Decreasing the use of restraint and seclusion among psychiatric inpatients

OBJECTIVE: We describe a hospital-wide effort to decrease restraint and seclusion of psychiatric inpatients. Our hypotheses were that interventions could reduce the number of patients as well as patient hours in restraint and seclusion, without an increase in adverse outcomes (fights/assaults, staff injuries, and elopements). METHOD: This study was performed at an urban academic psychiatric hospital (New York State Psychiatric Institute) with 3 inpatient units totaling 58 beds. Interventions included 1) decreasing initial time in restraint or seclusion from 4 to 2 hours before a new order was required; 2) education of staff concerning identification of patients at risk of restraint or seclusion and early interventions to avoid crises; and 3) use of a coping questionnaire to assess patient preferences for dealing with agitation. Data were assessed 20 months before and 67 months following the implementation of these interventions. RESULTS: The mean number of patients restrained went from 0.35 +/- 0.6 to 0.32 +/- 0.5 patients/month; mean hours of restraint decreased from 1.7 +/- 5.2 to 1.0 +/- 2.4 hours/month. The mean number of patients secluded decreased significantly from 3.1 +/- 1.4 to 1.0 +/- 1.1 patients/month. The mean hours of seclusion decreased markedly, from 41.6 +/- 52 to 2.7 +/- 4.5 hours/month. Adverse outcomes (elopements and fights/assaults) also decreased significantly over the follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions were successful in decreasing use of restraint and seclusion on both clinical and research units over more than 5 years of follow-up. Such interventions may be adapted to other settings.     

Variations in seclusion and restraint practices by hospital location

Data from a survey of seclusion and restraint practices in New York state hospitals were analyzed to determine if they differed by hospital location. The study included 19 hospitals--five in New York City, four in New York City suburbs, three in large towns, and seven in small towns. Overall, New York City and large-town hospitals had the highest rates of seclusion and restraint, but analysis by age group showed that New York City had the lowest rate for patients under age 35, who constituted the majority of patients who were secluded or restrained, and large towns had the highest rate. Compared with suburban and small-town hospitals, city and large-town hospitals used seclusion more often than restraint and had a higher ward census and a lower-staff patient ratio. In all groups males and blacks were overrepresented compared with the hospital population. The authors believe clarification of regional variations in assaultive behavior is important for treatment and system planning.     

Use of seclusion and restraint in public psychiatric hospitals: patient characteristics and facility effects

Use of seclusion and restraint in 23 adult public psychiatric hospitals in New York State was examined by comparing demographic and diagnostic characteristics of 657 patients who were secluded or restrained during a four-week period with characteristics of 22,939 patients who were not. Logit analysis was used to calculate the probability of seclusion and restraint of individual patients with various combinations of characteristics. Characteristics associated with high probabilities included age less than 26 years, length of stay from 30 to 365 days, involuntary legal status, female gender, a diagnosis of mental retardation, and residence in a hospital with a high rate of seclusion and restraint. The rate of seclusion and restrain in the 23 hospitals ranged from .4 to 9.4 percent of patients. Both patient characteristics and the hospital of residence were needed to explain the case-by-case probability of a patient's being secluded or restrained.     

Reducing Restraints: Alternatives to Restraints on an Inpatient Psychiatric Service—Utilizing Safe and Effective Methods to Evaluate and Treat the Violent Patient

This paper describes the violence safety program instituted at Elmhurst Hospital Center in Queens, New York City in 2001, which significantly reduced the use of restraints and seclusion department wide, while providing a safe and therapeutic environment for patient recovery. The hospital service and program instituted is described, followed by restraint and seclusion data since 1998, and the programs results through 2003. Concurrent data in areas that could be affected by a reduction in restraint and seclusion such as self-injurious behaviors and altercations; use of emergency medication; use of special observation and length of stay data are also presented. In addition, types and frequency of alternative methods utilized to avoid restraints and seclusion are described.     

The use of restraint and seclusion in different racial groups in an inpatient forensic setting

The purpose of this study was to determine if physical restraint and/or seclusion had been used with different frequencies in patients of different racial groups in an inpatient forensic psychiatry facility. The method used was a retrospective correlational study of all inpatients (n = 806) treated from January 1993 through August 2000 at Kirby Forensic Psychiatric Center, a maximum-security inpatient forensic facility in Ward's Island, NY, near New York City. Episodes of restraint and/or seclusion were measured in each racial group. The number of violent incidents involving patients of each racial group was also measured. Racial groups at Kirby did not differ significantly from each other in number of violent incidents nor in the number of episodes of restraints. However, Asians and blacks as racial groups were more likely to have been secluded than were other racial groups. This difference did not persist when the number of incidents of seclusion was considered individually rather than for entire racial groups.     

