De-escalation of aggressive behaviour in healthcare settings:concept analysis

BACKGROUND: De-escalation is the recommended first-line response to potential violence and aggression in healthcare settings. Related scholarly activity has increased exponentially since the 1980s, but there is scant research about its efficacy and no guidance on what constitutes the gold standard for practice.OBJECTIVES: To clarify the concept of de-escalation of violence and aggression as described within the healthcare literature.DESIGN: Concept analysis guided by Rodgers' evolutionary approach.DATA SOURCES: Multiple nursing and healthcare databases were searched using relevant terms.REVIEW METHODS: High quality and/or highly cited, or otherwise relevant published empirical or theoretical English language literature was included. Information about surrogate terms, antecedents, attributes, consequences, and the temporal, environmental, disciplinary, and theoretical contexts of use were extracted and synthesised. Information about the specific attributes of de-escalation were subject to thematic analysis. Proposed theories or models of de-escalation were assessed against quality criteria.RESULTS: N=79 studies were included. Mental health settings were the most commonly reported environment in which de-escalation occurs, and nursing the disciplinary group most commonly discussed. Five theories of de-escalation were proposed; while each was adequate in some respects, all lacked empirical support. Based on our analysis the resulting theoretical definition of de-escalation in healthcare is "a collective term for a range of interwoven staff-delivered components comprising communication, self-regulation, assessment, actions, and safety maintenance which aims to extinguish or reduce patient aggression/agitation irrespective of its cause, and improve staff-patient relationships while eliminating or minimising coercion or restriction".CONCLUSIONS: While a number of theoretical models have been proposed, the lack of advances made in developing a robust evidence-base for the efficacy of de-escalation is striking and must, at least in part, be credited to the lack of a clear conceptualisation of the term. This concept analysis provides a framework for researchers to identify the theoretical model that they purport to use, the antecedents that their de-escalation intervention is targeting, its key attributes, and the key negative and positive consequences that are to be avoided or encouraged.</p

Care planning for aggression management in a specialist secure mental health service:user involvement

This paper describes an audit of prevention and management of violence and aggression care plans and incident reporting forms which aimed to: (i) report the compliance rate of completion of care plans; (ii) identify the extent to which patients contribute to and agree with their care plan; (iii) describe de-escalation methods documented in care plans; and (iv) ascertain the extent to which the de-escalation methods described in the care plan are recorded as having been attempted in the event of an incident. Care plans and incident report forms were examined for all patients in men's and women's mental health care pathways who were involved in aggressive incidents between May and October 2012. In total, 539 incidents were examined, involving 147 patients and 121 care plans. There was no care plan in place at the time of 151 incidents giving a compliance rate of 72%. It was documented that 40% of patients had contributed to their care plans. Thematic analysis of de-escalation methods documented in the care plans revealed five de-escalation themes: staff interventions, interactions, space/quiet, activities and patient strategies/skills. A sixth category, coercive strategies, was also documented. Evidence of adherence to de-escalation elements of the care plan was documented in 58% of incidents. The reasons for the low compliance rate and very low documentation of patient involvement need further investigation. The inclusion of coercive strategies within de-escalation documentation suggests that some staff fundamentally misunderstand de-escalation

Antipsychotic dose escalation as a trigger for Neuroleptic Malignant Syndrome (NMS): literature review and case series report

Background: “Neuroleptic malignant syndrome” (NMS) is a potentially fatal idiosyncratic reaction to any medication which affects the central dopaminergic system. Between 0.5% and 1% of patients exposed to antipsychotics develop the condition. Mortality rates may be as high as 55% and many risk factors have been reported. Although rapid escalation of antipsychotic dose is thought to be an important risk factor, to date it has not been the focus of a published case series or scientifically defined. &lt;p/&gt;Aims: To identify cases of NMS and review risk factors for its development with a particular focus on rapid dose escalation in the 30 days prior to onset. &lt;p/&gt;Methodology: A review of the literature on rapid dose escalation was undertaken and a pragmatic definition of “rapid dose escalation” was made. NMS cases were defined using DSM-IV criteria and systematically identified within a secondary care mental health service. A ratio of titration rate was calculated for each NMS patient and “rapid escalators” and “non rapid escalators” were compared. &lt;p/&gt;Results: 13 cases of NMS were identified. A progressive mean dose increase 15 days prior to the confirmed episode of NMS was observed (241.7mg/day during days 1-15 to 346.9mg/day during days 16-30) and the mean ratio of dose escalation for NMS patients was 1.4. Rapid dose escalation was seen in 5/13 cases and non rapid escalators had markedly higher daily cumulative antipsychotic dose compared to rapid escalators. &lt;p/&gt;Conclusions: Rapid dose escalation occurred in less than half of this case series (n=5, 38.5%), although there is currently no consensus on the precise definition of rapid dose escalation. Cumulative antipsychotic dose – alongside other known risk factors - may also be important in the development of NMS

