Staff perspectives on the effects of seclusion in adolescent psychiatric inpatient care

Nurses are at the forefront of seclusion in adolescent psychiatric units. Understanding nurses and other staff perspectives on the effects of seclusion is critical in the ongoing effort to minimize and eliminate seclusion. The aim of this study was to gain a better understanding of staff attitudes, experiences, and beliefs about the effects of seclusion on both themselves and patients. Thirty-one staff members (including 20 nurses) completed the Attitudes to Seclusion Survey and 24 participated in semi-structured interviews to explore their beliefs and experiences of seclusion use in adolescent psychiatric inpatient care. Analysis of the questionnaire showed overwhelming agreement in the negative impacts of seclusion on patients, while there was uncertainty around the positive impacts of seclusion. Using a combination of the intuitive approach and thematic analysis, five themes were identified from interviews with staff, three unique to nurses: (i) staff were reluctant to use seclusion but felt it was necessary, (ii) nurses felt under-resourcing led to increased chances of seclusion, (iii) staff believed seclusion negatively impacted the patients, (iv) nurses felt their relationships with patients were negatively impacted, and (v) seclusion also had a negative effect on nurses. Clinical recommendations included a systematic and structured approach to debriefing to repair ruptures in the therapeutic relationship; staffing to be based on the acuity of the unit rather than occupancy; alternatives to seclusion that meet the needs of service providers and consumers. Future research should compare staff and patient perspectives, include multiple sites, and greater participation of non-nursing staff.     

Seclusion and Restraint: What We Need to Know

Seclusion and restraint are controversial, restrictive interventions employed by psychiatric nurses in response to patient violence. While these interventions are used widely, relatively little is known about them. There is little support in the literature for the efficacy of seclusion and restraint. Although it seems impractical to suggest that seclusion and restraint be eliminated, many questions about these processes are unanswered. Nurses are in an ideal position to conduct studies related to patients' behavior and the use of seclusion and restraint. This article presents a review of the literature related to seclusion and restraint and suggests areas for future research.     

Nurses' and consumers' shared experiences of seclusion and restraint: A qualitative literature review

Seclusion and restraint are coercive practices associated with physical and psychological harm. International bodies have called for an end to these practices. However, these practices continue to be used. Elimination programmes have had some success in reducing the rates of these practices. Understanding coercive practices through the perspectives of involved individuals may facilitate a complete cessation of seclusion and restraint from the practice. Therefore, this qualitative review explored how nurses and consumers experienced seclusion and restraint events in mental health care. Five databases were searched. The search strategy resulted in the inclusion of fourteen qualitative papers. A thematic analysis was used to synthesize the findings. Six themes emerged under three main categories; shared experiences: disruption in care, disruption in the therapeutic relationship and shared negative impacts; nurses’ experiences: Absence of less coercive alternatives; and consumers’ experiences: overpowered, humiliated and punished. Considering these experiences during planning for seclusion and restraint prevention might facilitate more effective implementation of seclusion and restraint elimination programmes. Our findings suggested that consumers should receive recovery‐oriented, trauma‐informed and consumer‐centred care; while nurses should be better supported through personal, professional and organizational developmental strategies. Further research should focus on investigating shared interventions among consumers and nurses and exploring carers’ experiences with coercive practices.     

Preliminary outcomes of a trial to reduce conflict and containment on acute psychiatric wards: City Nurses

Acute psychiatric wards experience high levels of conflict behaviours (violence, absconding, self-harm, rule breaking and medication refusal) by patients. These events cause stress and injury to staff and patients. Their management through containment methods (e.g. sedation, restraint, seclusion) is contentious, and nurses are ambivalent about their use. The aim of this study was to reduce conflict and containment on two acute psychiatric wards through changes in nurses' beliefs, attitudes and practices. Two 'City Nurses' were employed to work with two acute wards for 1 year, assisting with the implementation of changes according to a working model of conflict and containment generation, itself based on previous research. Evaluation was via before-and-after measures. Statistically and clinically significant decreases in conflict occurred, with falls in aggression, absconding and self-harm. Ward atmosphere improved and nurse-patient interaction rates increased. There was no significant change in containment method use. Significant reductions in aggression, absconding and self-harm can be achieved on acute psychiatric wards. However, it does not appear that containment can be reduced, even through large reductions in conflict.     

Nurses' judgments regarding seclusion and restraint of psychiatric patients: a social judgment analysis.

