"Our Patients Are Different": Predictors of Seclusion and Restraint in 31 Psychiatric Hospitals

Mental health professionals' perceptions and attitudes towards seclusion: The ambivalent relationship between safety and therapeutic considerations

BACKGROUND

Frequency of seclusion in acute psychiatric units varies greatly worldwide. In Switzerland, its use is authorised under strict conditions. However, this coercive measure is not implemented in every psychiatric hospital in the country. The use of coercion is associated with a number of patient characteristics as well as organisational, contextual and professional's aspects. Nevertheless, the role of these factors remain inconsistent across studies and different coercive measures are often studied together. Hence, the aim of this study was to assess mental health professionals' perceptions and attitudes towards seclusion according to their experience with this type of measure and their personal and professional background.

METHOD

Nurses and physicians working in acute adult and geriatric psychiatric units in the Swiss Cantons of Vaud and Valais were invited to participate to an online survey exploring their socio-demographic characteristics, professional background, current position and activity, as well as their perceptions and attitudes towards seclusion. Exploratory Structural Equation Modelling (ESEM) was then used to determine the structure of the participants perceptions and attitudes towards seclusion to identify which socio-demographic and professionals' aspects could predict their underlying dimensions.

RESULTS

116 mental health professionals agreed to participate in the study. A majority considered that seclusion had a therapeutic impact, while believing that it could also have negative effects or be dangerous for the patient. The majority also thought that seclusion increased the general feeling of safety. Lastly, a substantial proportion felt that the Swiss legal framework regulating seclusion was not sufficiently clear. Mental health professionals' perceptions and attitudes towards seclusion could be described by four dimensions: "Negative consequences", "Safety", "Legitimacy/legal aspect of seclusion" and "Organisational aspects". Analyses revealed a tendency to normalize seclusion as its use increases.

CONCLUSION

Seclusion poses complex challenges for mental health professionals. The competent authorities should therefore provide careful guidance to help them maintain a high level of quality of care in the use of this coercive measure.

PROD-ALERT 2: replicating and extending psychiatric restraint open data analysis using logarithmic estimates of reporting trends

Care, management, and statute each mandate restraint-reporting in psychiatric settings in England. PROD-ALERT in this journal ("PA1") correlated log incidence of restraint, log institutional size, and log detention. The period was September 2020 to August 2021. It showed a clear trend among reporters. Restraint correlated with institutional size and use of legal detention. Some large detaining providers reported no restraints per month despite that trend. Inference from size suggested that non-complete reporters restrained 1,774 people per month. This paper "PA2" develops analysis repeating it for September 2021 to August 2022. PA2 shows how to count L-information, i.e., questionable information, added by null reports, by applying an L-test to data sets. PA2 uses illustrative vignettes about human height to ground L-information scores from English restraint reporting. In PA2, reported restraint again correlates with size and detention as in PA1. PA2 shows evolving data. Providers still follow a trend in restraint by size and detention. Providers which newly report restraint are on trend. Inference suggests that non-complete reporters restrained 1,305 people per month (536-3233), 95% CI, a large but reduced number since PA1. English restraint data have an L-test L-information score of increase in information by a factor of L = 145. This is as surprising as claiming that an average English man of 1.72 m is 2.64 m tall. Persons restrained per month is a robust measure continuing to log-correlate with size and legal compulsion. Providers over a certain size who report null restraint probably have some. Restraint remains underreported in England. Imputation of incomplete reporters shows a large shrinking cohort of patients detained by incomplete reporters. Knowledge of this may promote reporting. Improved reporting, and the infrastructure and integrity it demands, may help providers measure and reduce restraint. PA1 remains unrefuted. L-test can measure L-information in intuitively representable ways. The informational effect of nulls on the reliable data set is similar to a claim that an average-heighted man is as tall as people with clinical gigantism.

Physical Restraint Practices at the Emergency Department of a Mental Health Hospital

Background

Coercive treatments can lead to ethical, legal, and clinical concerns, especially in emergency settings. The indications and characteristics of patients for whom physical restraint is indicated should be well-evaluated in order to prevent unnecessary practices. The aim of this study was to comprehensively assess the physical restraint practices in psychiatric emergencies and clinical characteristics related to their use.

