A national survey on seclusion and restraint in state psychiatric hospitals

Adverse events in psychiatry: a national cohort study in Sweden with a unique psychiatric trigger tool

BACKGROUND

The vast majority of patient safety research has focused on somatic health care. Although specific adverse events (AEs) within psychiatric healthcare have been explored, the overall level and nature of AEs is sparsely investigated.

METHODS

Cohort study using a retrospective record review based on a two-step trigger tool methodology in the charts of randomly selected patients 18 years or older admitted to the psychiatric acute care departments in all Swedish regions from January 1 to June 30, 2017. Hospital care together with corresponding outpatient care were reviewed as a continuum, over a maximum of 3 months. The AEs were categorised according to type, severity and preventability.

RESULTS

In total, the medical records of 2552 patients were reviewed. Among the patients, 50.4% were women and 49.6% were men. The median (range) age was 44 (18-97) years for women and 44.5 (18-93) years for men. In 438 of the reviewed records, 720 AEs were identified, corresponding to the AEs identified in 17.2% [95% confidence interval, 15.7-18.6] of the records. The majority of AEs resulted in less or moderate harm, and 46.2% were considered preventable. Prolonged disease progression and deliberate self-harm were the most common types of AEs. AEs were significantly more common in women (21.5%) than in men (12.7%) but showed no difference between age groups. Severe or catastrophic harm was found in 2.3% of the records, and the majority affected were women (61%). Triggers pointing at deficient quality of care were found in 78% of the records, with the absence of a treatment plan being the most common.

CONCLUSIONS

AEs are common in psychiatric care. Aside from further patient safety work, systematic interventions are also warranted to improve the quality of psychiatric care.

De-escalation techniques for managing non-psychosis induced aggression in adults

BACKGROUND

Aggression occurs frequently within health and social care settings. It can result in injury to patients and staff and can adversely affect staff performance and well-being. De-escalation is a widely used and recommended intervention for managing aggression, but the efficacy of the intervention as a whole and the specific techniques that comprise it are unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of de-escalation techniques for managing non-psychosis-induced aggression in adults in care settings, in both staff and service users.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and 14 other databases in September 2017, plus three trials registers in October 2017. We also checked references, and contacted study authors and authorities in the field to identify additional published and unpublished studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing de-escalation techniques with standard practice or alternative techniques for managing aggressive behaviour in adult care settings. We excluded studies in which participants had psychosis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

This review includes just one cluster-randomised study of 306 older people with dementia and an average age of 86 years, conducted across 16 nursing homes in France. The study did not measure any of our primary or secondary outcomes but did measure behavioural change using three measurement scales: the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI; 29-item scale), the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI; 12-item scale), and the Observation Scale (OS; 25-item scale). For the CMAI, the study reports a Global score (29 items rated on a seven-point scale (1 = never occurs to 7 = occurs several times an hour) and summed to give a total score ranging from 29 to 203) and mean scores (evaluable items (rated on the same 7-point scale) divided by the theoretical total number of items) for the following four domains: Physically Non-Aggressive Behaviour, such as pacing (13 items); Verbally Non-Aggressive Behaviour, such as repetition (four items); Physically Aggressive Behaviour, such as hitting (nine items); and Verbally Aggressive Behaviour, such as swearing (three items). Four of the five CMAI scales improved in the intervention group (Global: change mean difference (MD) -5.69 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) -9.59 to -1.79; Physically Non-Aggressive: change MD -0.32 points, 95% CI -0.49 to -0.15; Verbally Non-Aggressive: change MD -0.44 points, 95% CI -0.69 to -0.19; and Verbally Aggressive: change MD -0.16 points, 95% CI -0.31 to -0.01). There was no difference in change scores on the Physically Aggressive scale (MD -0.08 points, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.21). Using GRADE guidelines, we rated the quality of this evidence as very low due to high risk of bias and indirectness of the outcome measures. There were no differences in NPI or OS change scores between groups by the end of the study.We also identified one ongoing study.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The limited evidence means that uncertainty remains around the effectiveness of de-escalation and the relative efficacy of different techniques. High-quality research on the effectiveness of this intervention is therefore urgently needed.

