Deaths associated with restraint use in health and social care in the UK. The results of a preliminary survey

Staff training in physical interventions: a literature review

Background

Restrictive practices are used frequently by frontline staff in a variety of care contexts, including psychiatric hospitals, children's services, and support services for older adults and individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Physical restraint has been associated with emotional harm, physical injury to staff and consumers, and has even resulted in death of individuals in care environments. Various interventions have been implemented within care settings with the intention of reducing instances of restraint. One of the most common interventions is staff training that includes some physical intervention skills to support staff to manage crisis situations. Despite physical intervention training being used widely in care services, there is little evidence to support the effectiveness and application of physical interventions. This review will examine the literature regarding outcomes of staff training in physical interventions across care sectors.

Method

A systematic search was conducted following PRISMA guidelines using Cochrane Database, Medline EBSCO, Medline OVID, PsychINFO, and the Web of Science. Main search keywords were staff training, physical intervention, physical restraint. The MMAT was utilised to provide an analytical framework for the included studies.

Results and discussion

Seventeen articles have been included in this literature review. The included studies take place in a range of care settings and comprise a wide range of outcomes and designs. The training programmes examined vary widely in their duration, course content, teaching methods, and extent to which physical skills are taught. Studies were of relatively poor quality. Many descriptions of training programmes did not clearly operationalise the knowledge and skills taught to staff. As such, it is difficult to compare course content across the studies. Few papers described physical interventions in sufficient detail. This review demonstrates that, although staff training is a 'first response' to managing health and safety in care settings, there is very little evidence to suggest that staff training in physical intervention skills leads to meaningful outcomes.

'Stakeholders are almost always resistant': Australian behaviour support practitioners' perceptions of the barriers and enablers to reducing restrictive practices

A restrictive practice (RP) is defined as a practice or intervention that has the effect of restricting the rights or freedom of movement of a person, and includes physical, mechanical, and chemical restraint, and seclusion. If misused or overused, RPs may present serious human rights infringements. In Australia, behaviour support practitioners who deliver behaviour support funded by the National Disability Insurance Scheme are responsible for developing positive behaviour support plans that aim to reduce and eliminate the use of RPs. At present, little is known about the barriers that behaviour support practitioners experience when attempting to reduce and eliminate the use of RPs and, conversely, what helps (or enables) them to reduce and eliminate RPs. To learn more, we conducted an online survey consisting of two open-ended questions with 109 Australian behaviour support practitioners to identify barriers and enablers. We found that fear and reluctance on the part of stakeholders were often barriers to reducing the use of RPs. However, we found that having time, funding, and resources for training, supervision, other implementation activities, care team collaboration, and data-based decision-making helped overcome barriers. We provide specific recommendations for addressing identified barriers for individual behaviour support practitioners, service provider organisations, and government and regulatory agencies.

What are the most common restraint techniques taught by expert practitioners?

WHAT IS KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT?: Physical restraint is used across the NHS in Mental Health, Learning disability and other specialist settings. Physical restraint should be used as a last resort, with least amount of force for the minimum amount of time. There is no national set of skills from which trainers or practitioners choose what might be appropriate for them and the population they care for. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS TO EXISTING KNOWLEDGE?: A national online survey gathered insights from representatives of public and private training services in relation to 20 selected techniques and their perceived risks. The most frequently taught techniques are identified and evident trends were seen among respondents according to their perceived suitability for different population groups. The need to be able to compare and contrast techniques is discussed, and the utility of developing an evaluative framework is outlined. WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE?: In England the restraint training is now being regulated. This survey reveals the variation in the techniques used across groups or settings. The ability to compare techniques and make informed decisions around which techniques to commission, specify or use, could support the aims of the RRN Training Standards (RRN, 2020a) and Towards Safer Services (RRN, 2020b) and in so doing support the goals of safer, less restrictive person-centred practice. Individuals are encouraged to reflect on their practice and think critically about what is a good restraint technique. ABSTRACT: Introduction Despite widespread use of restraint techniques, it is unclear what techniques are taught. Aim To identify the types of techniques commonly taught. Method A national online survey was developed through iteration and stakeholder involvement. Ethical approval was obtained and it was disseminated through the Positive and Safe network, and the Restraint Reduction Network Community of Practice where expert practitioners answered questions relating to 20 randomly selected used physical 'Holds'. Results One hundred seventy-two people completed the survey. The most commonly taught techniques were a Guiding Posture (71%), a Guiding Hold (44%), a Two-Handed Forearm Hold (36%), a Finger, Thumb & Wrist Hold (27%) and a Cupped/Capped Fist Hold (26%). The Guiding Posture (71%), and Guiding Hold were used most commonly across populations. Despite the potential to induce pain, the Finger, Thumb and Wrist Hold was deemed suitable for Adult populations, but not Older Adults, Young Persons and Children. Wrap-Type Holds were seen as unsuitable for all populations. Discussion There is currently high variation in which techniques are taught across different settings. An evaluation framework could be beneficial. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: An evaluation framework could aid training commissioners, providers and practitioner reflect on what constitutes a good restraint technique.

