Ethical challenges of seclusion in psychiatric inpatient wards: a qualitative study of the experiences of Norwegian mental health professionals

Staff Perspectives: Why are adolescent inpatients secluded and what causes changes in rates of seclusion on a unit?

BACKGROUND

The use of seclusion in Adolescent Inpatient Psychiatric Units is being heavily scrutinised due to its forceful nature and potential to cause harm. This study aimed to understand staff perspectives on reasons for seclusion in an Adolescent Inpatient Psychiatric Unit.

METHOD

A mixed methods approach that included the Attitudes to Seclusion Survey followed by a semi-structured interview on the reasons for seclusion was used. We recruited 31 participants who worked on the unit of which 27 were involved in seclusion.

RESULTS

The findings showed that the majority of staff view seclusion as undesirable and believe it should only be used out of necessity. However, there was disagreement among staff about the reasons why adolescents were secluded and whether those reasons were justified. Staff identified factors that contributed to increases in seclusion but also provided several ways in which seclusion could be reduced.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings highlight a need for precision on what constitutes justifiable use of seclusion to reduce the potential for misuse. It also shows opportunities exist for further reduction in seclusion through teamwork and communication.

Nurses' Perspectives on the Proposed Seclusion Elimination in Mental Health Wards

Managing consumers with challenging behaviours by way of secluding them has been practiced for centuries. Many countries have attempted to eliminate seclusion but with very limited success. The Victorian government in Australia has embarked on a plan to stop seclusion within the coming 10 years. A qualitative research design using a purposive cluster sampling technique was utilised to understand nurses' perceptions on attempts to eliminate seclusions in acute wards. Semi-structured interviews and a thematic analysis were used to reveal participants' perceptions. Analysis revealed six themes: personal views, staff skills/resources, safety concerns, stakeholders' influence, doubt about elimination and participants' recommendations. Participants were doubtful of seclusion elimination success if there were no major improvements in nurse security, infrastructure, funding and staffing. Further research is required to establish and develop effective alternatives to seclusion.

Managing Aggressive Behaviour in Healthcare: Balancing of Patients and Staff Interests

The incidence of aggression within healthcare environments has exhibited a discernible rise. As a response, restrictive measures, including restraints, are enforced. Due to the safety and ethical concerns associated with using restraint, de-escalation measures are regarded as the most efficient course of action. The paper posits that it is critical to identify the causes of aggression before employing restraint through a multidisciplinary risk assessment. In addition, the reasonableness and proportionality of administering restraint must be carefully measured. The significance of cultivating a therapeutic and compassionate environment is emphasised. The paper will exclusively examine physical restraint as a form of restriction intervention.

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.