Safety of Psychiatric Inpatients at the Veterans Health Administration

OBJECTIVE

Although reducing adverse events and medical errors has become a central focus of the U.S. health care system over the past two decades both within and outside the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) hospital systems, patients treated in psychiatric units of acute care general hospitals have been excluded from major research in this field.

METHODS

The study included a random sample of 40 psychiatric units from medical centers in the national VHA system. Standardized abstraction tools were used to assess the electronic health records from 8,005 hospitalizations. Medical record administrators screened the records for the presence of ten specific types of patient safety events, which, when present, were evaluated by physician reviewers to assess whether the event was the result of an error, whether it caused harm, and whether it was preventable.

RESULTS

Approximately one in five patients experienced a patient safety event. The most frequently occurring events were medication errors (which include delayed and missed doses) (17.2%), followed by adverse drug events (4.1%), falls (2.8%), and assault (1.0%). Most patient safety events (94.9%) resulted in little harm or no harm, and more than half (56.6%) of the events were deemed preventable.

CONCLUSIONS

Although patient safety events in VHA psychiatric inpatient units were relatively common, a great majority of these events resulted in little or no patient harm. Nevertheless, many were preventable, and the study provides data with which to target future initiatives that may improve the safety of this vulnerable patient population.

De-escalation techniques used, and reasons for seclusion and restraint, in a forensic psychiatric hospital

In Finland, the Mental Health Act determines the legal basis for seclusion and restraint. Restrictive measures are implemented to manage challenging situations and should be used as a last resort in psychiatric inpatient care. In the present study, we examined the reasons for seclusion and restraint, as well as whether any de-escalation techniques were used to help patients calm down. Seclusion and restraint files from a 4-year period (1 June 2009-31 May 2013) were retrospectively investigated and analysed by content analysis. Descriptive statistics were calculated. A total of 144 episodes of seclusion and restraint were included to analyse the reasons for seclusion and restraint, and 113 episodes were analysed to examine unsuccessful de-escalation techniques. The most commonly-used techniques were one-to-one interaction with a patient (n = 74, 65.5% of n = 113) and administration of extra medication (n = 37, 32.7% of n = 113). The reasons for seclusion and restraint were threatening harmful behaviour (n = 51, 35.4% of n = 144), direct harmful behaviour (n = 43, 29.9%), indirect harmful behaviour (n = 42, 29.1%), and other behaviours (n = 8, 5.6%). In general, the same de-escalation techniques were used with most patients. Most episodes of seclusion or restraint were due to threats of violence or direct violence. Individual means of self-regulation and patient guidance on these techniques are needed. Additionally, staff should be educated on a diverse range of de-escalation techniques. Future studies should focus on examining de-escalation techniques for the prevention of seclusion.

Restraint and the Question of Validity

Restraint as an intervention in the management of acute mental distress has a long history that predates the existence of psychiatry. However, it remains a source of controversy with an ongoing debate as to its role. This article critically explores what to date has seemingly been only implicit in the debate surrounding the role of restraint: how should the concept of validity be interpreted when applied to restraint as an intervention? The practice of restraint in mental health is critically examined using two post-positivist constructions of validity, the pragmatic and the psychopolitical, by means of a critical examination of the literature. The current literature provides only weak support for the pragmatic validity of restraint as an intervention and no support to date for its psychopolitical validity. Judgements regarding the validity of any intervention that is coercive must include reference to the psychopolitical dimensions of both practice and policy.

Deprivation of Liberty in Psychiatric Treatment: a Finnish perspective

This article is concerned with the deprivation of patients’ liberty while undergoing psychiatric treatment, with special reference to the situation in Finland. It is based on a review of Finnish law, health care statistics, and empirical and theoretical studies. Relevant research findings from other countries are also discussed. In Finland, it is required that patients are cared for by mutual understanding with themselves; coercive measures may be applied only if they are necessary for the treatment of the illness, or for safeguarding patients’ safety or the safety of others. Involuntary psychiatric hospitalization is closely regulated by the Mental Health Act. However, the rules concerning the deprivation of liberty during inpatient treatment (by seclusion, restraint and restricted leave) are formulated in very general terms. Therefore, Finnish psychiatric hospitals have their own policies concerning when and how seclusion may be used. The practice of seclusion and the use of restraint therefore vary among the psychiatric hospitals in Finland.

