Factors influencing decisions on seclusion and restraint

Seclusion with or without restraint is a measure for managing aggressive or agitated clients and promoting site security, particularly in an emergency psychiatric setting. The decision to control a potentially dangerous person's behaviour by removal or seclusion seems ethically justifiable in such a setting. However, although the decisions on these restrictive measures are based on rational needs, they are also influenced by the healthcare team's perceptions of the client and by the characteristics of the team and the environment. The purpose of this paper is to set out and categorize the factors in play in aggression- and agitation-management situations as perceived by the healthcare teams, particularly the nurses. The first part of the paper deals briefly with the settings in which control measures are applied in a province in eastern Canada and the effect of such measures on patients and healthcare teams. The second part identifies the factors involved in the management of agitation and aggression behaviour. The final part discusses the current spin-offs from this knowledge as well as promising paths for further research on the factors involved. The ultimate objective is to reduce recourse to coercive measures and enhance professional practices.     

Perceptions of nurses working with psychiatric consumers regarding the elimination of seclusion and restraint in psychiatric inpatient settings and emergency departments: An Australian survey

Seclusion and restraint continue to be used across psychiatric inpatient and emergency settings, despite calls for elimination and demonstrated efficacy of reduction initiatives. This study investigated nurses’ perceptions regarding reducing and eliminating the use of these containment methods with psychiatric consumers. Nurses (n = 512) across Australia completed an online survey examining their views on the possibility of elimination of seclusion, physical restraint, and mechanical restraint as well as perceptions of these practices and factors influencing their use. Nurses reported working in units where physical restraint, seclusion, and, to a lesser extent, mechanical restraint were used. These were viewed as necessary last resort methods to maintain staff and consumer safety, and nurses tended to disagree that containment methods could be eliminated from practice. Seclusion was considered significantly more favourably than mechanical restraint with the elimination of mechanical restraint seen as more of a possibility than seclusion or physical restraint. Respondents accepted that use of these methods was deleterious to relationships with consumers. They also felt that containment use was a function of a lack of resources. Factors perceived to reduce the likelihood of seclusion/restraint included empathy and rapport between staff and consumers and utilizing trauma‐informed care principles. Nurses were faced with threatening situations and felt only moderately safe at work, but believed they were able to use their clinical skills to maintain safety. The study suggests that initiatives at multiple levels are needed to help nurses to maintain safety and move towards realizing directives to reduce and, where possible, eliminate restraint use.     

Prolonged use of seclusion and mechanical restraint in mental health services: A statewide retrospective cohort study

Seclusion and mechanical restraint are restrictive interventions that should be used only as a last resort and for the shortest possible time, yet little is known about duration of use in the broader context. Adult area mental health services throughout Victoria, Australia, were asked to complete a report form for prolonged episodes of seclusion (>8 hours) and mechanical restraint (>1 hour). The present, retrospective cohort study aimed to understand the individual (age, sex, type of service, duration of intervention) and contextual factors associated with prolonged use of restrictive interventions. Contextual factors describing the reasons for prolonged use of the restrictive interventions were captured qualitatively, and then coded using content analysis. Median duration was compared across individual factors using Mann–Whitney U‐tests. During 2014, 690 episodes of prolonged restrictive intervention involving 311 consumers were reported. Close to half (n = 320, 46%) involved mechanical restraint. Seclusion episodes (n = 370) were longer in forensic mental health services compared to adult area mental health services (median: 24 hours and 18 min vs 16 hours and 42 min, P < 0.001). Mechanical restraint episodes (n = 320) were shorter in forensic mental health services compared to adult area mental health services (median: 3 hours and 25 min vs 4 hours and 15 min, P = 0.008). Some consumers were subject to multiple episodes of prolonged seclusion (55/206, 27%) and/or prolonged mechanical restraint (31/131, 24%). The most commonly occurring contextual factor for prolonged restrictive interventions was ‘risk of harm to others’. Means for reducing the use of prolonged restrictive interventions are discussed in light of the findings.     

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.     

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.

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.     

Psychiatric nursing staffs’ attitudes towards the use of containment methods in psychiatric inpatient care: An integrative review

One of the international objectives in psychiatric care is reducing the use of coercion. Containment methods are meant to keep patients safe, yet usually include coercion. Nurses play a key role in deciding whether or not containment should be used and, as such, their attitudes towards containment can significantly impact the extent to which these methods are applied. The aim of this integrative review was to identify, analyse, and synthesize the available research on psychiatric nursing staffs’ attitudes towards containment methods in inpatient psychiatric care. An electronic search was conducted using the CINAHL, Scopus, and PsycINFO databases. In addition, the citations of identified studies were screened for relevant research. A total of 24 relevant papers published between 2002 and 2017 were selected for further analysis. These studies revealed variation in nursing staffs’ attitudes towards the use of containment methods. The use of containment methods seems to be widely accepted and nurses reported rarely considering alternative measures. It appears that attitudes towards containment have continuously become more negative, although the change has not been very pronounced. The concept of attitude was only defined in two studies. Thus, future research should strive to clarify this concept, as a generally accepted definition for attitude within nursing research and the utilization of all dimensions of this concept are both essential to the nursing field. Currently, it would be important to focus on changing attitudes among psychiatric nursing staff to reduce the use of containment methods; this calls for more research on nursing staffs’ attitudes.     

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.