Methods

All patients admitted to the emergency unit of a tertiary mental health hospital between June 1 and June 30, 2022, were included in the sample. Data were retrieved from the manual and electronic medical records. Age, gender, clinical settings, diagnosis, substance use, and other factors were categorized and analyzed, comparing physically restrained and not-restrained patients.

Results

Totally, 2051 patients were included in the study (1022 female and 1029 male). The mean age of the participants was 39.5 ± 14.8 years (female: 40.3 ± 14.8 male: 38.4 ± 14.7, P = .004). Seventy-two (3.51%) of the admitted patients were exposed to physical restraint and those had significantly lower number of applications in the past year (P = .020). The median restraint duration was 90 (60-150) minutes. Fifty-four (75.00%) of the physically restrained patients were male (P < .001), and they were significantly younger (mean age 34.5 ± 12.1 vs. 39.5 ± 14.9, P = .005). Clinical diagnoses of restrained patients were significantly different, in favor of psychosis. While 42 (58.33%) of the restrained patients were substance-negative, 15 (20.83%) were screened as positive for at least 1 substance (P < .001).

Conclusion

Physically restrained patients differ from others with regard to age, gender, and number of previous applications. Fewer hospital applications in the past year were related to higher incidence of physical restraints.

Kontra

Die Strukturen sind das Problem, nicht die Patientinnen und Patienten: Hinsichtlich stationärer Zwangsunterbringung und -behandlung hat Deutschland schon jetzt eine im europäischen Vergleich relativ hohe Quote 1 – mit erheblichen regionalen Unterschieden zwischen 0,3 und 17% der aufgenommenen Patientinnen und Patienten 2. Viele Analysen verweisen auf institutionelle Faktoren: „Institutionelle Bedingungen in den Kliniken haben erheblichen Einfluss auf den Einsatz von Zwangsmaßnahmen, z.T. vermutlich sogar stärker als der Krankheitszustand der Patienten“ 3.

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.

Comparison of coercive practices in worldwide mental healthcare: overcoming difficulties resulting from variations in monitoring strategies

BACKGROUND

Coercive or restrictive practices such as compulsory admission, involuntary medication, seclusion and restraint impinge on individual autonomy. International consensus mandates reduction or elimination of restrictive practices in mental healthcare. To achieve this requires knowledge of the extent of these practices.

AIMS

We determined rates of coercive practices and compared them across countries.

METHOD

We identified nine country- or region-wide data-sets of rates and durations of restrictive practices in Australia, England, Germany, Ireland, Japan, New Zealand, The Netherlands, the USA and Wales. We compared the data-sets with each other and with mental healthcare indicators in World Health Organization and Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development reports.

RESULTS

The types and definitions of reported coercive practices varied considerably. Reported rates were highly variable, poorly reported and tracked using a diverse array of measures. However, we were able to combine duration measures to examine numbers of restrictive practices per year per 100 000 population for each country. The rates and durations of seclusion and restraint differed by factors of more than 100 between countries, with Japan showing a particularly high number of restraints.

CONCLUSIONS

We recommend a common set of international measures, so that finer comparisons within and between countries can be made, and monitoring of trends to see whether alternatives to restraint are successful. These measurements should include information about the total numbers, durations and rates of coercive measures. We urge the World Health Organization to include these measures in their Mental Health Atlas.

A country report: impact of COVID-19 lockdowns on involuntary psychiatric treatment in Austria

BACKGROUND

Coercive measures such as involuntary psychiatric admission are considered a last resort in the treatment of people with psychiatric disorders. So far, numerous factors have been identified that influence their use. However, the link between a pandemic - in particular, restrictions such as lockdowns - and the use of involuntary psychiatric admission is unclear.

AIM

To examine the association between COVID-19 lockdowns and involuntary psychiatric admissions in Austria.