Risk assessment for aggressive behaviour in schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Aggressive or violent behaviour is often associated with people with schizophrenia in common perceptions of the disease. Risk assessment methods have been used to identify and evaluate the behaviour of those individuals who are at the greatest risk of perpetrating aggression or violence or characterise the likelihood to commit acts. Although many different interventions have been developed to decrease aggressive or violent incidences in inpatient care, staff working in inpatient settings seek easy-to-use methods to decrease patient aggressive events. However, many of these are time-consuming, and they require intensive training for staff and patient monitoring. It has also been recognised in clinical practice that if staff monitor patients' behaviour in a structured manner, the monitoring itself may result in a reduction of aggressive/violent behaviour and incidents in psychiatric settings.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of structured aggression or violence risk assessment methods for people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like illnesses.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials, which is based on CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PubMed, ISRCTN registry, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP, on 10 February 2021. We also inspected references of all identified studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing structured risk assessment methods added to standard professional care with standard professional care for the evaluation of aggressive or violent behaviour among people with schizophrenia.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently inspected citations, selected studies, extracted data, and appraised study quality. For binary outcomes, we calculated a standard estimation of the risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI). For continuous outcomes, we calculated the mean difference (MD) and its 95% CI. We assessed risk of bias in the included studies and created a summary of findings table using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four studies in the review. The total number of participants was not identifiable, as some studies provided number of participants included, and some only patient days. The studies compared a package of structured assessment methods with a control group that included routine nursing care and drug therapy or unstructured psychiatric observations/treatment based on clinical judgement. In two studies, information about treatment in control care was not available. One study reported results for our primary outcome, clinically important change in aggressive/violent behaviour, measured by the rate of severe aggression events. There was likely a positive effect favouring structured risk assessment over standard professional care (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.85; 1 RCT; 1852 participants; corrected for cluster design: RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.93; moderate-certainty evidence). One trial reported data for the use of coercive measures (seclusion room). Compared to standard professional care, structured risk assessment may have little or no effect on use of seclusion room as days (corrected for cluster design: RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.27 to 3.07; N = 20; low-certainty evidence) or use of seclusion room as secluded participants (RR 1.83, 95% CI 0.39 to 8.7; 1 RCT; N = 20; low-certainty evidence). However, seclusion room may be used less frequently in the standard professional care group compared to the structured risk assessment group (incidence) (corrected for cluster design: RR 1.63, 95% CI 0.49 to 5.47; 1 RCT; N = 20; substantial heterogeneity, Chi2 = 0.0; df = 0.0; P = 0.0; I2 = 100%; low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a clear effect on adverse events of escape (RR 0.2, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.11; 1 RCT; n = 200; very low-certainty evidence); fall down (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.15; 1 RCT; n = 200; very low-certainty evidence); or choking (RR 0.2, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.11; 1 RCT; n = 200; very low-certainty evidence) when comparing structured risk assessment to standard professional care. There were no useable data for patient-related outcomes such as global state, acceptance of treatment, satisfaction with treatment, quality of life, service use, or costs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on the available evidence, it is not possible to conclude that structured aggression or violence risk assessment methods are effective for people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like illnesses. Future work should combine the use of interventions and structured risk assessment methods to prevent aggressive incidents in psychiatric inpatient settings.

Ethical Issues in Clinical Decision-Making about Involuntary Psychiatric Treatment: A Scoping Review

In mental health and psychiatric care, the use of involuntary psychiatric treatment for people with mental disorders is still a central and contentious issue. The main objective of this scoping review was to map and systematize the literature on ethical issues in clinical decision-making about involuntary psychiatric treatment. Five databases (Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Medline, and Scopus) were searched for articles on this topic. Out of a total of 342 articles found, 35 studies from 14 countries were included based on the selection criteria. The articles were analyzed using the inductive content analysis approach. The following main categories were identified: (1) ethical foundations that guide clinical decision-making; (2) criteria for involuntary psychiatric treatment; (3) gaps, barriers, and risks associated with involuntary psychiatric treatment; (4) strategies used to reduce, replace, and improve the negative impact of involuntary treatment; and (5) evidence-based recommendations. Most of the selected articles discuss the logic underlying involuntary treatment of the mentally ill, exploring ethical principles such as autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, or justice, as well as how these should be properly balanced. During the process of involuntary psychiatric admission, there was a notable absence of effective communication and a significant power imbalance that disenfranchised those seeking services. This disparity was further intensified by professionals who often use coercive measures without a clear decision-making rationale and by family members who strongly depend on hospital admission. Due to the pluralistic and polarized nature of opinions regarding legal capacity and the complexity and nuance of involuntary admission, further studies should be context-specific and based on co-production and participatory research.