Physical Restraint in the Critical Care Unit: A Narrative Review

Restraint has been used within health care settings for many centuries. Initially physical restraint (PR) was the method of choice, in present times. Within critical care units PR and chemical restraint are used, frequently in tandem. Restraint is not a benign intervention and PR specifically is associated with physical and psychological trauma towards those receiving it. Healthcare staff also suffer psychological consequences. This paper has reviewed the literature (using the terms 'physical restraint'; 'hospital'; 'care home critical care'; 'intensive care' 'attitudes'; 'knowledge' 'use of'; 'healthcare') to investigate the reasons for the use of restraints, its consequences and the attitudes of healthcare professionals' attitudes towards physical restraint currently present in critical care. Restraint use remains common practice in Critical Care Units (for 'patient safety'), initiated outside of institutional protocols, despite evidence questioning its effectiveness and the resulting harm to patients and staff.

A 26-Year Study of Restraint Fatalities Among Children and Adolescents in the United States: A Failure of Organizational Structures and Processes

Background

Physical and mechanical restraints used in treatment, care, education, and corrections programs for children are high-risk interventions primarily due to their adverse physical, emotional, and fatal consequences.

Objective

This study explores the conditions and circumstances of restraint-related fatalities in the United States by asking (1) Who are the children that died due to physical restraint? and (2) How did they die?

Method

The study employs internet search systems to discover and compile information about restraint-related fatalities of children and youth up to 18 years of age from reputable journalism sources, advocacy groups, activists, and governmental and non-governmental agencies. The child cohort from a published study of restraint fatalities in the United States from 1993 to 2003 is combined with restraint fatalities from 2004 to 2018. This study’s scope has expanded to include restraint deaths in community schools, as well as undiscovered restraint deaths from 1993 to 2003 not in the 2006 study.

Results

Seventy-nine restraint-related fatalities occurred over the 26-year period from across a spectrum of children’s out-of-home child welfare, corrections, mental health and disability services. The research provides a data snapshot and examples of how fatalities unfold and their consequences for staff and agencies. Practice recommendations are offered to increase safety and transparency.

Conclusions

The study postulates that restraint fatalities result from a confluence of medical, psychological, and organizational causes; such as cultures prioritizing control, ignoring risk, using dangerous techniques, as well as agencies that lack structures, processes, procedures, and resources to promote learning and to ensure physical and psychological safety.

Antipsychotics in Inpatient Children and Adolescents with Seclusion and Restraint: A Preliminary Exploratory Retrospective Chart Review

Objective: This study is a retrospective review of patients 5-17 years of age experiencing seclusion and/or restraint (S&R) in a pediatric psychiatric inpatient setting and an exploratory analysis of antipsychotic use on S&R duration. We examined whether administration of antipsychotics would possibly decrease the time spent in S&R. Methods: Reports of patients who underwent S&R in an acute care inpatient child and adolescent psychiatric unit from 2012 to 2014 were reviewed. Demographic information related to age, gender, and race as well as information on diagnosis, current medications (including antipsychotics) were obtained. Independent samples t-tests were used to determine whether there were differences in how much time patients spent in S&R based on whether they were administered antipsychotics or not. Odds ratios (ORs) of being administered antipsychotics during S&R were computed for factors such as gender, race, and diagnosis group. Results: Ninety-six patients (68 males, age range 5-17 years) were involved in 232 S&R events that occurred between 2012 and 2014. Results indicate that patients who were administered antipsychotics during S&R still spent significantly more time in S&R compared with those who were given medications other than antipsychotics (e.g., Benadryl) (t = 3.161; p = 0.002) and those who were not administered any medication (t = 3.54; p = 0.001). Binary logistic regression showed that female patients were at more than two times (OR(adjusted) = 2.86; 95% confidence interval = 1.234-6.655) higher risk of being administered antipsychotics while in S&R compared with their male counterparts within this particular sample. Conclusions: The results of our study indicate that, contrary to our hypothesis, antipsychotic administration did not appear to reduce the time spent in S&R compared with groups that were administered medications other than antipsychotics and those that were not administered any medication during S&R. We also found an increased risk of antipsychotic administration in female patients compared with male patients in S&R events, indicating the need for larger studies examining these effects in greater detail.

