Best practice recommendations on the application of seclusion and restraint in mental health services: An evidence, human rights and consensus-based approach

WHAT IS KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT?: Seclusion and restraint still regularly occur within inpatient mental health services. The Council of Europe requires the development of a policy on for instance age limits, techniques and time limits. However, they only define the outer limits of such a policy by indicating when rights are violated. Within these limits, many choices remain open. Staff and service managers lack clarity on safe and humane procedures. Research literature provides limited and contradictory insights on these matters. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS TO EXISTING KNOWLEDGE?: The study resulted in 77 best practice recommendations on the practical application of restraint and seclusion as last resort intervention in inpatient youth and adult mental health services, including forensic facilities. To our knowledge, this is the first study in which the development of recommendations on this topic is not only based on scientific evidence, but also on an analysis of European human rights standards and consensus within and between expert-professionals and experts-by-experience. This approach allowed to develop for the first time recommendations on time limits, asking for second opinion, and registration of seclusion and restraint. WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE?: The 77 recommendations encourage staff to focus on teamwork, safety measures, humane treatment, age and time limits, asking for second opinion, observation, evaluation and registration when applying seclusion and restraint as last resort intervention. The implementation of the best practice recommendations is feasible provided that they are combined with a broad preventive approach and with collaboration between service managers, staff (educators) and experts-by-experience. Under these conditions, the recommendations will improve safety and humane treatment, and reduce harm to both service users and staff.

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Seclusion and restraint still regularly occur within inpatient mental health services. Professionals lack clarity on safe and humane procedures. Nevertheless, a detailed policy on for instance age limits, techniques and time limits is required.

AIM

We developed recommendations on the humane and safe application of seclusion, physical intervention and mechanical restraint in inpatient youth and adult mental health services, including forensic facilities.

METHOD

After developing a questionnaire based on a rapid scientific literature review and an analysis of human rights sources stemming from the Council of Europe, 60 expert-professionals and 18 experts-by-experience were consulted in Flanders (Belgium) through a Delphi-study.

RESULTS

After two rounds, all but one statement reached the consensus-level of 65% in both panels. The study resulted in 77 recommendations on teamwork, communication, materials and techniques, maximum duration, observation, evaluation, registration, second opinion and age limits.

DISCUSSION

Combining an evidence, human rights and consensus-based approach allowed for the first time to develop recommendations on time limits, asking for second opinion and registration.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

When combined with a preventive approach and collaboration between service managers, staff (educators) and experts-by-experience, the recommendations will improve safety and humane treatment, and reduce harm to service users and staff.

Physical coercion, perceived pressures and procedural justice in the involuntary admission and future engagement with mental health services

Objectives

We sought to determine the level of procedural justice experienced by individuals at the time of involuntary admission and whether this influenced future engagement with the mental health services.

Methods

Over a 15-month period, individuals admitted involuntarily were interviewed prior to discharge and at one-year follow-up.

Results

Eighty-one people participated in the study and 81% were interviewed at one-year follow-up. At the time of involuntary admission, over half of individuals experienced at least one form of physical coercion and it was found that the level of procedural justice experienced was unrelated to the use of physical coercive measures. A total of 20% of participants intended not to voluntarily engage with the mental health services upon discharge and they were more likely to have experienced lower levels of procedural justice at the time of admission. At one year following discharge, 65% of participants were adherent with outpatient appointments and 18% had been readmitted involuntarily. Insight was associated with future engagement with the mental health services; however, the level of procedural justice experienced at admission did not influence engagement.

Conclusions

This study demonstrates that the use of physical coercive measures is a separate entity from procedural justice and perceived pressures.

Measures to Avoid Coercion in Psychiatry and Their Efficacy

BACKGROUND

Coercive measures such as seclusion and restraint encroach on the patient's human rights and can have serious adverse effects ranging from emotional trauma to physical injury and even death. At the same time, they may be the only way to avert acute danger for the patient and/or the hospital staff. In this article, we provide an overview of the efficacy of the measures that have been studied to date for the avoidance of coercion in psychiatry.

METHODS

This review is based on publications retrieved by a systematic search in the Medline and Cinahl databases, supplemented by a search in the reference lists of these publications. We provide a narrative synthesis in which we categorize the interventions by content.

