Influence of nursing staff characteristics on seclusion in acute mental health care-A prospective two-year follow-up study

Identifying predictors of adverse outcomes after termination of seclusion in psychiatric intensive care units

BACKGROUND

Seclusion is a restrictive practice that many healthcare services are trying to reduce. Previous studies have sought to identify predictors of seclusion initiation, but few have investigated factors associated with adverse outcomes after seclusion termination.

AIMS

To assess the factors that predict an adverse outcome within 24 h of seclusion termination.

METHOD

In a cohort study of individuals secluded in psychiatric intensive care units, we investigated factors associated with any of the following outcomes: actual violence, attempted violence, or reinitiation of seclusion within 24 h of seclusion termination. Among the seclusion episodes that were initiated between 29 March 2018 and 4 March 2019, we investigated the exposures of medication cooperation, seclusion duration, termination out of working hours, involvement of medical staff in the final seclusion review, lack of insight, and agitation or irritability. In a mixed-effects logistic regression model, associations between each exposure and the outcome were calculated. Odds ratios were calculated unadjusted and adjusted for demographic and clinical variables.

RESULTS

We identified 254 seclusion episodes from 122 individuals (40 female, 82 male), of which 106 (41.7%) had an adverse outcome within 24 h of seclusion termination. Agitation or irritability was associated with an adverse outcome, odds ratio 1.92 (95% CI 1.03 to 3.56, P = 0.04), but there was no statistically significant association with any of the other exposures, although confidence intervals were broad.

CONCLUSIONS

Agitation or irritability in the hours preceding termination of seclusion may predict an adverse outcome. The study was not powered to detect other potentially clinically significant factors.

Analysis of England's incident and mental health nursing workforce data 2015-2022

WHAT IS KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT?: Mental health services report adverse incidents in different ways and the relationship between adverse incidents and the workforce is uncertain. In England, there are national datasets recording all incidents and workforce statistics though there is no peer-reviewed evidence examining recent trends. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS TO EXISTING KNOWLEDGE?: Although there has been an overall increase in the number of mental health nurses, more are working in the community and the number of nurses relative to adverse incidents has decreased. There have been service-provision changes but the role of mental health nurses has not significantly changed in this period, and we can therefore assume that their current practice is saturated with risk or increased reporting. To help understand the relationship between nurses and incidents, we need to transform how incidents are recorded in England. WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE?: English mental health services report greater levels of patient-related factors such as self-harm or aggression rather than missed or erroneous care. This makes it difficult to understand if a rise in incident frequency is linked to reporting behaviour, patient risk, unsafe/ineffective care or other reasons and therefore planning workforce deployment to improve care quality is problematic.

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: There is a paucity of empirical data examining incidents and mental health nurses and the relationship between the two remains uncertain.

AIM

Comparison of English national data for incidents and nursing workforce to examine recent trends.

METHOD

Descriptive analysis of two national datasets of incidents and workforce data for England between 2015 and 2022.

RESULTS

A 46% increase in incidents was found; the leading causes are self-harm and aggressive behaviour. Despite the rise in adverse incident reporting, a 6% increase in mental health nurses was found, with more nurses in community settings than hospitals.

DISCUSSION

Current services are incident reporting at greater concentrations than in previous years. Patient-related behaviour continues to be most prominently reported, rather than possible antecedent health services issues that may contribute to reporting. Whilst staffing has increased, this does not seem to have kept pace with the implied workload evident in the increase in incident reports.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Greater emphasis should be placed on health service behaviour in reporting mechanisms. Self-harm and aggression should continue to be considered adverse outcomes, but causal health service factors, such as missed care, should be present in pooled reporting to help reduce the occurrence of adverse outcomes.