Use of coercion prevention tools in Finnish psychiatric wards

Inpatient violence is a widespread problem in psychiatric wards and has often serious consequences. Literature indicates that de-escalation techniques are the recommended first-line intervention for managing violence, are widely used to reduce it, and restrictive practices in mental health settings. However, these techniques and models are not used at the optimum frequency and/or important factors are limiting their use and effectiveness. We aimed to determine what kind of de-escalation methods are used to reduce violence and coercion in Finnish psychiatric hospitals. Descriptive qualitative research using semi-structured questionnaires and Framework Analysis was used. The results of the study are reported in quantitative terms. A survey of psychiatric wards (N = 65) in Finland's hospital districts (n = 16) was conducted in the Autumn of 2019 to find out which de-escalation models are used. Finnish psychiatric wards use both the Safewards and Six Core Strategies models to reduce violence and the use of restrictive practices. Half of the hospitals used interventions and strategies from both models. Violence preventive methods are widely used in mental health settings in Finland. These interventions and models cover the organization, leadership, and patient perspectives to improve safety and decrease coercion actions in psychiatric wards.

Patient safety and staff competence in managing challenging behavior based on feedback from former psychiatric patients

PURPOSE

This study aimed to describe the perceptions and lived experiences of former psychiatric patients of their own and/or co-patients' behavior that nursing staff has regarded as challenging and that has resulted in behavior management.

DESIGN AND METHODS

An explorative-descriptive qualitative design with video vignettes, semistructured interviews, and abductive content analysis.

FINDINGS

Many reasons for different kinds of patient behavior that were considered challenging by staff were identified. Delivering care based on patients' needs was identified as core staff competence.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Findings can be utilized when pursuing restraint reduction in psychiatric care by enhancing staff competence.

Staff experiences and understandings of the REsTRAIN Yourself initiative to minimize 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 was to be implemented and barriers to change overcome. In this paper, we present qualitative findings that report on staff perspectives of 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 were proven possible, largely due to building upon empathic and relational alternatives. However, yet more could be achieved with greater resourcing of inpatient care.

Patient perspectives on barriers and enablers to the use and effectiveness of de-escalation techniques for the management of violence and aggression in mental health settings

AIM

Investigate patient perspectives on barriers and enablers to the use and effectiveness of de-escalation techniques for aggression in mental health settings.

BACKGROUND

De-escalation techniques are the recommended first-line intervention for the management of aggression in mental health settings internationally, yet use of higher risk restrictive practices persists. This indicates de-escalation techniques are not used at optimum frequency and/or there are important factors limiting their use and effect.

DESIGN

Descriptive qualitative research using semi-structured interviews and Framework Analysis.

METHODS

Inpatient interviews (N = 26) exploring staff, patient and environmental factors influencing the use and effectiveness of staff de-escalation were conducted mid-2014. Three service user researchers led analysis.

RESULTS

Data were synthesized in three deductive themes relating to staff, patient and environmental influences on the use and effectiveness of de-escalation techniques. The dominant view was that restrictive practices, rather than de-escalation techniques, are used in response to escalating patient behaviour. Under-use of de-escalation techniques was attributed to: lack of staff reflection on culture and practice and a need to retain control/dominance over patients. Ward rules, patient factors and a lack of staff respect for patients diluted their effectiveness. Participants identified a systematic process of de-escalation, rule subversion, reduced social distance and staff authenticity as enablers of effective de-escalation.

CONCLUSION

This study investigated patient perspectives on staff, patient and environmental influences on the use and effectiveness of de-escalation techniques. Our framework of barriers and enablers provides indicators of organizational/behaviour change targets for interventions seeking to reduce violence and restrictive practices through enhanced de-escalation techniques.