Two-year trends in the use of seclusion and restraint among psychiatrically hospitalized youths

OBJECTIVES: This study examined characteristics associated with the use of seclusion and restraint among 442 psychiatrically hospitalized youths and sought to quantify changing trends in the rates of these modalities of treatment over time after the 1999 implementation of federal regulations and an institutional performance improvement program. METHODS: Demographic and clinical data related to all 5,929 incidents of seclusion and restraint that occurred during 2000 and 2001 at a child and adolescent state psychiatric hospital were analyzed. RESULTS: The two-year prevalence of use of seclusion was 61 percent and of restraint was 49 percent. Children and adolescents who were admitted on an emergency basis and those belonging to ethnic minority groups were more likely to undergo seclusion or restraint. Children aged 11 years and younger were more likely to undergo seclusion. The total number of episodes decreased by 26 percent and their cumulative duration decreased by 38 percent between the first quarter of 2000 and the last quarter of 2001. The decreases were the result of fewer seclusion and restraint incidents as well as shorter episodes of restraint. Over time, a concurrent increase was observed in the proportion of episodes associated with patient (but not staff) injuries and with as-needed use of medications. CONCLUSIONS: National reforms and institutional efforts can lead to downward trends in the use of seclusion and restraint among psychiatrically hospitalized youths. The active elements of these interventions warrant further study and replication.     

Re-Designing State Mental Health Policy to Prevent the Use of Seclusion and Restraint

The members of the National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors (NASMHPD) believe that seclusion and restraint, including “chemical restraints," are safety interventions of last resort and are not treatment interventions. Seclusion and restraint should never be used for the purposes of discipline, coercion, or staff convenience, or as a replacement for adequate levels of staff or active treatment. The use of seclusion and restraint creates significant risks for people with psychiatric disabilities. These risks include serious injury or death, retraumatization of people who have a history of trauma, and loss of dignity and other psychological harm. In light of these potential serious consequences, seclusion and restraint should be used only when there exists an imminent risk of danger to the individual or others and no other safe and effective intervention is possible. (Endorsed by the State Mental Health Directors, July 13, 1999). (NASMHPD 1999, NASMHPD Position Statement on Seclusion and Restraint. Alexandria, VA: National Technical Assistance Center for State Mental Health Planning.)The views expressed in this article are those of the author only, and do not necessarily represent the views of the author's employer.     

The management of HIV infection in state psychiatric hospitals

Patients with AIDS and related illnesses are entering state mental hospitals in increasing numbers. State hospitals in New York City generally did not plan for patients infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) until the first patient appeared; however, over the past five years, approaches to managing these patients have evolved in the areas of admission policies, in-hospital care, and discharge planning. Strengthening infection control procedures through the adoption of universal precautions was the most straightforward aspect of in-hospital care. Testing for HIV and confidentiality of the test results proved most controversial. Clinical leaders urged that testing be done only with pre- and posttest counseling and only if the patient has symptoms of HIV infection, has requested the test, or has exposed others to infection. The authors describe these and other policies addressing medical care, restraint and seclusion, sexual behavior, and education and training.     

Seclusion use with children and adolescents: an Australian experience

OBJECTIVE: To summarize the current state of knowledge on the use of seclusion and restraint with children and adolescents and to report the findings of an exploratory study to identify factors that place a child or adolescent at increased risk of seclusion during their admission. METHOD: Literature searches were undertaken on MEDLINE, CINAHL and PsycINFO databases. Articles were identified that focused specifically on seclusion and restraint use with children and adolescents or contained material significant to this population. The study reports findings from a retrospective review of patient charts, seclusion registers and staffing from an Australian acute inpatient facility. RESULTS: The data available in regard to seclusion use in this population is limited and flawed. Further research is needed on the use and outcomes of seclusion and restraint and on alternative measures in the containment of dangerousness. Both the literature and this study find that patients with certain factors are at increased risk of being secluded during an inpatient stay. These factors include being male, diagnoses of disruptive behaviour disorder and a previous history of physical abuse. Staffing factors did not show a relationship to the use of seclusion. CONCLUSIONS: There are patient factors that predict increased risk of seclusion; these factors and their interrelationships require further elucidation. Further research is also needed on the outcomes, both positive and negative, of seclusion use and of alternatives to seclusion.     