METHOD

This retrospective exploratory study assessed all involuntary psychiatric admissions and use of mechanical restraint in Austria, except for the federal state of Vorarlberg, between 1 January 2018 and 31 December 2020. Descriptive statistics and regression models were used.

RESULTS

During the 3-year study period, 40 012 individuals (45.9% females, mean age 51.3 years) had 66 124 involuntary psychiatric admissions for an average of 10.9 days. Mechanical restraint was used during 33.9% of these admissions. In weeks of nationwide COVID-19 lockdowns (2020 v. 2018/2019), involuntary psychiatric admissions were significantly fewer (odds ratio = 0.93, P = 0.0001) but longer (11.6 (s.d.: 16) v. 10.9 (s.d.: 15.8) days). The likelihood of involuntary admission during lockdowns was associated with year (2020 v. 2018-2019; adjusted odds ratio = 0.92; P = 0.0002) but not with sex (P = 0.814), age (P = 0.310), use of mechanical restraint (P = 0.653) or type of ward (P = 0.843).

CONCLUSIONS

Restrictions such as lockdowns affect coercive measures and resulted in fewer but longer involuntary psychiatric admissions during weeks of lockdown in Austria. These results strengthen previous findings that showed the dependence of coercive measures on external factors, highlighting the need to further clarify causality and desired prevention effects when using coercive measures.

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

Introduction

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Discussion

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

Increase in coercive measures in psychiatric hospitals in Germany during the COVID-19 pandemic

Objective

To examine whether the pandemic in 2020 caused changes in psychiatric hospital cases, the percentage of patients exposed to coercive interventions, and aggressive incidents.

Methods

We used the case registry for coercive measures of the State of Baden-Wuerttemberg, comprising case-related data on mechanical restraint, seclusion, physical restraint, and forced medication in each of the State’s 31 licensed hospitals treating adults, to compare data from 2019 and 2020.

Results

The number of cases in adult psychiatry decreased by 7.6% from 105,782 to 97,761. The percentage of involuntary cases increased from 12.3 to 14.1%, and the absolute number of coercive measures increased by 4.7% from 26,269 to 27,514. The percentage of cases exposed to any kind of coercive measure increased by 24.6% from 6.5 to 8.1%, and the median cumulative duration per affected case increased by 13.1% from 12.2 to 13.8 hrs, where seclusion increased more than mechanical restraint. The percentage of patients with aggressive incidents, collected in 10 hospitals, remained unchanged.

Conclusions

While voluntary cases decreased considerably during the pandemic, involuntary cases increased slightly. However, the increased percentage of patients exposed to coercion is not only due to a decreased percentage of voluntary patients, as the duration of coercive measures per case also increased. The changes that indicate deterioration in treatment quality were probably caused by the multitude of measures to manage the pandemic. The focus of attention and internal rules as well have shifted from prevention of coercion to prevention of infection.

[Monitoring of coercive measures and compulsory treatment in Germany]

Epidemiological registers on the burden of disease and adverse events (deaths, serious side effects, etc.) play an important role in the management, evaluation, and improvement of healthcare treatment for the population. This also applies to coercive measures in the psychiatric healthcare system. Such registers only became feasible on a broad basis due to the availability of electronic medical records and steadily increasing computing capacities; however, in most German states, registers have not been implemented. Data protection problems must be taken into account in the collation of person-related data but can be solved by appropriate pseudonymization procedures taking the prerequisites of data parsimony into account. Extensive data are now available from the Baden-Wuerttemberg register for coercive measures, which has been in existence since 2015 and which enabled, for instance, evaluating the consequences of the changes to the law following the 2018 ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court on mechanical restraint and the consequences of the coronavirus pandemic. In the meantime, there are also state-wide data collections in some other German states; however, unlike in Baden-Wuerttemberg, these registers do not include measures under guardianship law. A nationwide register for coercive measures, compulsory treatment and involuntary detention has justifiably repeatedly been demanded for a long time. A major obstacle is the historically developed separation between the responsibility of the German states for the detention regulated by public law and the Federal State for the scope of application of the guardianship law.