RESULTS

Of the 84 studies included in this review, 16 had a control group; 6 of these 16 were randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The interventions were categorized by seven different types of content: organization, staff training, risk assessment, environment, psychotherapy, debriefings, and advance directives. Most interventions in each category were found to be effective in the respective studies. 38 studies investigated complex treatment programs that incorporated elements from more than one category; 37 of these (including one RCT) revealed effective reduction of the frequency of coercion. Two RCTs on the use of rating instruments to assess the risk of aggressive behavior revealed a relative reduction of the number of seclusion measures by 27% and a reduction of the cumulative duration of seclusion by 45%.

CONCLUSION

Complex intervention programs to avoid coercive measures, incorporating elements of more than one of the above categories, seem to be particularly effective. In future, cluster-randomized trials to investigate the individual categories of intervention would be desirable.

Effects of Seclusion and Restraint in Adult Psychiatry: A Systematic Review

Background: Determining the clinical effects of coercion is a difficult challenge, raising ethical, legal, and methodological questions. Despite limited scientific evidence on effectiveness, coercive measures are frequently used, especially in psychiatry. This systematic review aims to search for effects of seclusion and restraint on psychiatric inpatients with wider inclusion of outcomes and study designs than former reviews. Methods: A systematic search was conducted following PRISMA guidelines, primarily through Pubmed, Embase, and CENTRAL. Interventional and prospective observational studies on effects of seclusion and restraint on psychiatric inpatients were included. Main search keywords were restraint, seclusion, psychiatry, effect, harm, efficiency, efficacy, effectiveness, and quality of life. Results: Thirty-five articles were included, out of 6,854 records. Studies on the effects of seclusion and restraint in adult psychiatry comprise a wide range of outcomes and designs. The identified literature provides some evidence that seclusion and restraint have deleterious physical or psychological consequences. Estimation of post-traumatic stress disorder incidence after intervention varies from 25% to 47% and, thus, is not negligible, especially for patients with past traumatic experiences. Subjective perception has high interindividual variability, mostly associated with negative emotions. Effectiveness and adverse effects of seclusion and restraint seem to be similar. Compared to other coercive measures (notably forced medication), seclusion seems to be better accepted, while restraint seems to be less tolerated, possibly because of the perception of seclusion as "non-invasive." Therapeutic interaction appears to have a positive influence on coercion perception. Conclusion: Heterogeneity of the included studies limited drawing clear conclusions, but the main results identified show negative effects of seclusion and restraint. These interventions should be used with caution and as a last resort. Patients' preferences should be taken into account when deciding to apply these measures. The therapeutic relationship could be a focus for improvement of effects and subjective perception of coercion. In terms of methodology, studying coercive measures remains difficult but, in the context of current research on coercion reduction, is needed to provide workable baseline data and potential targets for interventions. Well-conducted prospective cohort studies could be more feasible than randomized controlled trials for interventional studies.

The effect of educational intervention on nurses' knowledge, attitude, intention, practice and incidence rate of physical restraint use

The use of physical restraint exposes patients and staff to negative effects, including death. Therefore, teaching nursing staff to develop the improve knowledge, skills, and attitudes regarding physical restraint has become necessary. A quasi-experimental pre-post design was used to evaluate the effect of educational intervention on nurses' knowledge, attitude, intention, practice and incidence rate of physical restraint in 12 wards of a hospital using a self-reported questionnaire and a restraint order form in Malaysia. The educational intervention, which included a one-day session on minimising physical restraint use in hospital, was presented to 245 nurses. The results showed a significant increase in the mean knowledge, attitude sand practice score and a significant decrease in the mean intention score of nurses to use physical restraint after intervention. There was a statistically significant decrease in the incidence rate of physical restraint use in the wards of the hospital except geriatric-rehabilitation wards after intervention.

Innovation and pragmatism required to reduce seclusion practices

Seclusion may be harmful and traumatic to patients, detrimental to therapeutic relationships, and can result in physical injury to staff. Further, strategies to reduce seclusion have been identified as a potential method of improving cost-effectiveness of psychiatric services. However, developing alternative strategies to seclusion can be difficult. Interventions to reduce seclusion do not lend themselves to evaluation using randomized controlled trials (RCTs), though comprehensive literature reviews have demonstrated considerable non-RCT evidence for interventions to reduce seclusion in psychiatric facilities. In the UK, a recent 5-year evaluation of seclusion practice in a high secure UK hospital revealed reduced rates of seclusion without an increase in adverse incidents. To assess the effect of a novel intervention strategy for reduction of long-term segregation on a high secure, high dependency forensic psychiatry ward in the UK, we introduced a pilot program involving stratified levels of seclusion ("long-term segregation"), multidisciplinary feedback and information sharing, and a bespoke occupational therapy program. Reduced seclusion was demonstrated and staff feedback was mainly positive, indicating increased dynamism and empowerment on the ward. A more structured, stratified approach to seclusion, incorporating multidisciplinary team-working, senior administrative involvement, dynamic risk assessment, and bespoke occupational therapy may lead to a more effective model of reducing seclusion in high secure hospitals and other psychiatric settings. While lacking an evidence base at the level of RCTs, innovative, pragmatic strategies are likely to have an impact at a clinical level and should guide future practice and research.