An analysis of successful efforts to reduce the use of seclusion and restraint at a public psychiatric hospital

OBJECTIVE: The author reviews and evaluates a variety of interventions that were considered to have contributed to the successful reduction of reliance on the use of seclusion and restraint in a public psychiatric hospital for adult patients with severe and persistent psychiatric impairments. METHODS: A multiple regression analysis was applied to monthly seclusion and restraint data covering the period from 1997 to 2002. The independent variables were each of the component efforts to reduce reliance on seclusion and restraint at the hospital: changes in the criteria for administrative review of incidents of seclusion and restraint, changes in the composition of the case review committee, development of a behavioral consultation team, enhancement of standards for behavioral assessments and plans, and improvements in the staff-patient ratio. RESULTS: The use of seclusion and restraint was 75 percent lower during the final year of the five-year study period than it was during the first year. The only variable that was significantly associated with reduction in the use of seclusion and restraint was changes in the process for identifying critical cases and initiating a clinical and administrative case review. CONCLUSION: The results of this analysis underscore the importance of clinical and administrative priorities in efforts to reduce the use of seclusion and restraint in public psychiatric hospitals.     

Prevalence and Precursors of the use of Restraint and Seclusion in a Private Psychiatric Hospital: Comparison of Child and Adolescent Patients

The use of restraint and seclusion is highly regulated in psychiatric inpatient settings. However, the majority of studies of restraint and seclusion are based on public hospitals serving adult patients, with some limited data available on adolescents and children. This paper presents prospectively collected data on restraint and seclusion over a 2-year period at a private psychiatric hospital whose patients include large numbers of both adolescents and pre-adolescent children. 2 years of restraint and seclusion data were analyzed on a total of 2,411 unique patients. Types of seclusion included in-room seclusion on the treatment unit and off-unit seclusion in a separate seclusion annex. Restraints consisted solely of short term (<15 min) and longer term (>14 min) manual restraints. The use of IM medication was also recorded. The precipitants of these events were examined. These included physical and verbal threats, stabbing or throwing objects, attempts to elope, attempts to hurt one’s self or another, or property destruction. Out of 2,411 child and adolescent in-patients admitted during the period under review, only 703 (29%) experienced restraint or seclusion. Among these, the modal number of events per patient was one (n = 156), but the maximum number of occurrences was 163. Child patients had a much higher frequency of events (n = 396, 53%) than adolescents (n = 307, 19%). There were notable differences in the types of seclusion events, with children typically experiencing in-room seclusion on the unit. When age was examined as a continuous variable, younger patients had a higher prevalence of restraint and seclusion, significantly more restraint and seclusion, and these restraint and seclusion events were significantly shorter than those seen in older patients. Multiple other potential determinants of these events were examined, including diagnosis, symptom severity at admission, age, and gender, but none of these predicted these events. Restraint and seclusion events were more common for children and less so for adolescents, with robust age effects for the likelihood of any seclusions, the number of seclusions and restraints, and the duration of seclusions and restraints. Patients who experienced restraint or seclusion typically required it only once during their hospitalization. Only age was found to be a predictor of the restraint and seclusion variables. Given these findings, it appears that management of agitated behavior in children and adolescents may be a qualitatively different phenomenon. Future research should be directed at understanding the determinants of high frequency agitated behavior and developing alternatives to seclusion or restraint.     

A 15-year national follow-up: legislation is not enough to reduce the use of seclusion and restraint

BACKGROUND: Seclusion and restraint are frequent but controversial coercive measures used in psychiatric treatment. Legislative efforts have started to emerge to control the use of these measures in many countries. In the present study, the nationwide trends in the use of seclusion and restraint were investigated in Finland over a 15-year span which was characterised by legislative changes aiming to clarify and restrict the use of these measures. METHOD: The data were collected during a predetermined week in 1990, 1991, 1994, 1998 and 2004, using a structured postal survey of Finnish psychiatric hospitals. The numbers of inpatients during the study weeks were obtained from the National Hospital Discharge Register. RESULTS: The total number of the secluded and restrained patients declined as did the number of all inpatients during the study weeks, but the risk of being secluded or restrained remained the same over time when compared to the first study year. The duration of the restraint incidents did not change, but the duration of seclusion increased. A regional variation was found in the use of coercive measures. CONCLUSION: Legislative changes solely cannot reduce the use of seclusion and restraint or change the prevailing treatment cultures connected with these measures. The use of seclusion and restraint should be vigilantly monitored and ethical questions should be under continuous scrutiny.     