Use of control interventions in adult in-patient mental health services

This study examined the prevalence of Control Intervention (CI) use in adult in-patient psychiatric units/hospitals in Ontario and developed a profile of those patients who had CI use during their admission between April 2006 and March 2010. Control intervention types included mechanical/physical, chair prevents rising, acute control medications, and seclusion. The profiles of patients with control intervention use included an examination of sociodemographic, mental health service use, and mental health clinical characteristics.

Association between short-term structured risk assessment outcomes and seclusion

Research findings indicate that the symptoms and behaviour of acute psychiatric patients can fluctuate drastically within hours, and that structured daily risk assessments can reduce the risk of aggressive incidents and the duration of seclusion. The aim of this study was to investigate the validity of two structured observation tools, the Brøset Violence Checklist (BVC) and the Kennedy Axis V), as an aid in seclusion-related clinical decision-making. In this study, 7403 day-to-day risk assessments were collected over 10 725 admission days (72% of the maximum number of structured assessments). A total of 7055 daily assessment scores from 301 acute psychiatric patients were used for the multilevel analysis. The sample demonstrated that dynamic and static factors were related to seclusion. Dynamic factors included dysfunctional scores on the item 'confusion' of the Brøset Violence Checklist, and psychological impairment and impairment of social skills on the Kennedy Axis V. Static factors included non-Western descent, male sex, age less than 35 years, unmarried, and to some extent, a personality disorder. McFadden's pseudo R(2) value showed that most of the final model was related to the dynamic factors. We concluded that the incorporation of the BVC and the Kennedy Axis V into standard practice was helpful in identifying patients at high risk of seclusion.

Methodological issues in monitoring the use of coercive measures

PURPOSE

In many European countries, initiatives have emerged to reduce the use of seclusion and restraint in psychiatric institutions. To study the effects of these initiatives at a national and international level, consensus on definitions of coercive measures, assessment methods and calculation procedures of these coercive measures are required. The aim of this article is to identify problems in defining and recording coercive measures. The study contributes to the development of consistent comparable measurements definitions and provides recommendations for meaningful data-analyses illustrating the relevance of the proposed framework.

METHODS

Relevant literature was reviewed to identify various definitions and calculation modalities used to measure coercive measures in psychiatric inpatient care. Figures on the coercive measures and epidemiological ratios were calculated in a standardized way. To illustrate how research in clinical practice on coercive measures can be conducted, data from a large multicenter study on seclusion patterns in the Netherlands were used.

RESULTS

Twelve Dutch mental health institutes serving a population of 6.57 million inhabitants provided their comprehensive coercion measure data sets. In total 37 hospitals and 227 wards containing 6812 beds were included in the study. Overall seclusion and restraint data in a sample of 31,594 admissions in 20,934 patients were analyzed. Considerable variation in ward and patient characteristics was identified in this study. The chance to be exposed to seclusion per capita inhabitants of the institute's catchment areas varied between 0.31 and 1.6 per 100.000. Between mental health institutions, the duration in seclusion hours per 1000 inpatient hours varied from less than 1 up to 18h. The number of seclusion incidents per 1000 admissions varied between 79 up to 745. The mean duration of seclusion incidents of nearly 184h may be seen as high in an international perspective.

CONCLUSION

Coercive measures can be reliably assessed in a standardized and comparable way under the condition of using clear joint definitions. Methodological consensus between researchers and mental health professionals on these definitions is necessary to allow comparisons of seclusion and restraint rates. The study contributes to the development of international standards on gathering coercion related data and the consistent calculation of relevant outcome parameters.

