A Humane ED Seclusion/Restraint: Legal Requirements, a New Policy, Procedure, “Psychiatric Advocate” Role

A Retrospective Study of Seclusion in an Emergency Department

Objectives

To study the practice of seclusion in an emergency department (ED) and to explore high-risk elements during seclusion.

Methods

The study consisted of two parts: an in-depth analysis on all incidents associated with seclusion in a six-year period (1998–2004) and a two-year (2002–2004) retrospective analysis of secluded patient records to understand the rationale and patient outcome.

Results

Part 1: A total of 9 incident records were collected. Four patients were related to setting fire. Five patients had violence or threat of violence. The median length of stay (LOS) in seclusion at the time of incident was 129 minutes. Although 66.7% of the patients had additional restraint prior to the seclusion, incidents still occurred. Two staff sustained injuries and hospital facilities were damaged in some of the incidents. Six patients were later admitted to psychiatric hospital. Part 2: 141 patient data were collected in the study (M: 89 and F: 52). The average monthly number of patients secluded was about 6. The mean age was 45 years (SD 19) and the mean LOS was 616 minutes (SD 478). There were three incidences (2.1%) during the two-year period. A total of 82 patients (58.2%) were associated with violence or threat of violence and 38 (46.3%) of the group had psychiatric illness; and 50 patients (35.5%) were associated with alcohol or drug intoxication. Ultimately, 56 patients (39.7%) were admitted to psychiatric hospital and 64 patients (45.4%) were treated and discharged from the ED.

Conclusion

Seclusion is a high-risk practice. In our department, the most frequent indication was violence (58.2%), with nearly half of them having history of psychiatric illness. Psychiatric illness had the highest risk for incidents, especially those with violence or threat of violence. The LOS in seclusion was relatively long in the ED and might be one of the risk factors for incidents. Inadequate removal of potentially dangerous belongings from patients before seclusion may end up with catastrophic outcomes. Curiously, ED nurses are not allowed to search patients before seclusion. They are exposed to legal liability in exercising restraint and in searching for potentially dangerous items from patients. It is suggested that clear protocols and quality assurance programs should be instituted to ensure safe seclusion.

Disordered lives: Life circumstances and clinical characteristics of very frequent users of emergency departments for primary mental health complaints

This study explored the life circumstances and clinical characteristics of very frequent users of emergency departments (EDs) presenting with a primary mental health complaint. Patients with 10 or more EDs visits in 2012 with a primary psychiatric diagnosis in a Canadian regional health authority were identified from electronic administrative files. The hospital charts for these patients were thoroughly reviewed for a three-year period, from 2011 to 2013. A retrospective thematic analysis was undertaken. Very frequent users of EDs were generally young to early middle aged, unemployed, living in transient accommodations, having substance abuse diagnoses, and self-referred to EDs for a variety of psychiatric and health symptoms and/or unmet needs. Four themes were identified: 1) substance abuse and associated health and social problems; 2) common mental disorders, which may include suicidality; 3) social and personal stressors with additional common mental disorders and somatic complaints; 4) cognitive impairment with concurrent psychiatric disorders. Traditional mental health services are ineffective in dealing with patients with complex psychiatric and social problems/needs. Efforts should focus on early detection, intervention, reducing mental and behavior problems, and developing appropriate case management and treatment options. Personalized care models are needed to meet their diverse needs.

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.