Writing an Escalation Contract Using the Consumer Price Index

[Excerpt] Each year thousands of people write contracts with escalation clauses that are tied to the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Escalation contracts call for an increase in some type of payment in the event of an increase in prices. These contracts are used in a wide variety of ways, from adjusting rent prices to adding cost-of-living adjustments to alimony payments and wage contracts. Unfortunately, many escalation contracts tied to the CPI are vague. For example, a contract may stipulate that “the Consumer Price Index (CPI) be used to escalate an apartment rent, but the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) publishes thousands of CPIs each month, so a more carefully worded contract could minimize ambiguity and the likelihood of future disputes. This issue of BEYOND THE NUMBERS can help those who use the CPI to write escalation clauses to create a more comprehensive contract

Tariff Escalation and Invasive Species Damages

We investigate the interface between trade and invasive species (IS) risk, focusing on the existing tariff escalation in agro-forestry product markets and its implication for IS risk. Tariff escalation in processed agro-forestry products exacerbates the risk of IS by biasing trade flows toward increased trade of primary commodity flows and against processed-product trade. We show that reducing tariff escalation by lowering the tariff on processed goods increases allocative efficiency and reduces the IS externality, a win-win situation. We also identify policy menus for trade reforms involving tariffs on both raw input and processed goods, leading to win-win situations.agro-forestry products; exotic pest; international trade; invasive species; tariff escalation; trade flows

Cost Escalation in Nuclear Power

This report is concerned with the escalation of capital costs of nuclear central station power plants between the early 1960s and the present. The report presents an historical overview of the development of the nuclear power industry and cost escalation in the industry, using existing data on orders and capital costs. New data are presented on regulatory delays in the licensing process, derived from a concurrent study being carried on in the Social Science group at Caltech. The conclusions of the study are that nuclear capital costs have escalated more rapidly than the GNP deflator or the construction industry price index. Prior to 1970, cost increases are related to bottleneck problems in the nuclear construction and supplying industries and the regulatory process; intervenors play only a minor role in cost escalation. After 1970, generic changes introduced into the licensing process by intervenors (including environmental impact reviews, antitrust reviews, more stringent safety standards) dominate the cost escalation picture, with bottlenecks of secondary importance. Recent increases in the time from application for a construction permit to commercial operation are related not only to intervenor actions, but also to suspensions, cancellations or postponements of construction by utilities due to unfavorable demand or financing conditions

Escalation Bargaining: Theoretical Analysis and Experimental Test

The standard chicken game is a popular model of certain important real scenarios but does not allow for the escalation behaviour these are typically associated with. This is problematic if the critical, final decisions in these scenarios are sensitive to previous escalation. We introduce and analyse, theoretically and by experiment, a new game which permits escalation behaviour. Compared with an equivalent chicken game, Pareto-suboptimal outcomes are significantly more frequent. This result is inconsistent with our rational choice analysis and possible psychological roots are explored.escalation; brinkmanship; chicken game; experiments

Effect of Oral Semaglutide Compared With Placebo and Subcutaneous Semaglutide on Glycemic Control in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists are effective therapies for the treatment of type 2 diabetes and are all currently available as an injection. Objectives: To compare the effects of oral semaglutide with placebo (primary) and open-label subcutaneous semaglutide (secondary) on glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes. Design, Setting, and Patients: Phase 2, randomized, parallel-group, dosage-finding, 26-week trial with 5-week follow-up at 100 sites (hospital clinics, general practices, and clinical research centers) in 14 countries conducted between December 2013 and December 2014. Of 1106 participants assessed, 632 with type 2 diabetes and insufficient glycemic control using diet and exercise alone or a stable dose of metformin were randomized. Randomization was stratified by metformin use. Interventions: Once-daily oral semaglutide of 2.5 mg (n = 70), 5 mg (n = 70), 10 mg (n = 70), 20 mg (n = 70), 40-mg 4-week dose escalation (standard escalation; n = 71), 40-mg 8-week dose escalation (slow escalation; n = 70), 40-mg 2-week dose escalation (fast escalation, n = 70), oral placebo (n = 71; double-blind) or once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide of 1.0 mg (n = 70) for 26 weeks. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was change in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) from baseline to week 26. Secondary end points included change from baseline in body weight and adverse events. Results: Baseline characteristics were comparable across treatment groups. Of the 632 randomized patients (mean age, 57.1 years [SD, 10.6]; men, 395 (62.7%); diabetes duration, 6.3 years [SD, 5.2]; body weight, 92.3 kg [SD, 16.8]; BMI, 31.7 [SD, 4.3]), 583 (92%) completed the trial. Mean change in HbA1c level from baseline to week 26 decreased with oral semaglutide (dosage-dependent range, -0.7% to -1.9%) and subcutaneous semaglutide (-1.9%) and placebo (-0.3%); oral semaglutide reductions were significant vs placebo (dosage-dependent estimated treatment difference [ETD] range for oral semaglutide vs placebo, -0.4% to -1.6%; P = .01 for 2.5 mg, Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with type 2 diabetes, oral semaglutide resulted in better glycemic control than placebo over 26 weeks. These findings support phase 3 studies to assess longer-term and clinical outcomes, as well as safety. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01923181