Exploring patterns of seclusion use in Australian mental health services

Seclusion has remained a common practice in mental health services. In Australia, recent mental health policy has reflected a desire to reduce (and, if possible, eliminate) the use of seclusion. The collection and analysis of data on the use of seclusion have been identified as an important component of the success of reduction initiatives. A cross-sectional design was used in the collection of inpatient unit data on seclusions that occurred in 11 mental health services in Australia over a 6-month period. During this time, there were 4,337 episodes of care. One or more seclusions occurred in 6.8% of episodes of care, with consumers being secluded, on average, 2.32 times and with 44% of them having been secluded more than once. The average length of the seclusions was 2 hours 52 minutes, with 51.4% of seclusions being less than 2 hours. These rates were lower than those reported in previous research studies. The practice of seclusion occurred more commonly on the first 2 days following admission, on weekdays than weekends, and between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and midnight. An understanding of seclusion data can provide fundamental information from which strategies to reduce seclusion can be developed.

Nursing practices recorded in reports of episodes of seclusion

The purpose of this study is to describe the nursing practices recorded in reports of patient episodes of seclusion, with or without restraints, in a specialized psychiatric facility in Quebec. The reports for all adult patients secluded (n = 4863) in a psychiatric unit between April 1, 2007 and March 31, 2009, were examined. Descriptive analyses were performed. The main reasons for seclusion were agitation, disorganization, and aggressive behaviour. The alternative methods that were attempted included stimulus reduction, extra medication, and working with the patient to find a solution. Few families were notified about their relation's seclusion. More hours of seclusion were reported in the evening and at night. Our results are comparable to those obtained by other investigators. Some of the variables have not been the subject of much research: for example, health conditions during seclusion with or without restraint and partnerships with family members. Our findings also suggest that, in their analyses, studies should differentiate between cognitive-impairment and adult-psychiatry units as well as long-term seclusion and short-term seclusion. The information reported by the nurse makes no distinction between short-stay and long-stay adult psychiatric units. Only one psychiatric facility was investigated in this study, precluding generalization.

The practice of seclusion and time-out on English acute psychiatric wards: the City-128 Study

BACKGROUND

Seclusion is widely used internationally to manage disturbed behavior by psychiatric patients, although many countries are seeking to reduce or eliminate this practice. Time-out has been little described and almost completely unstudied.

AIM AND METHOD

To assess the relationship of seclusion and time-out to conflict behaviors, the use of containment methods, service environment, physical environment, patient routines, staff characteristics, and staff group variables. Data from a multivariate cross-sectional study of 136 acute psychiatric wards in England were used to conduct this analysis.

RESULTS

Seclusion is used infrequently on English acute psychiatric wards (0.05 incidents per day), whereas time-out use was more frequent (0.31 incidents per day). Usage of seclusion was strongly associated with the availability of a seclusion room. Seclusion was associated with aggression, alcohol use, absconding, and medication refusal, whereas time-out was associated with these and other more minor conflict behaviors. Both were associated with the giving of "as required" medication, coerced intramuscular medication, and manual restraint. Relationships with exit security for the ward were also found.

CONCLUSIONS

Given its low usage rate, the scope for seclusion reduction in English acute psychiatry may be small. Seclusion reduction initiatives need to take a wider range of factors into account. Some substitution of seclusion with time-out may be possible, but a rigorous trial is required to establish this. The safety of intoxicated patients in seclusion requires more attention.

A review of interventions to reduce mechanical restraint and seclusion among adult psychiatric inpatients

This review examines the nature and effectiveness of interventions to reduce the use of mechanical restraint and seclusion among adult psychiatric inpatients. Thirty-six post-1960 empirical studies were identified. The interventions were diverse, but commonly included new restraint or seclusion policies, staffing changes, staff training, case review procedures, or crisis management initiatives. Most studies reported reduced levels of mechanical restraint and/or seclusion, but the standard of evidence was poor. The research did not address which programme components were most successful. More attention should be paid to understanding how interventions work, particularly from the perspective of nursing staff, an issue that is largely overlooked.