Staff Perspectives in Mental Health Research Regarding Restrictive Interventions: An Australian Scoping Review and Thematic Analysis

Service users and their families have raised concerns about safety in current acute mental health service delivery. Restrictive interventions are routinely used across mental health settings despite increasing awareness of the negative impacts. Underfunding and risk-averse management practices are implicated as key challenges. Utilizing a scoping review and thematic analysis method, this review explored the existing literature of mental health staff perspectives across various settings (including psychiatric wards and emergency departments), focusing on their experience of restrictive interventions. Four themes were developed: 1. Safety (both staff and patient); 2. Barriers to staff reducing their restrictive interventions; 3. Strength in current practice; 4. Recommendations for change. Key gaps in the literature were the limited perspectives of emergency and crisis clinicians (despite these areas being settings where restrictive interventions are utilized) and limited perspectives from allied health disciplines (despite their employment as clinicians in these settings). It also noted a divide between staff and patient safety, as though these concerns are mutually exclusive rather than cooccurring, which is the experienced reality. Advocacy bodies, governments and the media are calling for a reduction in restrictive interventions in crisis settings. This research synthesis proposes that, to achieve this, clinical staff must be involved in the process and their perspectives actively sought and drawn upon to enable reform.

The existential dimension of the experience of seclusion: a qualitative study among former psychiatric inpatients

BACKGROUND

Seclusion is a coercive measure - temporary confinement in an almost empty, non-stimulating room in a closed psychiatric admission ward to prevent (further) urgent danger due to a mental disorder. Although there is observational research about patients' behaviors during separation (e.g. hitting walls or doors, sleeping, or praying), research into the subjective and existential dimension of the experience of seclusion in psychiatry is rare.

AIM

Aim of the current study is to describe and analyze - using the theoretical lenses of Yalom (1980) and Jaspers (1919) - how clients experience their involuntary stay in a seclusion room in a closed psychiatric clinic in existential terms.

METHODS

A qualitative study was carried out among former clients (N = 10) who were asked, in retrospect, about their existential concerns in the seclusion room. In the thematic analysis, the main, deductive codes were theory based (Yalom, Jaspers), composed of subcodes that were inductively derived from the interviews.

RESULTS

The respondents affirmed the ultimate existential concerns about death (e.g. sensing to be dead already), lack of freedom (e.g. loss of agency), isolation (e.g. interpersonal, not able to speak, feeling an object) and meaninglessness. With respect to the latter, the respondents reported a rich variety of spiritual experiences (both negative, such as knowing to be in hell, as positive, hearing/imagining a comforting voice or noticing/imagining a scenery of nature in the room).

DISCUSSION

Although some experiences and behaviors may conflate with symptoms of psychosis, the participants generally expressed a relief about the ability to talk about their experiences. Sharing and discussing the existential experiences fits into the paradigm of psychiatric recovery and personalized care. Their intensity was obvious and might have warranted additional support by a chaplain or spiritual counselor in mental health care settings.

The Use of Alternative Rooms in Forensic and Regular Psychiatric Units: A Scoping Review

(1) Background: Emotional regulation, distress and relational conflicts often occur during hospitalization and rehabilitation on psychiatric units, especially in patients suffering from severe and persistent mental disorders. While widely used in children and geriatric patients, little literature exists on the use and outcomes of alternative rooms in the context of forensic and regular psychiatric units for adult patients. Considering the scarcity of the literature on alternative use, this study is motivated by the following research question: what are the main uses and outcomes of alternative rooms in the context of forensic and regular psychiatric units? The main objective of this study is to conduct a scoping review of the use and outcomes of alternative rooms for the context of psychiatric inpatients. (2) Methods: A systematic search was performed in the electronic databases of MedLine, Web of Science, PsycNet (PsycINFO) and Google Scholar from their inception dates until 2022. (3) Results: A total of nine studies were analyzed. Sensory, multisensory rooms, Snoezelen, and comfort rooms are the types of alternative rooms discussed in these studies. Distress and anxiety reduction, increase in self-esteem, impact on seclusion rates, patient-staff communication and alliances, heart and respiration rate reduction, and improvement of alexithymia were identified among the main uses and outcomes of these rooms. (4) Conclusions: The scarcity of literature available to draw information from for this review and possible impact on improving patient outcomes and quality of treatment in psychiatric units opens the door to future studies to better understand the efficacy of such rooms. Research into the ideal implementation tactics of such rooms, long-term outcomes, and the influence on diverse patient demographics could be areas of improvement in the use of alternative rooms.