Is restraint a 'necessary evil' in mental health care? Mental health inpatients' and staff members' experience of physical restraint

Restraint in mental health care has negative consequences, and guidelines/policies calling for its reduction have emerged internationally. However, there is tension between reducing restraint and maintaining safety. In order to reduce restraint, it is important to gain an understanding of the experience for all involved. The aim of the present study was to improve understanding of the experience of restraint for patients and staff with direct experience and witnesses. Interviews were conducted with 13 patients and 22 staff members from one UK National Health Service trust. The overarching theme, 'is restraint a necessary evil?', contained subthemes fitting into two ideas represented in the quote: 'it never is very nice but…it's a necessary evil'. It 'never is very nice' was demonstrated by the predominantly negative emotional and relational outcomes reported (distress, fear, dehumanizing, negative impact on staff/patient relationships, decreased job satisfaction). However, a common theme from both staff and patients was that, while restraint is 'never very nice', it is a 'necessary evil' when used as a last resort due to safety concerns. Mental health-care providers are under political pressure from national governments to reduce restraint, which is important in terms of reducing its negative outcomes for patients and staff; however, more research is needed into alternatives to restraint, while addressing the safety concerns of all parties. We need to ensure that by reducing or eliminating restraint, mental health wards neither become, nor feel, unsafe to patients or staff.

A quantitative systematic review of the effects of training interventions on enhancing the competence of nursing staff in managing challenging patient behaviour

AIMS

This systematic quantitative review identifies and summarizes the current knowledge and effects of training interventions for managing patients' challenging behaviour.

BACKGROUND

Challenging behaviour is an acknowledged worldwide healthcare problem and its management can have a huge impact on quality of care. Evidence-based training interventions that focus on managing challenging behaviour are needed, but few tools for the systematic evaluation of these interventions are currently offered.

DESIGN

A quantitative systematic review following the 2008 Centre for Reviews and Dissemination guidelines.

DATA SOURCES

CINAHL, Scopus, PsycInfo, PubMed and Cochrane were searched using the same terms for papers published in English from 2005-2015.

REVIEW METHODS

Studies were assessed for quality and risk of bias, according to the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group criteria. A narrative summary was conducted.

RESULTS

We included 17 studies and evaluated 16 training interventions. Interventions were classified into four key themes: disengagements, communication, controlling behavioural symptoms and restrictive measures. Our review showed that interventions were more likely to decrease violent incident rates and increase staff confidence than change staff attitudes or increase knowledge. The elements of competence used to manage challenging behaviour were measured unilaterally. The evidence provided by studies was largely weak.

CONCLUSION

The variety of measurements used in the studies made comparing the effectiveness of the training interventions difficult. An individual's competence to manage challenging behaviour needs to be defined and a comprehensive scale for evaluating competence is also needed. Patient safety should be included in future evaluations.

Knowledge, attitude and practice of intensive care unit nurses about physical restraint

BACKGROUND

Physical restraint is mainly used in intensive care units (ICUs) to prevent delirious or agitated patients from removing tubes and lines connected to them. However, inappropriate use of physical restraint could have many detrimental physical effects on the patient, such as nerve damage, asphyxiation or even death.

AIM

The aim of the study is to investigate nurses' knowledge, attitude and practice of physical restraint in ICUs in Jordanian hospitals, about which little is known.

DESIGN

A descriptive and cross-sectional design was used.

METHODS

A convenience sample of 400 nurses working in three public hospitals and one university-affiliated hospital from different geographical regions in Jordan was selected. An Arabic version of the Physical Restraint Questionnaire (PRQ) was used to collect the data.

RESULTS

A total of 300 completed questionnaires were returned, with a response rate of 75%. Of the total sample, 51% were males, 65.7% were from public hospitals and 80.3% held a bachelor's degree. The mean score in the knowledge section was 9.7 (SD =1.7) out of 15; in the attitude section, it was 24.7 (SD = 4.8) out of 33; and in the practice section, it was 30.9 (SD = 3.5) out of 42. Nurses who reported previous related education scored higher on the knowledge section (mean = 10.7; SD = 1.4) than nurses who reported no previous related education (mean = 9.1; SD = 1.6; p < .001). However, no significant differences between these categories were found in relation to attitude and practice.

CONCLUSIONS

The study demonstrated some lack of knowledge and unsafe practices regarding physical restraint in ICUs in Jordan. It suggests improving nurses' knowledge, attitude and practices through in-service education on best practice for physical restraint, developing policies/guidelines and providing adequate staff and equipment to maintain patient safety and prevent complications.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Conducting education programmes on physical restraint for ICU nurses and providing other preventive strategies are important in improving nurses' knowledge, attitude and practice.