The use of seclusion in the Netherlands compared to countries in and outside Europe

The use of seclusion in psychiatric practice is a contentious issue in the Netherlands as well as other countries in and outside Europe. The aim of this study is to describe Dutch seclusion data and compare these with data on other countries, derived from the literature. An extensive search revealed only 11 articles containing seclusion rates of regions or whole countries either in Europe, Australia or the United States. Dutch seclusion rates were calculated from a governmental database and from a database covering twelve General Psychiatric Hospitals in the Netherlands. According to the hospitals database, on average one in four hospitalized patients experienced a seclusion episode. The mean duration according to the governmental database is a staggering 16 days. Both numbers seem much higher than comparable numbers in other countries. However, different definitions, inconsistent methods of registration, different methods of data collection and an inconsistent expression of the seclusion use in rates limit comparisons of the rates found in the reviewed studies with the data gathered in the current study. Suggestions are made to improve data collection, to enable better comparisons.

Decreasing the use of restraint and seclusion among psychiatric inpatients

OBJECTIVE

We describe a hospital-wide effort to decrease restraint and seclusion of psychiatric inpatients. Our hypotheses were that interventions could reduce the number of patients as well as patient hours in restraint and seclusion, without an increase in adverse outcomes (fights/assaults, staff injuries, and elopements).

METHOD

This study was performed at an urban academic psychiatric hospital (New York State Psychiatric Institute) with 3 inpatient units totaling 58 beds. Interventions included 1) decreasing initial time in restraint or seclusion from 4 to 2 hours before a new order was required; 2) education of staff concerning identification of patients at risk of restraint or seclusion and early interventions to avoid crises; and 3) use of a coping questionnaire to assess patient preferences for dealing with agitation. Data were assessed 20 months before and 67 months following the implementation of these interventions.

RESULTS

The mean number of patients restrained went from 0.35 +/- 0.6 to 0.32 +/- 0.5 patients/month; mean hours of restraint decreased from 1.7 +/- 5.2 to 1.0 +/- 2.4 hours/month. The mean number of patients secluded decreased significantly from 3.1 +/- 1.4 to 1.0 +/- 1.1 patients/month. The mean hours of seclusion decreased markedly, from 41.6 +/- 52 to 2.7 +/- 4.5 hours/month. Adverse outcomes (elopements and fights/assaults) also decreased significantly over the follow-up period.

CONCLUSIONS

Interventions were successful in decreasing use of restraint and seclusion on both clinical and research units over more than 5 years of follow-up. Such interventions may be adapted to other settings.

Seclusion and restraint in patients with schizophrenia: clinical and biographical correlates

Seclusion and restraint represent adverse experiences that cause negative attitudes against psychiatric treatment and psychopathologic sequels such as posttraumatic stress disorder. We examined 117 consecutive admissions with schizophrenia, with an average of 8.7 previous admissions. Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale and Global Assessment of Functioning were obtained at admission and discharge, and traumatic events in the biography were recorded using the Posttraumatic Diagnostic Scale. Twenty-four men (42.9%) and 18 women (29.0%) had experienced seclusion or restraint in their psychiatric history. Seclusion or restraint during the present admission was best predicted in a logistic regression model by physical aggressive behavior [odds ratio (OR), 11.5] and the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale hostility item at admission (OR, 23.6). Seclusion or restraint ever in the psychiatric history, however, was mostly associated with lifetime exposure to life-threatening traumatic events (OR, 7.2). We conclude that exposure to traumatic events in the biography severely enhances the risk of revictimization and retraumatization during inpatient treatment.

Diagnosis-related frequency of compulsory measures in 10 German psychiatric hospitals and correlates with hospital characteristics

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the incidence of coercive measures in standard psychiatric care in different psychiatric hospitals.

METHODS

We developed a common documentation of mechanical restraint, seclusion, and medication by coercion, and introduced it in 10 participating hospitals. We developed software able to process the data and to calculate four key indicators for routine clinical use.

RESULTS

9.5% of 36,690 cases treated in 2004 were exposed to coercive measures with the highest percentage among patients with organic psychiatric disorders (ICD-10 F0) (28.0%). Coercive measures were applied a mean 5.4 times per case and lasted a mean 9.7 h each. The incidence and duration of coercive measures varied highly between different diagnostic groups and different hospitals. Use of detailed guidelines for seclusion and restraint was associated with a lower incidence of coercive measures.