Relational security: conceptualization and operationalization in small-scale, strengths-based, community-embedded youth justice facilities

BACKGROUND

Given the developmental vulnerability of justice-involved youth, providing a safe environment in secure facilities is a paramount, yet challenging task. Within this complexity, a sound security framework is key. The security framework exists on three dimensions: physical, procedural and relational security. Existing knowledge points at the importance of a shift in focus on physical and procedural security towards relational security as the core of the security framework. At the same time there is a dearth of knowledge on relational security, particularly in the context of youth justice. This paper explores relational security and its working mechanisms in practice.

METHODS

This paper draws on findings of a comprehensive three-year evaluation of three small-scale, community-embedded facilities that are grounded in relational security. The approach of the evaluation was derived from action research, involving a cyclic process alternating between action, research and critical reflection, while engaging all stakeholders in the research process. The action research cycle involved qualitative research (a total of 63 semi-structured interviews) incorporating the perspective of staff, youth and parents.

RESULTS

Relational security is grounded in three distinct, but interrelated, elements - staff's basic attitude, a constructive alliance between staff and youth, staff presence - and promotes a safe and therapeutic environment through several mechanisms.

CONCLUSIONS

Relational security can be defined in a practical conceptualization; outlining a way of working that guides staff in how to establish a safe and therapeutic environment in secure facilities. This conceptualization finds support in the well-established literature covering the therapeutic alliance and can be substantiated by two aligning theories concerning youth justice strategies: social-ecological theory and self-determination theory. Relational security is not only a way of working, but also a way of being. It encompasses a vision about security and mentality towards justice-involved youth that sees them not merely as 'risks to be managed', but primarly as 'resources to be developed'.

The psychiatric mental health nurse's ethical considerations regarding the use of coercive measures - a qualitative interview study

BACKGROUND

In psychiatric inpatient care, situations arise where it may be necessary to use coercive measures and thereby restrict individual autonomy. The ethical principles of healthcare, i.e., respect for autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice, are recognized as central aspects in healthcare practice, and nurses must be clear about which ethical theories and principles to prioritize and what values are needed for a thorough ethical consideration. The aim of this study is to shed light on psychiatric mental health nurses' ethical considerations and on the factors influencing them when performing coercive measures.

METHODS

This qualitative interview study included twelve psychiatric mental health nurses with experience from psychiatric inpatient care. A content analysis was made. The interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim, and categories were formulated.

RESULTS

The study revealed a duality that created two categories: Ethical considerations that promote the patient's autonomy and health and Obstacles to ethical considerations. Based on this duality, ethical considerations were made when performing coercive measures to alleviate suffering and promote health. The result shows a high level of ethical awareness in clinical work. However, a request emerged for more theoretical knowledge about ethical concepts that could be implemented among the staff.

CONCLUSION

The psychiatric mental health nurses in this study strive to do what is best for the patient, to respect the patient's autonomy as a guiding principle in all ethical considerations, and to avoid coercive measures. An organizational ethical awareness could increase the understanding of the difficult ethical considerations that nurses face with regard to minimizing the use of coercive measures in the long run.

Nurses' and Patients' Perceptions about Psychiatric Intensive Care-An Integrative Literature Review

This integrative literature review describes nurses's and patients' perceptions of care in psychiatric intensive care units (PICU). The database search was conducted in April 2020. PRISMA checklist and Mixed Method Appraisal Tool guided the identification and evaluation of the studies (n = 21). Data was analyzed with qualitative content analysis. Nurses perceived PICU as a challenging work environment where their primary task was to ensure the unit's safety. Patients views on their treatment varied from positive to negative. Patients wished to have more privacy and supportive interaction. Findings can be used as a basis in developing care practices and staff's further education in PICUs.