Staff's attitudes to the use of restraint and seclusion in a Norwegian university psychiatric hospital

A questionnaire-based study examining the experiences and attitudes of staff to restraint and seclusion in a Norwegian university psychiatric hospital demonstrated that a majority of staff believed the interventions were used correctly. Staff at wards with high usage of restraint and seclusion, and male staff, were most critical to how often the interventions were used. Most staff favoured the use of physical restraint, although they believed it was the intervention patients were least favourable to. Highly educated staff were not more critical to the use of restraint and seclusion than other staff. Despite the fact that a majority of staff believed that using restraint and seclusion made patients calmer and did not cause aggression, anxiety or injuries, about 70% had been assaulted by patients in connection with the interventions. Many staff believed the use of restraint and seclusion violated patients' integrity, could harm the provider-patient alliance and could frighten other patients. Violence, self-harm and threats were given as main reasons for the use of restraint. Increased staffing and more attention by level-of-care staff were cited as the most important strategies for reducing the use of restraint and seclusion. There is a need for informing all staff about the negative effects of restraint and seclusion and for training staff in less restrictive ways in dealing with aggressive and violent patients.     

Congresses

A questionnaire-based study examining the experiences and attitudes of staff to restraint and seclusion in a Norwegian university psychiatric hospital demonstrated that a majority of staff believed the interventions were used correctly. Staff at wards with high usage of restraint and seclusion, and male staff, were most critical to how often the interventions were used. Most staff favoured the use of physical restraint, although they believed it was the intervention patients were least favourable to. Highly educated staff were not more critical to the use of restraint and seclusion than other staff. Despite the fact that a majority of staff believed that using restraint and seclusion made patients calmer and did not cause aggression, anxiety or injuries, about 70% had been assaulted by patients in connection with the interventions. Many staff believed the use of restraint and seclusion violated patients’ integrity, could harm the provider–patient alliance and could frighten other patients. Violence, self-harm and threats were given as main reasons for the use of restraint. Increased staffing and more attention by level-of-care staff were cited as the most important strategies for reducing the use of restraint and seclusion. There is a need for informing all staff about the negative effects of restraint and seclusion and for training staff in less restrictive ways in dealing with aggressive and violent patients.     

The review of seclusion and restraint in psychiatric practice]

In order to create the least restrictive setting in psychiatric practice, we investigated the effects of an assessment by a committee on seclusion and restraint. Using consistent procedures, the committees, which were established in 9 hospitals, reviewed seclusion and restraint maintained for periods of over 2 weeks during a 4-month period. Frequency and duration of seclusion and restraint, staff perceptions of and attitudes to the review system, and patient satisfaction were evaluated before and after the study period. As a result of this review process, the frequency of seclusion decreased slightly in 7 hospitals and 1 of the remaining 2 hospitals showed an increased frequency of seclusion days that were partially interrupted. Frequency of restraint decreased slightly in 5 hospitals, and of the remaining 3, 1 interrupted all periods of restraint, while the other 2 institutions showed an increase in interruption of restraint periods. As there were no common patients in 2 specialist psychiatric emergency hospitals between before and after the study periods, statistical analyses were performed. Only minor variables such as duration of partially interrupted periods of restraint, and duration of periods of restraint that were partially released showed a statistically significant increase. Although patient satisfaction showed a significant increase, staff attitudes to and perceptions of the review system became appreciably more negative. These findings suggest that although the review system had the potential to slightly reduce the use of seclusion and restraint, and to increase patient satisfaction, staff burnout was risked because staff effort was perceived to be disproportionately high in relation to the effect achieved. Furthermore, the possibility remains that the slight decrease of seclusion and restraint demonstrated did not necessarily reflect the appropriate use of these strategies, and were not necessarily lasting effects. However, as differences in opinion existed between the review system committee and treating clinicians regarding continuation of long term seclusion and restraint, the review system could have a role in monitoring the long term use of seclusion and restraint. Further investigation is needed into the long term effectiveness of procedures reviewing the use of seclusion and restraint in the psychiatric setting, taking into account both positive and negative outcomes.     