DISCUSSION

Data interpretation should consider numerous confounding factors such as case mix and hospital characteristics. Suggestions on how to cope with ethical and technical problems in the processing of large multi-site data sets in routine clinical use are made.

Medical errors in psychiatry

Medical errors in the general medical sector result in significant patient deaths and injuries, as well as high costs to the health care system. Despite the growing literature on errors in medical and surgical specialties, few studies have examined the incidence, nature, predictors, and prevention of errors that may occur in mental health treatment settings. The purpose of the current review is to examine the lessons learned from patient-safety research in the general medical sector, provide examples of types of errors in psychiatry, review the errors identified in the literature, offer a discussion of error-reduction strategies for improving patient safety, and provide recommendations for future research. Increased attention to medical errors in psychiatry is necessary in order to build safer health systems and promote a culture of safety among providers, thereby producing better care for patients with mental disorders.

A synthesis of what we know about the use of physical restraints and seclusion with patients in psychiatric and acute care settings: 2003 update

PURPOSE

This article is an update of the January 19, 2000, Volume 7, Number 2 article of the synthesis of research findings on the use of restraint and seclusion with patients in psychiatric and acute care settings.

CONCLUSIONS

The little that is known about restraint/seclusion use with these populations is inconsistent. Attitudes and perceptions of patients, family, and staff differ. However, all patients had very negative feelings about both, whether they were restrained/secluded or observed by others who were not restrained. The reasons for restraint/seclusion use vary with no accurate use rate for either. What precipitates the use of restraint/seclusion also varies, but professionals claim they are necessary to prevent/treat violent or unruly behavior. Some believe seclusion/restraint is effective, but there is no empirical evidence to support this belief. Many less restrictive alternatives have been tested with varying outcomes. Several educational programs to help staff learn about different ways to handle violent/confused patients have been successful.

IMPLICATIONS

Until more is known about restraint/seclusion use from prospective controlled research, the goal to use least restrictive methods must be pursued. More staff educational programs must be offered and the evaluation of alternatives to restraint/seclusion pursued. When seclusion/restraint is necessary, it should be used less arbitrarily, less frequently, and with less trauma. As the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO) and the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) have prescribed, "Seclusion and restraint must be a last resort, emergency response to a crisis situation that presents imminent risk of harm to the patient, staff, or others" (p. 25) [99A].

Psychiatric nurses' thoughts and feelings about restraint use: a decision dilemma

Patients continue to be physically restrained in psychiatric in-patient units. Studies concerned with staff-related variables have suggested that the emotional reactions of professionals to violent or potentially violent patients may influence their use of restrictive measures. However, no research existed that described psychiatric nurses' thoughts and feelings while they were involved in restraint situations nor what effects their thoughts and feelings had on their decision to restrain. Therefore, an ethnographic qualitative study was conducted in order to describe systematically nurses' thoughts and feelings toward restraint use in the in-patient psychiatric setting. The conceptual approach guiding the study was Etzioni's (1992) theoretical work on the role of normative-affective factors in decision making. Following ethical approval of the study, ethnographic interviews were conducted with six nurses from an in-patient psychiatric unit who had participated in a situation involving the physical restraint of a patient. The analysis of the nurses' thoughts and feelings revealed that the restraint situation represented a decision dilemma for them. This overall finding was supported by four themes: (1) the framing of the situation: the potential for imminent harm; (2) the unsuccessful search for alternatives to physical restraints; (3) the conflicted nurse; and (4) the contextual conditions of restraint. The results indicated that restraint use is more complex than is currently conveyed in the literature in that normative-affective factors influenced nurses' restraint decisions. The findings advance our understanding of why restraints continue to be used in psychiatric units. Further research is necessary to examine the findings in other settings and with a larger and more diverse population in order to draw definitive conclusions about the continued use of physical restraints in the care of patients on psychiatric units in hospitals.