Patients' and staff members' experiences of restrictive practices in acute mental health in-patient settings: systematic review and thematic synthesis

BACKGROUND

Recent guidance has called for the reduction of restrictive practice use owing to growing concerns over the harmful physical and psychological effects for both patients and staff. Despite concerns and efforts, these measures continue to be used regularly to manage challenging behaviour in psychiatric in-patient settings.

AIMS

To undertake a systematic review of patients' and staff members' experiences of restrictive practices in acute psychiatric in-patient settings.

METHOD

A systematic review and thematic synthesis was conducted using data from 21 qualitative papers identified from a systematic search across three electronic databases (PsycInfo, Embase and MEDLINE) and citation searching. The protocol for the review was pre-registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020176859). The quality of included papers was examined using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP).

RESULTS

Four overarching themes emerged from the experiences of patients: the psychological effects, staff communication, loss of human rights and making changes. Likewise, the analysis of staff data produced four themes: the need for restrictive practices, the psychological impact, decision-making and making changes. Patient and staff experiences of restrictive practices were overwhelmingly negative, and their use carried harmful physical and psychological consequences. Lack of support following restraint events was a problem for both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Future programmes seeking to improve or reduce restrictive practices should consider the provision of staff training covering behaviour management and de-escalation techniques, offering psychological support to both patients and staff, the importance of effective staff-patient communication and the availability of alternatives.

Nurses', patients', and informal caregivers' attitudes toward aggression in psychiatric hospitals: A comparative survey study

Attitudes toward aggression is a controversial phenomenon in psychiatry. This study examined and compared attitudes toward patient aggression in psychiatric hospitals from the perspectives of nurses, patients and informal caregivers and identified factors associated to these attitudes. A total of 2,424 participants completed a self-reported instrument regarding attitudes toward aggression (12-items Perception of Aggression Scale; POAS-S). We analysed data from nurses (n = 782), patients (n = 886), and informal caregivers (n = 765). Pearson's r correlations were used to examine associations between variables. Differences between group scores were analysed using ANOVA/MANOVA with post-hoc Sheffe tests. Multivariate logistic regression models and logistic regression analysis were used to examine the effects of respondents' characteristics on their attitudes toward aggression. Nurses had significantly more negative and less tolerant perceptions toward aggression (mean [SD] 47.1 [7.5], p<0.001) than the patients (mean [SD] 44.4 [8.2]) and the informal caregivers (mean [SD] 45.0 [6.9), according to the POAS-S total scores. The same trend was found with the dysfunction and function sub-scores (mean [SD] 25.3 [4.1] and 15.0 [3.6], respectively); the differences between the groups were statistically significant (p <0.001) when nurses' scores were compared to those of both the patients (mean [SD] 23.7 [5.3] and 14.0 [4.1], respectively) and the informal caregivers (mean [SD] 24.4 [4.2] and 13.9 [3.5], respectively). The study offers new understanding of aggressive behavior in different treatment settings where attitudes toward patient behavior raises ethical and practical dilemmas. These results indicate a need for more targeted on-the-job training for nursing staff, aggression management rehabilitation programs for patients, and peer-support programs for informal caregivers focused on patient aggression.

Safety hazards in patient seclusion events in psychiatric care: A video observation study

WHAT IS KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT?: Coercive measures such as seclusion are used to maintain the safety of patients and others in psychiatric care. The use of coercive measures can lead to harm among patients and staff. WHAT THE PAPER ADDS TO EXISTING KNOWLEDGE?: This study is the first of its kind to rely on video observation to expose safety hazards in seclusion events that have not been reported previously in the literature. The actions that both patients and staff take during seclusion events can result in various safety hazards. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE?: Constant monitoring of patients during seclusion is important for identifying safety hazards and intervening to prevent harm. Nursing staff who use seclusion need to be aware of how their actions can contribute to safety hazards and how they can minimize their potential for harm ABSTRACT: Introduction Seclusion is used to maintain safety in psychiatric care. There is still a lack of knowledge on potential safety hazards related to seclusion practices. Aim To identify safety hazards that might jeopardize the safety of patients and staff in seclusion events in psychiatric hospital care. Method A descriptive design with non-participant video observation was used. The data consisted of 36 video recordings, analysed with inductive thematic analysis. Results Safety hazards were related to patient and staff actions. Patient actions included aggressive behaviour, precarious movements, escaping, falling, contamination and preventing visibility. Staff actions included leaving hazardous items in a seclusion room, unsafe administration of medication, unsecured use of restraints and precarious movements and postures. Discussion This is the first observational study to identify safety hazards in seclusion, which may jeopardize the safety of patients and staff. These hazards were related to the actions of patients and staff. Implications for Practice Being better aware of possible safety hazards could help prevent adverse events during patient seclusion events. It is therefore necessary that nursing staff are aware of how their actions might impact their safety and the safety of the patients. Video observation is a useful method for identifying safety hazards. However, its use requires effort to safeguard the privacy and confidentiality of those included in the videos.

