Prevalence and risk factors for seclusion and restraint in old-age psychiatry inpatient units

Effect of Seclusion on Mental Health Status in Hospitalized Psychiatric Populations: A Trial Emulation using Observational Data

The use of coercive practices, i.e., interventions against a person's will, is controversial. Recent observational studies highlighted their potential detrimental effects on patients' mental health, but this topic remains understudied. This study investigated the effect of a common coercive practice, seclusion (i.e., being locked in a closed room), on mental health using a trial emulation of observational data to allow causal inference. We used data from 1200 psychiatric inpatients, classified as being either secluded or non-secluded during their hospital stay. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to emulate the random assignment to the intervention. The primary outcome was the Health of the Nations Outcome Scales (HoNOS). The secondary outcome was the first item of the HoNOS, which focuses on overactive, aggressive, disruptive, or agitated behavior. Both outcomes were assessed at hospital discharge. There was a significant effect of seclusion with increases in both total HoNOS score (p = .002) and item 1 of the HoNOS (p = .01). Seclusion may have a negative causal effect of patients' mental health status and should therefore be avoided in mental health care settings. Training efforts should raise the awareness of the medical staff about potential adverse effects instead of therapeutic benefits.

Risk factors for coercion length at psychiatric hospitals in Israel: Relationship with staff

Background

Coercive interventions continue to be applied frequently in psychiatric care when patients are at imminent risk of harming themselves and/or others.

Aim

The purpose of this study was to demonstrate the relationship between the length of coercion and a variety of factors, including the sociodemographic background of patients, their diagnoses and the characteristics of hospital staff.

Methods

This is a one-year cross-sectional retrospective study, including records of 298 patients who underwent restraint and/or seclusion interventions in male acute, closed wards in two psychiatric hospitals in Israel.

Results

A higher proportion of academic nurses to nonacademic nurses on duty leads to a shorter coercion time (P < 0.000). The number of male staff on duty, without any relation to their level of education, also leads to the shortening of the coercion time.

Conclusion

The presence of registered, academic female nurses, male staff on duty and the administration of medication before coercive measures can reduce the length of restriction.

Effect of coercive measures on treatment outcome in involuntarily admitted patients in Amsterdam

Objective

The prevalence of involuntary admissions rose the last forty years in European countries, including the Netherlands. Involuntary admissions result in seclusion, physical restraint and forced medication in approximately 40% of patients. We looked at whether treatment outcomes differ in patients with and without coercive measures.

Methods

Using The Health of the Nation Outcome Scales (HoNOS) to measure treatment outcomes, we studied the files of 786 patients admitted involuntarily to an Amsterdam clinic. We applied Generalised Linear Models to determine whether the use, or not, of coercive measures during treatment was associated with a difference in outcomes.

Results

19% of the cohort were secluded in a High Security Room (HSR); 24% were secluded in their own room and/or received forced medication. After adjustment for the influence of diagnosis, disorder severity (initial HoNOS score) and treatment duration, the HSR group had, on average, a HoNOS difference score that was 2.4 points lower than patients without coercive measures (CI -4.0 to -0.8.; p 0.003). In the seclusion in own room group, this score was 2.6 points lower (CI -4.0 to -1.1; p 0.001), corresponding to an effect size of 0.35 and 0.40, respectively.

Conclusion

Seclusion, whether or not in combination with forced medication, was applied to two-fifths of patients. The HoNOS scores of the group without coercion improved by nearly two and a half points more on average than those of the two groups with coercion. A causal relationship between coercion and treatment outcome could neither be confirmed nor excluded on the basis of our results.

Seclusion, Restraint, Therapeutic Alliance, and Legal Admission Status: What Really Matters?

OBJECTIVE

To determine the relationships, if any, between use of seclusion and restraint and factors such as demographic parameters, diagnosis, legal admission status (voluntary or involuntary), symptoms, cognitive function, global functioning, therapeutic alliance, attitudes toward medication, and insight, among psychiatry inpatients in Ireland.

METHODS

We used validated tools to perform detailed assessments of 107 adult psychiatry inpatients admitted to acute psychiatry units at 2 general hospitals in Dublin, Ireland over a 30-month period, between September 2017 and February 2020.