Seclusion and Psychiatric Intensive Care Evaluation Study (SPICES): combined qualitative and quantitative approaches to the uses and outcomes of coercive practices in mental health services

Background

Seclusion (the isolation of a patient in a locked room) and transfer to a psychiatric intensive care unit (PICU; a specialised higher-security ward with higher staffing levels) are two common methods for the management of disturbed patient behaviour within acute psychiatric hospitals. Some hospitals do not have seclusion rooms or easy access to an on-site PICU. It is not known how these differences affect patient management and outcomes.

Objectives

To (1) assess the factors associated with the use of seclusion and PICU care, (2) estimate the consequences of the use of these on subsequent violence and costs (study 1) and (3) describe differences in the management of disturbed patient behaviour related to differential availability (study 2).

Design

The electronic patient record system at one trust was used to compare outcomes for patients who were and were not subject to seclusion or a PICU, controlling for variables, including recent behaviours. A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed (study 1). Nursing staff at eight hospitals with differing access to seclusion and a PICU completed attitudinal measures, a video test on restraint-use timing and an interview about the escalation pathway for the management of disturbed behaviour at their hospital. Analyses examined how results differed by access to PICU and seclusion (study 2).

Participants

Patients on acute wards or PICUs in one NHS trust during the period 2008–13 (study 1) and nursing staff at eight randomly selected hospitals in England, with varying access to seclusion and to a PICU (study 2).

Main outcome measures

Aggression, violence and cost (study 1), and utilisation, speed of use and attitudes to the full range of containment methods (study 2).

Results

Patients subject to seclusion or held in a PICU were more likely than those who were not to be aggressive afterwards, and costs of care were higher, but this was probably because of selection bias. We could not derive satisfactory estimates of the causal effect of either intervention, but it appeared that it would be feasible to do so for seclusion based on an enriched sample of untreated controls (study 1). Hospitals without seclusion rooms used more rapid tranquillisation, nursing of the patient in a side room accompanied by staff and seclusion using an ordinary room (study 2). Staff at hospitals without seclusion rated it as less acceptable and were slower to initiate manual restraint. Hospitals without an on-site PICU used more seclusion, de-escalation and within-eyesight observation.

Limitations

Official record systems may be subject to recording biases and crucial variables may not be recorded (study 1). Interviews were complex, difficult, constrained by the need for standardisation and collected in small numbers at each hospital (study 2).

Conclusions

Closing seclusion rooms and/or restricting PICU access does not appear to reduce the overall levels of containment, as substitution of other methods occurs. Services considering expanding access to seclusion or to a PICU should do so with caution. More evaluative research using stronger designs is required.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Delirium in the Intensive Care Unit

Delirium is characterized by impaired cognition with nonspecific manifestations. In critically ill patients, it may develop secondary to multiple precipitating or predisposing causes. Although it can be a transient and reversible syndrome, its occurrence in Intensive Care Unit (ICU) patients may be associated with long-term cognitive dysfunction. This condition is often under-recognized by treating physicians, leading to inappropriate management. For appropriate management of delirium, early identification and risk factor assessment are key factors. Multidisciplinary collaboration and standardized care can enhance the recognition of delirium. Interdisciplinary team working, together with updated guideline implementation, demonstrates proven success in minimizing delirium in the ICU. Moreover, should the use of physical restraint be necessary to prevent harm among mechanically ventilated patients, ethical clinical practice methodology must be employed. This traditional narrative review aims to address the presentation, risk factors, management, and ethical considerations in the management of delirium in ICU settings.

Acceptability and use of coercive methods across differing service configurations with and without seclusion and/or psychiatric intensive care units

Aims

The aim of this study was to compare across different service configurations the acceptability of containment methods to acute ward staff and the speed of initiation of manual restraint.

Background

One of the primary remits of acute inpatient psychiatric care is the reduction in risks. Where risks are higher than normal, patients can be transferred to a psychiatric intensive care unit or placed in seclusion. The abolition or reduction in these two containment methods in some hospitals may trigger compensatory increases in other forms of containment which have potential risks. How staff members manage risk without access to these facilities has not been systematically studied.

Design

The study applied a cross‐sectional design.

Methods

Data were collected from 207 staff at eight hospital sites in England between 2013 ‐ 2014. Participants completed two measures; the first assessing the acceptability of different forms of containment for disturbed behaviour and the second assessing decision‐making in relation to the need for manual restraint of an aggressive patient.

Results

In service configurations with access to seclusion, staff rated seclusion as more acceptable and reported greater use of it. Psychiatric intensive care unit acceptability and use were not associated with its provision. Where there was no access to seclusion, staff were slower to initiate restraint. There was no relationship between acceptability of manual restraint and its initiation.