An Educational Intervention to Decrease the Number of Emergency Incidents of Restraint and Seclusion on a Behavioral Health Unit

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to implement an educational intervention on an inpatient, behavioral health care unit with the goal of reducing the number of crisis interventions of seclusion or restraint.

METHOD

A quasi-experimental pretest and posttest design using De-escalate Anyone, Anywhere, Anytime training was employed with a focus of an increased understanding of a range of de-escalation techniques to use instead of restraint and seclusion.

RESULTS

A convenience sample of 21 mental health employees participated in the training. The rates of restraint declined from a mean of 6 preintervention to 2 postintervention. The number of seclusions on the designated unit declined from a mean of 4.33 preintervention to a mean of 1.667 postintervention.

CONCLUSION

These data suggest that an educational intervention to increase the knowledge of direct care staff in a broad range of de-escalation techniques resulted in a reduction in the use of restraint and seclusion. Ongoing training for nursing staff may reassure them of the efficacy of alternative methods for dealing with aggressive patients. [J Contin Educ Nurs. 2022;53(2):70-76.].

Measuring Seclusion in Psychiatric Intensive Care: Development and Measurement Properties of the Clinical Seclusion Checklist

Background: Acute psychiatric units in general hospitals must ensure that acutely disturbed patients do not harm themselves or others, and simultaneously provide care and treatment and help patients regain control of their behavior. This led to the development of strategies for the seclusion of a patient in this state within a particular area separated from other patients in the ward. While versions of this practice have been used in different countries and settings, a systematic framework for describing the various parameters and types of seclusion interventions has not been available. The aims of the project were to develop and test a valid and reliable checklist for characterizing seclusion in inpatient psychiatric care. Methods: Development and testing of the checklist were accomplished in five stages. Staff in psychiatric units completed detailed descriptions of seclusion episodes. Elements of seclusion were identified by thematic analysis of this material, and consensus regarding these elements was achieved through a Delphi process comprising two rounds. Good content validity was ensured through the sample of seclusion episodes and the representative participants in the Delphi process. The first draft of the checklist was revised based on testing by clinicians assessing seclusion episodes. The revised checklist with six reasons for and 10 elements of seclusion was tested with different response scales, and acceptable interrater reliability was achieved. Results: The Clinical Seclusion Checklist is a brief and feasible tool measuring six reasons for seclusion, 10 elements of seclusion, and four contextual factors. It was developed through a transparent process and exhibited good content validity and acceptable interrater reliability. Conclusion: The checklist is a step toward achieving valid and clinically relevant measurements of seclusion. Its use in psychiatric units may contribute to quality assurance, more reliable statistics and comparisons across sites and periods, improved research on patients' experiences of seclusion and its effects, reduction of negative consequences of seclusion, and improvement of psychiatric intensive care.

Defining ethical challenge(s) in healthcare research: a rapid review

BACKGROUND

Despite its ubiquity in academic research, the phrase 'ethical challenge(s)' appears to lack an agreed definition. A lack of a definition risks introducing confusion or avoidable bias. Conceptual clarity is a key component of research, both theoretical and empirical. Using a rapid review methodology, we sought to review definitions of 'ethical challenge(s)' and closely related terms as used in current healthcare research literature.