Clinical judgment of psychiatric nurses was investigated using judgment analysis within the framework of social judgment theory. Nine nurses at a short-term psychiatric care facility made recommendations concerning restraint and seclusion for 80 patients described on paper in terms of 17 characteristics (cues). Nurses generally favored close observation of patients over seclusion and restraint, and information about current behavior and functioning had more impact on nurses' judgments than did patient history. Nurses had good insight into the nature of their own judgments. However, individual differences in cue utilization and inconsistency in strategy usage led to disagreement among nurses about specific recommendations for particular patients. No one patient received identical recommendations from all nurses, and nurses agreed with each other on specific recommendations only about a third of the time. The lack of agreement has implications for development of staff training programs and further research on the clinical judgment processes of nurses.     

Using interventions to reduce seclusion and mechanical restraint use in adult psychiatric units: an integrative review

The aim of this integrative review was to describe interventions aimed at reducing seclusion and mechanical restraint use in adult psychiatric inpatient units and their possible outcomes. CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Medic databases were searched for studies published between 2008 and 2017. Based on electronic and manual searches, 28 studies were included, and quality appraisal was carried out. Data were analysed using inductive content analysis. Interventions to proactively address seclusion were environmental interventions, staff training, treatment planning, use of information and risk assessment. Interventions to respond to seclusion risk were patient involvement, family involvement, meaningful activities, sensory modulation and interventions to manage patient agitation. Interventions to proactively address mechanical restraint were mechanical restraint regulations, a therapeutic atmosphere, staff training, treatment planning and review of mechanical restraint risks. Interventions to respond to mechanical restraint risks included patient involvement, therapeutic activities, sensory modulation and interventions to manage agitation. Outcomes related to both seclusion and mechanical restraint reduction interventions were varied, with several interventions resulting in both reduced and unchanged or increased use. Outcomes were also reported for combinations of several interventions in the form of reduction programmes for both seclusion and mechanical restraint. Much of the research focused on implementing several interventions simultaneously, making it difficult to distinguish outcomes. Further research is suggested on the effectiveness of interventions and the contexts they are implemented in.     

Seclusion reduction in a forensic mental health setting

Seclusion has become a contentious practice and initiatives have commenced to reduce or eliminate its use. This paper presents the initiatives that were introduced during a seclusion reduction project that was undertaken at an Australian forensic hospital. These initiatives are based on the six core strategies that have been successfully used in North America to reduce seclusion. However, there are challenges (patient characteristics, prisoner culture and ensuring safety) and opportunities (longer admissions, higher staff-patient ratio, staff confidence, sound risk assessment and management) that can influence projects to reduce seclusion in a forensic hospital. During this project, the frequency (mainly multiple seclusions of patients) and duration of seclusion events were reduced but there was less reduction in the number of patients that were secluded. It is possible that the strategies were successfully supported by the identified opportunities to reduce the frequency and duration of seclusion but the challenges were significantly powerful in the early period of admission to prompt the need for seclusion. Reducing seclusion in a forensic hospital is a complex undertaking as nurses must provide a safe environment while dealing with volatile patients and may have little alternative at present but to use seclusion after exhausting other interventions.     

Prevalence and correlates of seclusion with or without restraint in a Canadian psychiatric hospital: a 2-year retrospective audit

Seclusion with or without restraint is a measure used to manage patients with challenging behaviours. Although controversial, the intervention remains poorly documented, especially in Canadian psychiatric hospitals. The purpose of this study is to assess the prevalence of the measure and identify any correlated demographic characteristics and psychiatric disorders. Episodes of seclusion with or without restraint were extracted from a computerized, hospital-based system introduced specifically to track such interventions. Of 2721 patients hospitalized during that time, 23.2% (n = 632) were secluded with or without restraint, and 17.5% (n = 476) were secluded with restraint. Younger age, schizophrenia or other psychosis, bipolar and personality disorder, and longer stay in hospital are predictors of an episode of seclusion with or without restraint. Younger age, bipolar and personality disorders and a longer stay in hospital are predictors of an episode of seclusion with restraint. For patients who spent longer in seclusion and under restraint, there is a positive association with longer stay in hospital. In this inpatient psychiatric facility, seclusion with or without restraint thus appears to be common. More research is warranted to better identify the principal factors associated with seclusion and restraint and help reduce resort to these measures.     

