationship' and 'patient-related knowledge' claimed high scores in the staff's rankings of the interventions' importance concerning implementation. Conversely, interventions like 'carers' and 'standardised assessments' received low scores.

CONCLUSIONS

The staff generally considered that the interventions were relevant. Importance rankings were consistent across the divisions chosen, with a range of variance and dispersion being recorded among certain groups.

Physical Restraint Usage in Hospitals Across the United States: 2011-2019

Objective

To determine the change in rates of physical restraint (PR) use and associated outcomes among hospitalized adults.

Patients and Methods

Using national inpatient sample databases, we analyzed years 2011-2014 and 2016-2019 to determine trends of PR usage. We also compared the years 2011-2012 and 2018-2019 to investigate rates of PR use, in-hospital mortality, length of stay, and total hospital charges.

Results

There were 242,994,110 hospitalizations during the study period. 1,538,791 (0.63%) had coding to signify PRs, compared with 241,455,319 (99.3%), which did not. From 2011 to 2014, there was a significant increase in PR use (p-trend<.01) and a nonsignificant increase in PR rates from 2016-2019 (p-trend=.07). Over time, PR use increased (2011-2012: 0.52% vs 2018-2019: 0.73%; p<.01). Patients with PRs reported a higher adjusted odds for in-hospital mortality in 2011-2012 (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 3.9; 95% CI, 3.7-4.2; p<.01) and 2018-2019 (aOR, 3.5; 95% CI, 3.4-3.7; p<.01). Length of stay was prolonged for patients with PRs in 2011-2012 (adjusted mean difference [aMD], 4.3 days; 95% CI, 4.1-4.5; p<.01) and even longer in 2018-2019 (aMD, 5.8 days; 95% CI, 5.6-6.0; p<.01). Total hospital charges were higher for patients with PRs in 2011-2012 (aMD, +$55,003; 95% CI, $49,309-$60,679; p<.01). Following adjustment for inflation, total charges remained higher for patients with PRs compared with those without PRs in 2018-2019 (aMD, +$70,018; 95% CI, $65,355-$74,680; p<.01).

Conclusion

Overall, PR rates did not decrease across the study period, suggesting that messaging and promulgating best practice guidelines have yet to translate into a substantive change in practice patterns.

Bringing together the World Health Organization's QualityRights initiative and the World Psychiatric Association's programme on implementing alternatives to coercion in mental healthcare: a common goal for action

BACKGROUND

Stakeholders worldwide increasingly acknowledge the need to address coercive practices in mental healthcare. Options have been described and evaluated in several countries, as noted recently in major policy documents from the World Health Organization (WHO) and World Psychiatric Association (WPA). The WHO's QualityRights initiative promotes human rights and quality of care for persons with mental health conditions and psychosocial disabilities. A position statement from the WPA calls for implementation of alternatives to coercion in mental healthcare.

AIMS

We describe the engagement of both the WHO and WPA in this work. We discuss their mutual aim to support countries in improving human rights and quality of care, as well as the differences between these two organisations in their stated goals related to coercion in mental healthcare: the WHO's approach to eliminate coercion and the WPA's goal to implement alternatives to coercion.

METHOD

We outline and critically analyse the common ground between the two organisations, which endorse a similar range of rights-based approaches to promoting non-coercive practices in service provision, including early intervention in prevention and care and other policy and practice changes.

RESULTS

Advocacy and action based on an agreed need to find practical solutions and advances in this area have the power to build consensus and unify key actors.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that persons with lived experience, families, mental health professionals and policy makers are now coming together in several parts of the world to work toward the common goals of improving quality, promoting human rights and addressing coercion in mental health services.