Conclusion

Tolerance of higher risk before initiating restraint was evident in wards without seclusion units. Ease of access to psychiatric intensive care units makes little difference to restraint thresholds or judgements of containment acceptability.

Restraint and the Question of Validity

Restraint as an intervention in the management of acute mental distress has a long history that predates the existence of psychiatry. However, it remains a source of controversy with an ongoing debate as to its role. This article critically explores what to date has seemingly been only implicit in the debate surrounding the role of restraint: how should the concept of validity be interpreted when applied to restraint as an intervention? The practice of restraint in mental health is critically examined using two post-positivist constructions of validity, the pragmatic and the psychopolitical, by means of a critical examination of the literature. The current literature provides only weak support for the pragmatic validity of restraint as an intervention and no support to date for its psychopolitical validity. Judgements regarding the validity of any intervention that is coercive must include reference to the psychopolitical dimensions of both practice and policy.

Reducing conflict and containment rates on acute psychiatric wards: The Safewards cluster randomised controlled trial

Background

Acute psychiatric wards manage patients whose actions may threaten safety (conflict). Staff act to avert or minimise harm (containment). The Safewards model enabled the identification of ten interventions to reduce the frequency of both.

Objective

To test the efficacy of these interventions.

Design

A pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial with psychiatric hospitals and wards as the units of randomisation. The main outcomes were rates of conflict and containment.

Participants

Staff and patients in 31 randomly chosen wards at 15 randomly chosen hospitals.

Results

For shifts with conflict or containment incidents, the experimental condition reduced the rate of conflict events by 15% (95% CI 5.6–23.7%) relative to the control intervention. The rate of containment events for the experimental intervention was reduced by 26.4% (95% CI 9.9–34.3%).

Conclusions

Simple interventions aiming to improve staff relationships with patients can reduce the frequency of conflict and containment.

Trial registration

IRSCTN38001825.

Learning and performance outcomes of mental health staff training in de-escalation techniques for the management of violence and aggression

BACKGROUND

De-escalation techniques are a recommended non-physical intervention for the management of violence and aggression in mental health. Although taught as part of mandatory training for all National Health Service (NHS) mental health staff, there remains a lack of clarity around training effectiveness.

AIMS

To conduct a systematic review of the learning, performance and clinical safety outcomes of de-escalation techniques training.

METHOD

The review process involved a systematic literature search of 20 electronic databases, eligibility screening of results, data extraction, quality appraisal and data synthesis.

RESULTS

A total of 38 relevant studies were identified. The strongest impact of training appears to be on de-escalation-related knowledge, confidence to manage aggression and deescalation performance (although limited to artificial training scenarios). No strong conclusions could be drawn about the impact of training on assaults, injuries, containment and organisational outcomes owing to the low quality of evidence and conflicting results.

CONCLUSIONS

It is assumed that de-escalation techniques training will improve staff's ability to de-escalate violent and aggressive behaviour and improve safety in practice. There is currently limited evidence that this training has these effects.

The Eileen Skellern Lecture 2014: physical restraint: in defence of the indefensible?

Aggression is reported to be prevalent in psychiatric inpatient care and its frequency towards healthcare professionals is well documented. While aggression may not be entirely avoidable, its incidence can be reduced through prevention and the minimization of restrictive practices such as physical restraint. The study aims to explore three common 'defences' to account for the use of physical restraint; to challenge each defence with regard to the evidence base; and to identify how services are responding to the challenge of reducing the use of restrictive interventions. Following a number of investigations to highlight serious problems with the use of physical restraint, it seems timely to examine its efficacy in light of the evidence base. In order to do this, three key defences for its use will be challenged using the literature. A combination of interventions to minimize the use of restraint including advance planning tools, and recognition of potential trauma is necessary at an organizational and individual level. Patients can be severely traumatized by the use of restrictive practices and there is a drive to examine, and reduce the use and impact of using these models that incorporate trauma informed care (TIC) and person centredness.

Reducing the use of seclusion in a secure service for women

Reducing the use of seclusion to deal with challenging behaviour is a priority in secure services for women. This study describes the concurrent introduction of a series of initiatives based on recovery principles and the full involvement of patients in their risk management plans.

Following change implementation, the first 19 patients who had completed one year of treatment were matched with 19 patients who had completed their first year of treatment before change.