RESULTS

The most common diagnoses in our sample were affective disorders (46.7%), schizophrenia and related disorders (27.1%), and personality and behavioral disorders (11.2%). Over a quarter (n=29, 27.1%) of the participating patients had involuntary legal status. Of the 107 patients, 11 patients (10.3%) experienced sedation and/or physical restraint, with 9 patients (8.4%) experiencing at least 1 episode of seclusion and 10 patients (9.3%) experiencing at least 1 episode of physical restraint. On the basis of multivariable analyses, seclusion was associated with younger age and involuntary status, while physical restraint was associated with involuntary status. Each multivariable model explained just over one third of the variance in the distribution of these seclusion and restraint practices.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of seclusion and restraint was most strongly associated with involuntary admission status and, in the case of seclusion, younger age, rather than sex, diagnosis, symptoms, cognitive function, global functioning, therapeutic alliance, attitudes toward medication, or insight. The network of interactions between involuntary status and use of seclusion and restraint merits much closer attention, especially as use of seclusion and physical restraint appears to be associated with involuntary legal status independent of level of symptoms, therapeutic alliance, or insight.

Development of the Japanese version of Staff Attitude to Coercion Scale

BACKGROUND

An important factor in proceeding the efforts to reduce coercion in psychiatry is the attitudes of clinical staff toward its use. We aimed to develop the Japanese version of the Staff Attitude to Coercion Scale (SACS) and clarify its psychometric properties.

METHODS

After the translation and back-translation of the SACS, which includes 15 items consisting of three subscales, we conducted an anonymous self-administered questionnaire survey of clinical staffs working in 17 wards in two psychiatric hospitals. We administered the second survey to some of the participants to confirm the test-retest reliability. Additionally, we obtained information regarding the 17 wards from the institutions. Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach's alpha coefficients. Test-retest reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). Structural validity was examined using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and exploratory factor analysis (EFA). For construct validity, the correlation of the SACS score within wards and its association with the actual use of seclusion/restraints were explored using multilevel multivariate linear regression analyses.

RESULTS

We used 261 (67.1%) responses, 35 responses of which were also used to examine test-retest reliability. Cronbach's alpha coefficients (0.761) and ICC (0.738) indicated good reliability. The results of CFA based on the original three-dimensional structure did not indicate a good fit (CFA = 0.830, RMSEA = 0.088). EFA suggested a four-factor structure, two of which were almost consistent with the original two subscales. The correlation of the SACS score within wards was confirmed while a positive association with the actual use of seclusion/restraints was not identified.

CONCLUSION

While the original three-dimensional structure was not replicated, construct validity was partially confirmed. Reliability of the total scale was good. In Japan, although using the subscales was not recommended, using the total scale of SACS seemed acceptable.

Coercive Measures in Psychiatry: A Review of Ethical Arguments

Introduction: Coercion is frequent in clinical practice, particularly in psychiatry. Since it overrides some fundamental rights of patients (notably their liberty of movement and decision-making), adequate use of coercion requires legal and ethical justifications. In this article, we map out the ethical elements used in the literature to justify or reject the use of coercive measures limiting freedom of movement (seclusion, restraint, involuntary hospitalization) and highlight some important issues. Methods: We conducted a narrative review of the literature by searching the PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Google Scholar and Cairn.info databases with the keywords "coercive/compulsory measures/care/treatment, coercion, seclusion, restraint, mental health, psychiatry, involuntary/compulsory hospitalization/admission, ethics, legitimacy." We collected all ethically relevant elements used in the author's justifications for or against coercive measures limiting freedom of movement (e.g., values, rights, practical considerations, relevant feelings, expected attitudes, risks of side effects), and coded, and ordered them into categories. Results: Some reasons provided in the literature are presented as justifying an absolute prohibition on coercion; they rely on the view that some fundamental rights, such as autonomy, are non-negotiable. Most ethically relevant elements, however, can be used in a balanced weighting of reasons to favor or reject coercive measures in certain circumstances. Professionals mostly agree that coercion is only legitimate in exceptional circumstances, when the infringement of some values (e.g., freedom of movement, short-term autonomy) is the only means to fulfill other, more important values and goals (e.g., patient's safety, the long-term rebuilding of patient's identity and autonomy). The results of evaluations vary according to which moral elements are prioritized over others. Moreover, we found numerous considerations (e.g., conditions, procedural values) for how to ensure that clinicians apply fair decision-making procedures related to coercion. Based on this analysis, we highlight vital topics that need further development. Conclusion: Before using coercive measures limiting freedom of movement, clinicians should consider and weigh all ethically pertinent elements in the situation and actively search for alternatives that are more respectful of patient's well-being and rights. Coercive measures decided upon after a transparent, carefully balanced evaluation process are more likely to be adequate, understood, and accepted by patients and caregivers.