Physical and mechanical restraint in psychiatric units: Perceptions and experiences of nursing staff

Background

Physical restraint in psychiatric units is a common practice but extremely controversial and poorly evaluated by methodologically appropriate investigations. The cultural issues and professionals' perceptions and attitudes are substantial contributors to the frequency of restraint that tend to be elevated.AimIn this qualitative study, we aimed to understand the experiences and perceptions of nursing staff regarding physical restraint in psychiatric units.

An investigation into nurses' perceptions of secluding patients on closed psychiatric wards

Seclusion continues to be used in the care of acutely disturbed psychiatric patients despite often emotionally charged debate about its appropriateness within mental health services Powerful legal and moral arguments about the use of seclusion emphasize an urgent need to critically examine its role in the care of mentally ill people This paper examines the use of seclusion on closed psychiatric wards in the management of acutely disturbed patients Seven psychiatric nurses working in two closed wards in an Australian teaching hospital were interviewed in relation to their perceptions of the role of seclusion Data were analysed using grounded theory methodology revealing the core conceptual category 'controlling' and two sub-categories 'watching out for' and 'watching over' Seclusion was found to be used as an adjunctive treatment in the care of individuals considered to be 'out of control' Clinicians expressed comfort with the use of seclusion, citing a strict protocol that provided parameters for its use Whilst expert therapeutic interventions were described by clinicians, they are contextuahzed within a framework of power and control—a framework that stands in stark contrast to contemporary philosophies of nursing care, providing impetus for a reconsideration of the use of constraining practices in the care of mentally ill people     

The restraint chair: A qualitative study of nurses' experience with the restraint chair versus four point restraint

Restraint and seclusion continues to be a challenging topic in psychiatric nursing care. While there is a movement toward reduction and elimination of restraint, emergency situations still arise that require intervention for the safety of patients and staff. In addition to traditional methods of restraint (physical holds, four-point restraint, seclusion), the restraint chair has been introduced at some hospitals as an alternative to four-point restraint. The restraint chair allows the patient to be upright in a seated position during the restraint process. Little research on the restraint chair currently exists. The purpose of this study was to examine the nurses' experience with the restraint chair compared to four-point restraint. Results indicate nurses feel the restraint chair is easier to use, more humane, less traumatic, comforting, and enhances the therapeutic relationship compared to four-point restraint. Based on the reports of nurses in this study and prior quantitative work on the restraint chair (Castillo, Coyne, Chan, Hall, & Vilke, 2011; Visaggio et al., 2018), the restraint chair appears to be a safe and effective alternative to traditional four-point restraint. More research verifying these results at other hospitals in the United States and abroad is warranted.     

Medicate,restrain or seclude? Strategies for dealing with violent and threatening behaviour in a Norwegian university psychiatric hospital

The aim of this study was to examine staff strategies for applying emergency procedures with patients who were violent or threatening. The study addressed those situations where verbal intervention, voluntary medication, and other interventions had been tried unsuccessfully and where staff found it necessary to apply emergency procedures in the shape of forced emergency medication (pharmacological restraint), physical restraint, and seclusion. The study was conducted in a 100-bed Norwegian university psychiatric hospital. By retrospectively examining hospital records we found there were 797 episodes of physical restraint, 384 episodes of pharmacological restraint, and 88 episodes of seclusion during a five and a half year period. The preferred emergency procedures varied significantly with patients' sex, age, and diagnoses. Physical restraint was preferred more often with male, younger, and nonpsychotic patients. Pharmacological restraint was preferred more often with female patients and older patients with a nonorganic psychotic disorder. Seclusion was preferred more often with older male patients with an organic psychotic disorder.     

Nurses' attitudes to the use of seclusion: A review of the literature

Seclusion is now widely recognized as a coercive strategy with negative consequences for the consumers and staff involved. Nevertheless, this intervention continues to be used frequently in mental health services internationally. Due to their direct care role, nurses are commonly involved in the initiation or management of seclusion. Understanding nurses' attitudes to seclusion is therefore essential for the success of any attempts to reduce its use. A review of the literature was conducted using the search terms ‘patient’, ‘seclusion’, ‘attitudes’, ‘nurses’ and ‘containment’. Twenty‐eight articles which met the inclusion criteria were identified. Analysis of these articles identified six main themes: a necessary intervention; workplace culture; staff composition and experience; conflict; ethical considerations; and consumer characteristics. An overview of the literature is presented according to these main themes. The research suggests that most nurses support the continued use of seclusion as a strategy for the management of violence and aggression. A deeper understanding of the factors that influence attitudes is necessary if seclusion rates are to be effectively reduced.     