A significant decline in both the number of seclusions and risk behaviour post-change was complemented by improved staff ratings of institutional behaviour, increased treatment engagement and a reduction in time spent in medium security. Staff and patients differed in terms of their ratings of the most effective strategies introduced. Patients favoured the Relational Security item of increased individual engagement and timetabled Behaviour Chain Analysis sessions. Staff viewed on ward training and use of de-escalation techniques as most effective.

Findings confirm results from mixed gender forensic mental health samples that seclusion can be successfully reduced without an increase in patient violence or alternative coercive strategies. Limitations of the study are discussed along with the need for future evaluations to address issues of fidelity and utilise vigorously designed case studies.

Use of restrictive interventions in a child and adolescent inpatient unit - predictors of use and effect on patient outcomes

OBJECTIVES

Restrictive interventions (seclusion, physical restraint, and use of acute/p.r.n. sedation) may have negative effects on patients. Identifying factors associated with use of restrictive interventions and examining their effect on admission outcomes is important for optimising inpatient psychiatric care.

METHODS

This study documented use of restrictive interventions within a child and adolescent psychiatric inpatient unit for 15 months. Two models examined predictors of use of restrictive interventions: (i) incident characteristics; and (ii) patient characteristics. The relationship between use of restrictive interventions and global clinical outcomes was also examined.

RESULTS

Of 134 patients admitted during the study period (61.9% female, mean age=13.8±2.9 years), 26.9% received at least one restrictive intervention. Incident factors associated with restrictive interventions were: physical aggression, early admission stage, and occurrence in private space. Patient factors that predicted use of restrictive interventions were developmental disorder and younger age. Use of restrictive interventions was not associated with increased length of stay or diminished improvement in global symptom ratings.

CONCLUSIONS

Further research is needed to identify best practice in children at high risk for receiving restrictive interventions.

Restraint use in acute and extended mental health services for older persons

Restraint of older persons in inpatient and residential care is used to control aggression, and prevent falls and other adverse outcomes. Initiatives to reduce these practices are being implemented worldwide. However, there has been little examination of restraint practice in psychiatric services for older persons. This paper reports a retrospective comparative analysis of restraint use in three acute and two extended care psychiatric inpatient wards in Australia. The analysis involved examination of restraint incidents and comparison of restrained and non-restrained patients. There was significant variation in restraint use between wards. On one acute ward, 12.74% of patients were restrained, although restraint use declined during the data collection period. Patients with dementia were restrained at higher rates than patients with other diagnoses, and restrained patients stayed in hospital for a longer duration. Restraint occurred early in admission, and few differences emerged between those restrained once or multiple times. Mechanical restraint was more prevalent than physical restraint, with restraint predominantly used to manage aggression and falls. Findings provide new data on restraint in older persons' psychiatric services. Greater conceptual understandings of behaviours associated with dementia and the unique needs of patients with these disorders may assist in reducing restraint use in these settings.

The physiological impact of upper limb position in prone restraint

Deaths occurring during and/or in close proximity to physical restraint have been attributed to positional asphyxia. This study investigated the physiological impact of three recognized prone-restraint positions with participants remaining passive. Position 3 (P3) the supported prone position (SPP) was designed to reduce the extent of pressure on the anterior chest wall (PAC) by bringing the upper limbs underneath the shoulder joint whereas for the other two positions (P1 and P2) the arms were abducted from the torso. Twenty-five adults participated. Forced vital capacity (FVC), expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), heart rate (HR) and oxygen saturations (SpO2) were taken three times in an upright seated position (baseline) and in each prone position. Mean PAC was measured at 102.6 (±24.3) and 101.4 (±24.4) mmHg for P1 and P2, respectively; however, in the SPP (P3) the mean PAC pressure reduced to 72.7 (±16.9) mmHg. All three prone-restraint positions reduced FVC and FEV1 compared with baseline (P < 0.001). P1 and P2 where the arms were abducted reduced respiratory measures equally but differed from the SPP position (P < 0.001) where PAC was significantly lower. Reductions in FVC from baseline were 16% for P1 and P2, and 11% for the SPP (P3) where PAC was ∼28% lower than in P1 and P2. Reductions in FEV1 were similar in all three prone-restraint positions and HR and SpO2 were unaffected. In summary, all prone-restraint positions restrict respiratory function but the risk associated with the position reduces as the PAC reduces.

Family functioning of addicted and non-addicted individuals: a comparative study

Background

Family functioning is considered to have a significant impact on the beginnings and maintenance of substance use.

