Multinational Experiences in Reducing and Preventing the Use of Restraint and Seclusion

Restraint and seclusion (R/S) have been used in many countries and across service sectors for centuries. With the recent and increasing recognition of the harm associated with these procedures, efforts have been made to reduce and prevent R/S. Following a scathing media exposé in 1998 and congressional scrutiny, the United States began a national effort to reduce and prevent R/S use. With federal impetus and funding, an evidence-based practice, the Six Core Strategies1 to Prevent Conflict, Violence and the Use of Seclusion and Restraint, was developed. This model was widely and successfully implemented in a number of U.S. states and is being adopted by other countries, including Finland, Australia, and the United Kingdom. Recently, the first cluster randomized controlled study of the Six Core Strategies in Finland provided the first evidence-based data of the safety and effectiveness of a coercion prevention methodology. Preliminary findings of some of the international efforts are discussed. Reduction in R/S use and other positive outcomes are also reported

Staff experiences and understandings of the REsTRAIN Yourself initiative to minimise the use of physical restraint on mental health wards

International efforts to minimize coercive practices include the US Six Core Strategies© (6CS). This innovative approach has limited evidence of its effectiveness, with few robustly designed studies, and has not been formally implemented or evaluated in the UK. An adapted version of the 6CS, which we called ‘REsTRAIN Yourself’ (RY), was devised to suit the UK context and evaluated using mixed methods. RY aimed to reduce the use of physical restraint in mental health inpatient ward settings through training and practice development with whole teams, directly in the ward settings where change is to be implemented and barriers to change overcome. In this paper we present qualitative findings that report on staff perspectives on the impact and value of RY following its implementation. Thirty-six staff participated in semi-structured interviews with data subject to thematic analysis. Eight themes are reported that highlight perceived improvements in every domain of the 6CS after RY had been introduced. Staff reported more positively on their relationships with service users and felt their attitudes towards the use of coercive practices such as restraint were changed; the service as a whole shifted in terms of restraint awareness and reduction; and new policies, procedures and language were introduced despite certain barriers. These findings need to be appreciated in a context wherein substantial reductions in the use of physical restraint was proven possible, largely due to building upon empathic and relational alternatives. However, yet more could be achieved with greater resourcing of inpatient care

Use of a Sensory Room on an Intensive Care Unit

In recent years there has been an increasing use of sensory rooms in psychiatric settings internationally, with suggestions that sensory rooms can reduce seclusion rates. In this study, we explore the use of a sensory room on an Intensive Care Unit (ICU) (known as a Psychiatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU) in the UK), with a particular focus on the impact on seclusion rates and staff and patients’ experiences of using the sensory room. A mixed method research design was used, with the collection of seclusion data before and after a sensory room was introduced followed by qualitative interviews with staff and patients. There was no significant reduction of seclusion rates with the introduction of the seclusion room. However, the interviews revealed a perception among staff that there had been a reduction in seclusion rates. Other findings from the interviews were that staff and patients viewed the sensory room as a positive therapeutic intervention and that using the sensory room had improved staff-patient communication and patients’ overall experience of the ICU. In conclusion, the use of a sensory room improved both staff and patients’ experience of the ICU and should be an intervention considered by other ICUs and inpatient psychiatric settings

Patients’ Preference and Experiences of Forced Medication and Seclusion

This study examined patients’ preferences for coercive methods and the extent to which patients’ choices were determined by previous experience, demographic, clinical and intervention-setting variables. Before discharge from closed psychiatric units, 161 adult patients completed a questionnaire. The association between patients’ preferences and the underlying variables was analyzed using logistic regression. We found that patients’ preferences were mainly defined by earlier experiences: patients without coercive experiences or who had had experienced seclusion and forced medication, favoured forced medication. Those who had been secluded preferred seclusion in future emergencies, but only if they approved its duration. This suggests that seclusion, if it does not last too long, does not have to be abandoned from psychiatric practices. In an emergency, however, most patients prefer to be medicated. Our findings show that patients’ preferences cannot guide the establishment of international uniform methods for managing violent behaviour. Therefore patients’ individual choices should be considered

An integrative review exploring decision-making factors influencing mental health nurses in the use of restraint

Introduction: While mechanical and manual restraint as an institutional method of control within mental health settings may be perceived to seem necessary at times, there is emergent literature highlighting the potential counter-therapeutic impact of this practice for patients as well as staff. Nurses are the professional group who are most likely to use mechanical and manual restraint methods within mental health settings. In-depth insights to understand what factors influence nurses’ decision-making related to restraint use are therefore warranted. Aim: To explore what influences mental health nurses’ decision-making in the use of restraint. Method: An integrative review using Cooper’s framework was undertaken. Results: Eight emerging themes were identified: ‘safety for all’, ‘restraint as a necessary intervention’, ‘restraint as a last resort’, ‘role conflict’, ‘maintaining control’, ‘staff composition’, ‘knowledge and perception of patient behaviours’, and ‘psychological impact’. These themes highlight how mental health nurses’ decision-making is influenced by ethical and safety responsibilities, as well as, interpersonal and staff-related factors. Conclusion: Research to further understand the experience and actualization of ‘last resort’ in the use of restraint and to provide strategies to prevent restraint use in mental health settings are needed

An integrative review exploring the physical and psychological harm inherent in using restraint in mental health inpatient settings

In Western society, policy and legislation seeks to minimize restrictive interventions, including physical restraint; yet research suggests the use of such practices continues to raise concerns. Whilst international agreement has sought to define physical restraint, diversity in the way in which countries use restraint remains disparate. Research to date has reported on statistics regarding restraint, how and why it is used, and staff and service user perspectives about its use. However, there is limited evidence directly exploring the physical and psychological harm restraint may cause to people being cared for within mental health inpatient settings. This study reports on an integrative review of the literature exploring available evidence regarding the physical and psychological impact of restraint. The review included both experimental and nonexperimental research papers, using Cooper's (1998) five-stage approach to synthesize the findings. Eight themes emerged: Trauma/retraumatization; Distress; Fear; Feeling ignored; Control; Power; Calm; and Dehumanizing conditions. In conclusion, whilst further research is required regarding the physical and psychological implications of physical restraint in mental health settings, mental health nurses are in a prime position to use their skills and knowledge to address the issues identified to eradicate the use of restraint and better meet the needs of those experiencing mental illness