METHODS

Rapid review to identify peer-reviewed reports examining 'ethical challenge(s)' in any context, extracting data on definitions of 'ethical challenge(s)' in use, and synonymous use of closely related terms in the general manuscript text. Data were analysed using content analysis. Four databases (MEDLINE, Philosopher's Index, EMBASE, CINAHL) were searched from April 2016 to April 2021.

RESULTS

393 records were screened, with 72 studies eligible and included: 53 empirical studies, 17 structured reviews and 2 review protocols. 12/72 (17%) contained an explicit definition of 'ethical challenge(s), two of which were shared, resulting in 11 unique definitions. Within these 11 definitions, four approaches were identified: definition through concepts; reference to moral conflict, moral uncertainty or difficult choices; definition by participants; and challenges linked to emotional or moral distress. Each definition contained one or more of these approaches, but none contained all four. 68/72 (94%) included studies used terms closely related to synonymously refer to 'ethical challenge(s)' within their manuscript text, with 32 different terms identified and between one and eight different terms mentioned per study.

CONCLUSIONS

Only 12/72 studies contained an explicit definition of 'ethical challenge(s)', with significant variety in scope and complexity. This variation risks confusion and biasing data analysis and results, reducing confidence in research findings. Further work on establishing acceptable definitional content is needed to inform future bioethics research.

Evaluation of coercive measures in different psychiatric hospitals: the impact of institutional characteristics

BACKGROUND

Epidemiological studies have demonstrated considerable differences in the use of coercive measures among psychiatric hospitals; however, the underlying reasons for these differences are largely unclear. We investigated to what extent these differences could be explained by institutional factors.

METHODS

Four psychiatric hospitals with identical responsibilities within the mental health care system, but with different inpatient care organizations, participated in this prospective observational study. We included all patients admitted over a period of 24 months who were affected by mechanical restraint, seclusion, or compulsory medication. In addition to the patterns of coercive measures, we investigated the effect of each hospital on the frequency of compulsory medication and the cumulative duration of mechanical restraint and seclusion, using multivariate binary logistic regression. To compare the two outcomes between hospitals, odds ratios (OR) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated.

RESULTS

Altogether, coercive measures were applied in 1542 cases, corresponding to an overall prevalence of 8%. The frequency and patterns of the modalities of coercive measures were different between hospitals, and the differences could be at least partially related to institutional characteristics. For the two hospitals that had no permanently locked wards, certain findings were particularly noticeable. In one of these hospitals, the probability of receiving compulsory medication was significantly higher compared with the other institutions (OR 1.9, CI 1.1-3.0 for patients < 65 years; OR 8.0, CI 3.1-20.7 for patients ≥65 years); in the other hospital, in patients younger than 65 years, the cumulative duration of restraint and seclusion was significantly longer compared with the other institutions (OR 2.6, CI 1.7-3.9).

CONCLUSIONS

The findings are compatible with the hypothesis that more open settings are associated with a more extensive use of coercion. However, due to numerous influencing factors, these results should be interpreted with caution. In view of the relevance of this issue, further research is needed for a deeper understanding of the reasons underlying the differences among hospitals.

Variation in restraint use between hospitals: a multilevel analysis of multicentre prevalence measurements in Switzerland and Austria

BACKGROUND

In restraint use in the somatic acute-care hospital setting, routine and institutional culture seem to play an important role. This implies that similar patient situations would be managed with restraints in one hospital, while in another hospital the situation would be managed without restraints. This practice variation appears to be ethically and legally questionable. The influence of organisation-specific factors such as the availability of guidelines is discussed. However, the relevance of such factors at the hospital level has been rarely investigated to date. Therefore, the aims of this study were a) to determine how much variance in restraint use can be explained on the hospital level (hospital general effect) and b) to examine the impact of organisational factors on restraint use (specific contextual effects).