Impact of the creation and implementation of a clinical management guideline for personality disorders in reducing use of mechanical restraints in a psychiatric inpatient unit

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the impact of the implementation of a guideline for the management of personality disorders on reducing the frequency of use of mechanical restraints in a psychiatric inpatient unit.

METHOD

This retrospective study was conducted in a psychiatric inpatient unit with 42 beds, which serves an urban area of 330,000 inhabitants. The sample consisted of all patients with a clinical diagnosis of personality disorder (DSM-IV-TR criteria) who were admitted to the unit from January 2010 to December 2010 and from January 2011 to December 2011 (ie, before and after, respectively, the implementation of the guideline). The guideline focused on cluster B disorders and follows a psychodynamic perspective.

RESULTS

Restraint use was reduced from 38 of 87 patients with personality disorders (43.7%) to 3 of 112 (2.7%), for a relative risk of 0.06 (95% CI, 0.02-0.19) and an absolute risk reduction of 41% (95% CI, 29.9%-51.6%). The risk of being discharged against medical advice increased after the intervention, with a relative risk of 1.84 (95% CI, 0.96-3.51). Restraint use in patients with other diagnoses was also reduced to a similar extent.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of mechanical restraints was dramatically reduced after the implementation of a clinical practice guideline on personality disorders, suggesting that these coercive measures might be decreased in psychiatric inpatient units.

Methodological and ethical challenges in studying patients' perceptions of coercion: a systematic mixed studies review

BACKGROUND

Despite improvements in psychiatric inpatient care, patient restrictions in psychiatric hospitals are still in use. Studying perceptions among patients who have been secluded or physically restrained during their hospital stay is challenging. We sought to review the methodological and ethical challenges in qualitative and quantitative studies aiming to describe patients' perceptions of coercive measures, especially seclusion and physical restraints during their hospital stay.

METHODS

Systematic mixed studies review was the study method. Studies reporting patients' perceptions of coercive measures, especially seclusion and physical restraints during hospital stay were included. Methodological issues such as study design, data collection and recruitment process, participants, sampling, patient refusal or non-participation, and ethical issues such as informed consent process, and approval were synthesized systematically. Electronic searches of CINALH, MEDLINE, PsychINFO and The Cochrane Library (1976-2012) were carried out.

RESULTS

Out of 846 initial citations, 32 studies were included, 14 qualitative and 18 quantitative studies. A variety of methodological approaches were used, although descriptive and explorative designs were used in most cases. Data were mainly collected in qualitative studies by interviews (n = 13) or in quantitative studies by self-report questionnaires (n = 12). The recruitment process was explained in 59% (n = 19) of the studies. In most cases convenience sampling was used, yet five studies used randomization. Patient's refusal or non-participation was reported in 37% (n = 11) of studies. Of all studies, 56% (n = 18) had reported undergone an ethical review process in an official board or committee. Respondents were informed and consent was requested in 69% studies (n = 22).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of different study designs made comparison methodologically challenging. The timing of data collection (considering bias and confounding factors) and the reasons for non-participation of eligible participants are likewise methodological challenges, e.g. recommended flow charts could aid the information. Other challenges identified were the recruitment of large and representative samples. Ethical challenges included requesting participants' informed consent and respecting ethical procedures.

Evaluation of behavioral changes and subjective distress after exposure to coercive inpatient interventions

BACKGROUND

There is a lack of evidence to underpin decisions on what constitutes the most effective and least restrictive form of coercive intervention when responding to violent behavior. Therefore we compared ratings of effectiveness and subjective distress by 125 inpatients across four types of coercive interventions.

METHODS

Effectiveness was assessed through ratings of patient behavior immediately after exposure to a coercive measure and 24 h later. Subjective distress was examined using the Coercion Experience Scale at debriefing. Regression analyses were performed to compare these outcome variables across the four types of coercive interventions.