Child and adolescent inpatient restraint reduction: a state initiative to promote strength-based care

OBJECTIVE: To reduce the use of restraint and seclusion with children and adolescents in psychiatric inpatient units by promoting a preventive, strength-based model of care. METHOD: The State Mental Health Authority used data analysis, quality improvement strategies, regulatory oversight, and technical assistance to develop and implement system change over a 22-month period. No changes in regulation or policy were undertaken. RESULTS: Comparative data collected before and after the interventions demonstrated substantial reductions in the use of restraint and seclusion. Child units (age 5-12) decreased from 84.03 to 22.78 episodes per 1,000 patient days (72.9%), adolescent units from 72.22 to 37.99 episodes (47.4%), and mixed child/adolescent units from 73.37 to 30.08 episodes (59%). CONCLUSIONS: The use of restraint and seclusion in child and adolescent inpatient settings can be reduced through a systems approach, which may have applicability to other settings and systems.     

Regulatory change: a pathway to eliminating seclusion and restraint or "regulatory scotoma"?

Historical and current experience indicates that regulatory changes in seclusion and restraint practice are often spurred by patient abuse but can ultimately enhance protection for consumers, prevent use of seclusion and restraint, and help transform care so it becomes recovery oriented. Reports of deaths related to restraint and seclusion fueled recent national regulatory changes and a federal agenda to eliminate their use. Some states, many facilities, and the federal initiative have focused on seclusion and restraint prevention and alternatives and have made important strides in reducing and eliminating these practices. However, new national regulations lessen previous oversight requirements, heighten risk, and threaten gains in reducing and eliminating such practices. Courageous, knowledgeable leadership is needed to challenge these minimum-practice thresholds and prevent seclusion and restraint "regulatory scotoma."     

The use of coercive measures in adolescent psychiatric inpatient treatment: a nation-wide register study

Purpose

To evaluate the extent and trends in the use of seclusion/restraint in psychiatric inpatient treatment of adolescents aged 12–17?years in Finland.

Methods

The National Hospital Discharge Register data comprising all psychiatric inpatient treatment periods of 12- to 17?year-olds in Finland during the period 1996–2003 was used. Time trends, regional variation and patient characteristics related to the risk of being subjected to seclusion/restraint in psychiatric inpatient treatment are reported.

Results

The average prevalence of use of seclusion and restraint was 1.71/10,000/year over the study period. Use of seclusion/restraint in adolescent psychiatric inpatient care first increased, peaking in 1999–2001, and then decreased. The decrease occurred after stricter legislative control of use of seclusion/restraint was introduced in 2002, despite that involuntary treatment periods did not decrease. Considerable regional variation was seen in the use of seclusion/restraint. A greater proportion of girls than boys were secluded/restrained. Seclusion/restraint was most common in schizophrenia, mood disorders and conduct disorder.

Conclusions

Legislative control had the desired immediate impact on the use of seclusion/restraint in adolescent psychiatric inpatient care. Legislative control is, however, not strong enough to ensure homogenous practices across the country, as there is many-fold regional variation in figures for using seclusion and restraint.     

Seclusion and restraint and prediction of violence

The authors studied the use of seclusion and restraint on an inpatient unit in a state psychiatric hospital. Of 69 randomly selected inpatients, 51% experienced seclusion or restraint at least once. More psychotic than nonpsychotic patients required seclusion or restraint. However, neither psychosis/nonpsychosis nor voluntary/involuntary admission status predicted the likelihood of violent threats or actions. Patients experiencing seclusion and restraint showed a nonsignificant trend toward longer mean length of stay in the hospital. The frequency of patient behavior leading to seclusion or restraint appeared to be directly related to the stimulation caused by the presence of many staff members and other patients.     

Restraint and seclusion in psychiatric inpatient wards

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Despite the controversy over the use of seclusion and restraint, these measures are commonly used to treat and manage disruptive and violent behaviour. This review summarizes recent research on the use of seclusion and restraint, and measures taken to reduce their use. RECENT FINDINGS: Lately, prominent international recommendations have aimed to restrict the use of seclusion and restraint, and reminded that they should only be used in exceptional cases, where there are no other means of remedying the situation and under the supervision of a doctor. The use of seclusion and restraint has remained prevalent, but there are serveral innovative programmes that have succeeded in controlling and reducing their use. Staff attitudes about seclusion and restraint have changed little in the last few years. SUMMARY: There is a need for novel methods to treat violence and the threat of violence on psychiatric wards. Violence is a complex phenomenon that needs to be met with a multiprofessional approach. Customer involvement in this work is required. The assessment of the effectiveness of programmes aiming to minimizing seclusion and restraint has been hampered by the lack of parallel control groups and there is a need for cluster-randomized trials. When studying these interventions, the safety of staff and patients should be included as on outcome measure.