Staff training decreases use of seclusion and restraint in an acute psychiatric hospital

Rates of seclusion and restraint in an urban psychiatric hospital were compared during the 12-month periods before and after implementing the recommendations of a multidisciplinary quality improvement work-group convened to reduce the hospital's use of physical containment. Interventions included a mandatory staff training session on the management of assaultive behavior, weekly discussion items during team meetings for each local ward, and hospital-wide publicity charting the ongoing progress of the effort. Total annual rates of restraint dropped 13.8%. The average duration of restraint per admission decreased 54.6%. Staff injuries were reduced by 18.8% during the study period.     

Staff attitudes and perceptions towards the use of coercive measures in psychiatric patients

The failure of efforts to significantly reduce the use of physical coercive measures (PCMs) in psychiatric hospitals remains a global concern. There is a gap in the understanding of staff's characteristics that may affect their attitudes and perceptions towards PCMs. This study used a cross-sectional design to examine the attitudes and perceptions of staff working at a mental health centre in Israel regarding the use of PCMs and to explore whether staff attitudes differed depending on their professional and demographic background. This study also sought to explore staff willingness to accept a policy of reducing the use of PCMs. The data were collected from 149 staff members (nurses, physicians, and auxiliary staff) working at mental health centre, using a questionnaire developed for this study. The findings indicate a low degree of support for use of PCMs among participants who were older, female, more qualified psychiatric nurses, with longer duration of employment, and those who have not participated in coercive intervention in the past year. The majority of the sample reported a low willingness to reduce the use of PCMs, and a lack of institutional support after participating in a coercive event. High hospital occupancy and insufficient staffing were perceived as contributing factors to coercive incidents. Therefore, availability of trained and experienced staff, elimination of organizational barriers, along with creating and maintaining a safe clinical environment should be a priority. Alternative non-coercive interventions should further be taught and used for managing aggressive and violent behaviour in the psychiatric clinical settings.     

International variation in containment measures for disturbed psychiatric inpatients: a comparative questionnaire survey

BACKGROUND: Disturbed psychiatric inpatients are managed using a range of containment measures (e.g. seclusion, mechanical restraint) whose use differs by country. Little is known about why these differences exist, or about how staff choose between the different methods available to them. AIMS: To compare psychiatric professionals attitudes to containment measures between countries with different practices, and to discover what factors have the greatest impact on preparedness to use a containment method. METHOD: Surveys of psychiatric professionals in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Finland, and Australia, using the Attitude to Containment Measures Questionnaire. RESULTS: Relative approval of different containment measures broadly matched what we know about different practices, with some notable differences. Staff in Finland expressed the highest level of approval of containment, staff in the UK the least, with those in the Netherlands in between. Individuals' preferences for different containment measures were largely determined by whether they considered it (i) safe for the patients undergoing it, (ii) prevented them from injuring others, and (iii) quickly calmed them. CONCLUSION: Future evaluation research on containment measures should use time taken to calm the patient, injury to patients and others, as primary outcomes. National clinical audit and injury reporting systems would also enable the identification of methods that are truly physically injurious to patients, aiding in the rational selection of appropriate containment measures.     

Fear and blame in mental health nurses’ accounts of restrictive practices: Implications for the elimination of seclusion and restraint

Restrictive practices continue to be used in mental health care despite increasing recognition of their harms and an international effort to reduce and ultimately eliminate their use. The aim of this qualitative study was to explore mental health nurses’ views of the potential elimination of these practices. Nine focus groups were conducted with 44 mental health nurses across Australia, and the data analysed using thematic analysis. Overall, the nurses expressed significant fear about the potential elimination of restrictive practices and saw themselves as being blamed for both the use of these practices and the consequences should they be eliminated. Findings detail the conflicts facing staff in balancing the need for ward safety for everyone present while at the same time providing person‐centred care. Nurses described the changing role of the mental health nurse in acute settings, being more focussed on risk assessment and medication while at the same time attempting to practise in trauma‐informed person‐centred ways. The impact on ward safety with increasing acuity of consumers plus the presence of forensic consumers and those affected by methamphetamine was emphasized. Change initiatives need to take into account nurses’ deep concerns about the consequences of eliminating all forms of control measures in hospitals and respond to the symptoms and behaviours consumers present with and associated unpredictable and concerning behaviours. Attempts to eliminate restrictive practices should, therefore, be carefully considered and come with a clear articulation of alternatives to ensure the safety of consumers, visitors, and staff.