RESULTS

Using univariate statistics, no significant differences in effectiveness and subjective distress were found between the groups, except that patients who were involuntarily medicated experienced significant less isolation during the measure than patients who underwent combined measures. However, when controlling for the effect of demographic and clinical characteristics, significant differences on subjective distress between the groups emerged: involuntary medication was experienced as the least distressing overall and least humiliating, caused less physical adverse effects and less sense of isolation. Combined coercive interventions, regardless of the type, caused significantly more physical adverse effects and feelings of isolation than individual interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

In the absence of information on individual patient preferences, involuntary medication may be more justified than seclusion and mechanical restraint as a coercive intervention. Use of multiple interventions requires significant justification given their association with significant distress.

Physical restraints in the emergency department and attendance at subsequent outpatient psychiatric treatment

While an estimated 8.5% of psychiatric patients treated in emergency departments require physical restraint, the impact of restraint on attendance at post-discharge outpatient psychiatric appointments has not been investigated. This study evaluated two groups of patients aged 18 or over: 1) 67 individuals who presented voluntarily or involuntarily (being brought in by the police) to the emergency department and who were physically restrained in the course of clinical care, and 2) a comparative group of 84 individuals who presented involuntarily but were not restrained. Perception of quality of care, recollection of the restraint episode, and attendance at follow-up outpatient appointments were compared between these two groups. Of the 151 patients, 33% were from minorities, 45% were female, and the median age was 36 years (range of 18 to 77 years). Both minority race and use of physical restraints were related to less frequent attendance at the prescribed outpatient psychiatric appointment, based on multivariate logistic regression (odds ratios of 0.40 and 0.38, respectively). Although physical restraint may sometimes be necessary to manage aggression and agitation in the emergency department, being restrained appears to be associated with decreased likelihood of attending prescribed outpatient follow-up mental health treatment. Clinicians should consider alternatives to physical restraints whenever possible to minimize impact on treatment compliance after discharge from the emergency department.

Restraints and the code of ethics: An uneasy fit

This article examines the use of physical restraints through the four broad principles of ethics common to all helping professions. It asks whether the continued use of physical restraints is consistent with ethical practice through the lens of those principles. It also examines where the necessity to use restraints in the absence of empirically supported alternatives leaves professionals in terms of conflicts between ethical principles and makes recommendations for changes in education and clinical practice. It concludes that an analysis through a bioethics lens demonstrates that the use of restraints as a tool in psychiatric settings is a complex and multifaceted problem. Principles of ethics may often be in conflict with each other in instances where patients must be physically restrained.

"Coercion Experience Scale" (CES)--validation of a questionnaire on coercive measures

BACKGROUND

Although the authors of a Cochrane Review on seclusion and mechanical restraint concluded that "there is a surprising and shocking lack of published trials" on coercive interventions in psychiatry, there are only few instruments that can be applied in trials. Furthermore, as main outcome variable safety, psychopathological symptoms, and duration of an intervention cannot meet the demand to indicate subjective suffering and impact relevant to posttraumatic stress syndromes. An instrument used in controlled trials should assess the patients' subjective experiences, needs to be applicable to more than one intervention in order to compare different coercive measures and has to account for the specific psychiatric context.

METHODS

The primary version of the questionnaire comprised 44 items, nine items on restrictions to human rights, developed on a clinical basis, and 35 items on stressors, derived from patients' comments during the pilot phase of the study. An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) using principal axis factoring (PAF) was carried out. The resulting factors were orthogonally rotated via VARIMAX procedure. Items with factor loadings less than .50 were eliminated. The reliability of the subscales was assessed by calculating Cronbach.

RESULTS

Data of 102 patients was analysed. The analysis yielded six factors which were entitled "Humiliation", "Physical adverse effects", "Separation", "Negative environment", "Fear" and "Coercion". These six factors explained 54.5% of the total variance. Cronbach alpha ranged from .67 to .93, which can be interpreted as a high internal consistency. Convergent and discriminant validity yielded both highly significant results (r = .79, p < .001, resp. r = .38, p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

The "Coercion Experience Scale" is an instrument to measure the psychological impact during psychiatric coercive interventions. Its psychometric properties showed satisfying reliability and validity. For purposes of research it can be used to compare different coercive interventions. In clinical practice it can be used as a screening instrument for patients who need support after coercive interventions to prevent consequences from traumatic experiences. Further research is needed to identify possible diagnostic, therapeutic or prognostic implications of the total score and the different subscales.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN70589121.