Toward the Cessation of Seclusion and Mechanical Restraint Use in Psychiatric Hospitals: A Call for Regulatory Action

The use of seclusion and mechanical restraints (S-R) in psychiatric hospitals remains widespread despite the traumatizing effects and risk for lethality associated with these practices. Neither the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) nor The Joint Commission (TJC) have updated their guidelines on the use of S-R since 2005. Their regulations do not include current best practices, such as the evidence-based six core strategies (6CS) or other trauma-informed approaches, despite robust data on their effectiveness in preventing violence and S-R use. The authors describe Pennsylvania State hospitals' nearly 10-year cessation of S-R use via their continuous adherence to 6CS. In contrast, the authors describe the significant decrease in S-R use during the implementation of 6CS at a public psychiatric hospital while under U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) monitoring and the resumption of high S-R use after DOJ monitoring and adherence to 6CS ended. The authors emphasize the importance of external regulatory oversight and mandates to safely achieve and sustain the cessation of S-R use in psychiatric hospitals. Urging CMS and TJC to update their regulations, the authors offer a roadmap to more effectively mandate the reduction and eventual cessation of S-R use in psychiatric hospitals.

Implementation of guidelines on prevention of coercion and violence: baseline data of the randomized controlled PreVCo study

Introduction

The PreVCo study examines whether a structured, operationalized implementation of guidelines to prevent coercion actually leads to fewer coercive measures on psychiatric wards. It is known from the literature that rates of coercive measures differ greatly between hospitals within a country. Studies on that topic also showed large Hawthorne effects. Therefore, it is important to collect valid baseline data for the comparison of similar wards and controlling for observer effects.

Methods

Fifty five psychiatric wards in Germany treating voluntary and involuntary patients were randomly allocated to an intervention or a waiting list condition in matched pairs. As part of the randomized controlled trial, they completed a baseline survey. We collected data on admissions, occupied beds, involuntarily admitted cases, main diagnoses, the number and duration of coercive measures, assaults and staffing levels. We applied the PreVCo Rating Tool for each ward. The PreVCo Rating Tool is a fidelity rating, measuring the degree of implementation of 12 guideline-linked recommendations on Likert scales with a range of 0-135 points covering the main elements of the guidelines. Aggregated data on the ward level is provided, with no patient data provided. We performed a Wilcoxon signed-rank-test to compare intervention group and waiting list control group at baseline and to assess the success of randomization.

Results

The participating wards had an average of 19.9% involuntarily admitted cases and a median 19 coercive measures per month (1 coercive measure per occupied bed, 0.5 per admission). The intervention group and waiting list group were not significantly different in these measurements. There were 6.0 assaults per month on average (0.3 assaults per occupied bed and 0.1 per admission). The PreVCo Rating Tool for guideline fidelity varied between 28 and 106 points. The percentage of involuntarily admitted cases showed a correlation with coercive measures per month and bed (Spearman's Rho = 0.56, p < 0.01).

Discussion

Our findings that coercion varies widely within a country and mainly is associated with involuntarily admitted and aggressive patients are in line with the international literature. We believe that we included a sample that covers the scope of mental health care practice in Germany well.Clinical trial registration: www.isrctn.com, identifier ISRCTN71467851.

Adolescent psychiatric inpatients' perceptions of treatment and seclusion

Objectives: A great deal of attention is being directed at the use of seclusion in adolescent inpatient psychiatric units due to its forceful nature and negative impact on inpatients and staff. This mixed methods study aimed to explore and compare the level of satisfaction with the services received and perspectives on seclusion in secluded and non-secluded adolescent inpatients.Methods: This study included 188 participants, across three adolescent inpatient psychiatric units in Australia; 17% reported having experienced seclusion. A mixed methods approach was employed. Participants completed the Consumer Satisfaction Questionnaire-8 and Perceptions of Treatment and Seclusion Questionnaire shortly before or at discharge. Qualitative data was analysed using thematic analysis.Results: Secluded participants were more likely to report issues with broader care experiences on the Consumer Satisfaction Questionnaire-8. Secluded individuals reported ongoing negative effects from seclusion but were more likely than non-secluded participants to believe seclusion is necessary. Qualitative analyses showed that both secluded and non-secluded individuals considered seclusion to be traumatic, many did not agree with its use.Conclusions: Communication between inpatients and staff regarding seclusion needs to be improved and there needs to be ongoing support in relation to seclusion during and after discharge. Many adolescent inpatients acknowledge the necessity of seclusion whilst advocating for reduced seclusion.