Overcoming the Use of Mechanical Restraints in Psychiatry: A New Challenge in the Everyday Clinical Practice at the Time of COVID-19

Review article: Scoping review of interventions that reduce mechanical restraint in the emergency department

OBJECTIVE

Mechanical restraints are known to be associated with many undesirable outcomes in clinical settings. Our objective was to examine the current literature to explore possible interventions that would reduce the use of mechanical restraints in the ED.

METHODS

In this scoping review, we searched online databases Embase, MEDLINE and Cochrane CENTRAL for any studies published between the databases from 1 January 2007 to 19 September 2023. Studies were included if interventions were hospital- or staff-focused and reported measured outcomes before and after the introduction of the intervention. Risk of bias was assessed using the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Cohort Studies.

RESULTS

The search strategy yielded 1937 studies across the three databases, of which 13 studies were extracted and included in the review. Interventions were categorised into four groups: provision of staff training, addition of a de-escalation team, creation of a dedicated unit and introduction of an agitation scale only. Most of the studies saw reduction in restraint rates or time in restraints. Only the two studies that used an agitation scale as a stand-alone intervention saw no significant reduction. Only one study had low risk of bias, whereas the remainder had high risk.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence supports further exploration of interventions that include: designing an agitation guideline; training staff in assessment, attitudinal and de-escalation skills; addition of a crisis team; and environmental changes in the form of adding a dedicated clinical space. Although these strategies may reduce mechanical restraint in the ED setting, further high-quality studies are needed before definitive conclusions may be drawn.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the use of restraint and seclusion interventions in Ontario emergency departments: A population-based study

While COVID-19 impacted all aspects of health care and patient treatment, particularly for patients with mental health/substance use (MH/SU) concerns, research has suggested a concerning increase in the use of restraint and seclusion (R/S) interventions, although results vary depending on facility type and patient population. Thus, the present study sought to explore COVID-related changes in the use of R/S interventions among patients presenting to Ontario emergency departments (EDs) with MH/SU complaints. To determine whether temporal and clinical factors were associated with changes in R/S use during COVID, binary logistic regression models were computed using data from the National Ambulatory Care Reporting System database. We then compared both prevalence rates and probability of an R/S event occurring during an ED visit in Ontario before and after the onset of COVID. The number of ED visits during which an R/S event occurred for patients presenting with MH/SU concerns increased by 9.5%, while their odds of an R/S event occurring during an ED visit increased by 23% in Ontario after COVID onset. Similarly, R/S event probability increased for patients presenting with MH/SU concerns after COVID onset (0.7% - 21.3% increase), particularly during the first wave, with the greatest increases observed for concerns associated with increased restraint risk pre-COVID. R/S intervention use increased substantially for patients presenting to Ontario EDs with MH/SU concerns during the first wave of COVID when the strain on healthcare system and uncertainty about the virus was arguably greatest. Patients with concerns already associated with increased R/S risk also showed the largest increases in R/S probability, suggesting increased behavioural issues during treatment among this population after COVID onset. These results have the potential to inform existing policies to mitigate risks associated with R/S intervention use during future public health emergencies and in general practice.

Mechanical Restraint in Inpatient Psychiatric Unit: Prevalence and Associated Clinical Variables

Background and Objectives: mechanical restraint (MR) is a controversial issue in emergency psychiatry and should be better studied to implement other alternative therapeutic interventions. The aim of this study was to estimate the prevalence of MR in an Italian psychiatric unit and identify the sociodemographic and clinical characteristics as well as the pharmacological pattern associated with MR. Materials and Methods: all subjects (N = 799) consecutively admitted to an Italian psychiatric inpatient unit were recruited. Several sociodemographic and clinical characteristics were recorded. Results: The prevalence of MR was 14.1%. Males, a younger age, and a single and migrant status were associated with the MR phenomenon. MR was more prevalent in patients affected by other diagnoses and comorbid illicit substance use, in patients with aggressive behaviors, and those that were involuntary admitted, leading significantly to hospitalization over 21 days. Furthermore, the patients that underwent MR were taking a lower number of psychiatric medications. Conclusions: Unfortunately, MR is still used in emergency psychiatry. Future research should focus on the dynamics of MR development in psychiatry, specifically considering ward- and staff-related factors that could help identify a more precise prevention and alternative intervention strategies.

Predictors of the use of restraint in inpatient psychiatric care among patients admitted via the emergency department

BACKGROUND

Coercive measures are associated with negative consequences for both patients and hospital staff. The aim of the study was to identify predictors for the use of restraints in the emergency department and in subsequent inpatient care.

METHOD

Retrospective routine clinical data of all patients admitted to the psychiatric departments of Vivantes Klinikum Am Urban in Berlin via the emergency department in 2019 was examined case-wise (n = 2584) as well as patient-wise (n = 2118).

RESULTS

Of all cases admitted via the emergency department, 195 cases (7.5%) experienced restraints and restraints combined with drug sedation during their inpatient treatment. Of the 2584 cases admitted via the emergency department, 195 cases (7.5%) experienced restraints and restraints combined with drug sedation during their inpatient treatment. These 195 cases experienced a total of 358 restraints and were distributed across 159 individuals. Multivariate regression analyses on patient-level show that age (p < .001), judicial placement (p < .001), and police referral in the presence of others (p < .001) had a statistically significant effect on the use of restraint.

DISCUSSION

The results indicate that certain patient characteristics increase the risk of restraints. A majority of the findings of this study underline previous research findings. However, ICD-10 diagnosis and gender do not prove to be significant variables, contrary to expectations based on previous.

Relationship between nurses' use of verbal de-escalation and mechanical restraint in acute inpatient mental health care: a retrospective study

Although the use of verbal de-escalation in nursing has been shown to be an effective tool for controlling agitation and avoiding mechanical restraint, there is scarce evidence supporting the use of de-escalation by nurses and factors related to the patients who ultimately receive mechanical restraint. This retrospective study sought to examine the relationship between the use of verbal de-escalation by nurses and the clinical profile of patients who had received mechanical restraint at an acute mental health unit. This study analysed the records of patients who had received mechanical restraint between the years 2012 and 2019. A bivariate analysis was initially performed, followed by multiple logistic regression analysis. A total of 493 episodes of restraint were recorded. Of these, in almost 40% of cases, no prior use of verbal de-escalation was noted. The factors associated with the use of verbal de-escalation by nurses were patients with a history of restraint episodes and patients who previously had been administered medication. Furthermore, episodes of mechanical restraint that occurred later during the admission were also associated with the use of de-escalation. These findings confirm the relevance of early nurse interventions. Consequently, it is important to establish an adequate therapeutic relationship from the start of hospitalization to facilitate getting to know the patient and to enable the timely use of verbal de-escalation, thus avoiding the use of mechanical restraint.