METHODS

A secondary data analysis of cross-sectional multicentre data was performed. Data were collected during three quality measurements (2016-2018) in acute-care hospitals in Switzerland and Austria. Hospitalised patients from different medical specialties aged 18+ with informed consent were included. Descriptive analysis and multilevel logistic regression analysis were performed.

RESULTS

The study included 29,477 patients from a total of 140 hospitals. The 30-day prevalence rate of patients with at least one restraint was 8.7% (n = 2577). The availability of guidelines regarding restraint use and refresher courses for nursing staff were associated with less restraint use (odds ratios = 0.60 and 0.75). By adding the hospital as a random effect, the explained variance of the model increased from 24 to 55%.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of restraints varies widely between hospitals, even considering patient characteristics. The identification of situations in which restraints were used out of routine or institutional culture appears to be an important approach in restraint reduction. Investments in appropriate structures and employee knowledge can facilitate providing restraint-free care as much as possible.

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.

Prevention and management of aggressive behaviour in patients at psychiatric hospitals: a document analysis of clinical practice guidelines in Hong Kong

Patient aggressive behaviour remains a significant public health concern worldwide. The use of restraint and seclusion remains a last resort but not an uncommon practice in clinical psychiatry in the management of aggressive events. There seems to be a paucity of evidenced-based research examining the policy framework guiding the use of restraint and seclusion in Asia contexts. The purpose of this study was to conduct an analysis on the guidelines in psychiatric hospitals in Hong Kong, and to explore the extent to which these guidelines were aligned with the international clinical guidelines for the prevention and management of patient aggression in psychiatry. A descriptive document analysis was used to analyse the guidelines from four psychiatric hospitals in Hong Kong in comparison with the NICE (National Institute of Health and Care Excellence UK) guidelines. Data were collected from December 2017 to June 2018. A total of 91 written documents were retrieved. Preventing violence and aggression has the highest level of agreement (31%,) while the use of restrictive interventions has the lowest level of agreement (12%). The sub-recommendation with most in line with the NICE guidelines were restrictive interventions, de-escalation, and improving service users' experiences. However, for example, staff training, working with police, and reduced use of restrictive interventions seemed to have no agreement with the NICE guidelines. Variation exists between the Asian (Hong Kong) local policy framework/guidelines and the European (UK) national policy framework. There are also large discrepancies in the written guidelines on patient aggressive behaviour when comparing local policy frameworks, cluster-based documents, and departmental practices.

Nurses' behaviours towards physical restraint use in the ICU: A descriptive qualitative study

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

The study aims to explore and describe nurses' behaviours towards physical restraint (PR) use in intensive care units (ICUs) and identify key characteristics of these experiences.

BACKGROUND

Patients within the ICU are always vulnerable, which requires a thoughtful deliberation when employing PR in ethically laden situations. Considering that the qualitative study on nurses' behaviours towards PR use in ICUs is limited, a deep understanding of how nurses reason and restrict patients is necessary before developing a minimizing programme in hospitals.

METHODS

A descriptive qualitative study was conducted in this paper. Data were collected by 24 semistructured, in-depth and individual interviews about PR, where 24 nurses were drawn from six ICUs of four hospital settings from a comprehensive tertiary care hospital in Qingdao. The QSR NVivo 11.0 software program was used to manage the interview data, and data analysis was guided by the Qualitative Analysis Guide of Leuven. The checklist of Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Studies was followed as a guideline in reporting the study.

RESULTS

Regarding PR, nurses' behaviours start with a hazard perception, followed by hesitation about whether to restrict the patient. They would usually decide to apply PR when they think that no other choice to control the situation is available. Then, they would reflect on and rationalize their behaviours. Nurses, intensivists, patients and their families participate in and affect this process directly or indirectly.

CONCLUSIONS

Nurses' behaviours towards PR use comprise a series of complex processes centred on safety. Nurses' decision making should be performed with the participation of intensivists, patients and family caregivers.