Objectives

The main purpose of this study was to examine and compare the dimensions of family functioning among addicted and non-addicted individuals.

Patients and Methods

In this cross-sectional study, the study sample consisted of 228 individuals, including 118 addicted and 110 non-addicted subjects. The addicted persons were recruited from patients who attended the Baharan Psychiatric Outpatient Clinic for treatment of substance dependence disorders and 110 non-addicted (normal) individuals who were selected from normal populations (students, staff of the hospital and people accompanying patients without a history of substance use) through convenience sampling. The Family Assessment Device (FAD) was used to assess six dimensions of family functioning. The data were analyzed using descriptive indexes (ie, frequency, mean and standard deviation) and t test.

Results

The results showed significant differences in the mean scores of family functioning dimensions including; problem solving, communication, roles, affective responsiveness, affective involvement, behavioral control and overall family performance (P < 0.01).

Conclusions

Results of this study confirmed the lower functioning levels of substance dependent clients’ families on all subscales of the FAD, than in families of non-addicted individuals. It is therefore concluded, that providing interventional strategies for the prevention and treatment of substance use that focus on and involve families in the delivery of health care services is a necessity.

Physical restraints versus seclusion room for management of people with acute aggression or agitation due to psychotic illness (TREC-SAVE): a randomized trial

BACKGROUND

After de-escalation techniques have failed, restraints, seclusion and/or rapid tranquillization may be used for people whose aggression is due to psychosis. Most coercive acts of health care have not been evaluated in trials.

METHOD

People admitted to the emergency room of Instituto Philippe Pinel, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, whose aggression/agitation was thought due to psychosis and for whom staff were unsure if best to restrict using physical restraints or a seclusion room, were randomly allocated to one or the other and followed up to 14 days. The primary outcomes were 'no need to change intervention early - within 1 h' and 'not restricted by 4 h'.

RESULTS

A total of 105 people were randomized. Two-thirds of the people secluded were able to be fully managed in this way. Even taking into account the move out of seclusion into restraints, this study provides evidence that embarking on the less restrictive care pathway (seclusion) does not increase overall time in restriction of some sort [not restricted by 4 h: relative risk 1.09, 95% confidence interval 0.75-1.58; mean time to release: restraints 337.6 (s.d.=298.2) min, seclusion room 316.3 (s.d.=264.5) min, p=0.48]. Participants tended to be more satisfied with their care in the seclusion group (17.0% v. 11.1%) but this did not reach conventional levels of statistical significance (p=0.42).

CONCLUSIONS

This study should be replicated, but suggests that opting for the least restrictive option in circumstances where there is clinical doubt does not harm or prolong coercion.

A review of the scientific literature related to the adverse impact of physical restraint: gaining a clearer understanding of the physiological factors involved in cases of restraint-related death

Deaths occurring during and/or in close proximity to physical restraint have been attributed to positional asphyxia, a conclusion primarily based on opinion and reviews of case studies. This review sought to identify the current scientific evidence available in regard to the aetiology of adverse events or death occurring during or in close proximity to physical restraint. A systematic search of electronic databases (SPORTDiscus, AMED, CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO) for papers published in English, between 1980 and 2011, using keywords that related to restraint, restraint position and cardiovascular function resulted in 11 experimental papers being found for review. The term positional asphyxia as a mechanism for sudden death is poorly understood. The literature shows that restraint position has the ability to impede life-maintaining physiological functions, but that the imposed impediment is not uniform across all restraint positions/techniques. Further research is required to ascertain the risks posed by struggling during restraint for more prolonged periods of time and in different positions using varied techniques of restraint. This research should seek to and rank known or future risk factors of adverse events occurring during restraint, seeking to understand the interactions and if present the cumulative effect of these risk factors. Finally, future research should focus on populations other than apparently healthy male adults.

Manual restraint and shows of force: the City-128 study

Manual restraint is used to manage disturbed behaviour by patients. This study aimed to assess the relationship of manual restraint and show of force to conflict behaviours, the use of containment methods, service environment, physical environment, patient routines, staff characteristics, and staff group variables. Data from a multivariate, cross-sectional study of 136 acute psychiatric wards in England were used to conduct this analysis. Manual restraint was used less frequently on English acute psychiatric wards (0.20 incidents per day) than show of force (0.28 incidents per day). Both were strongly associated with the proportion of patients subject to legal detention, aggressive behaviours, and the enforcement of treatment and detention. Medical, nursing, and security guard staff provision were associated in different ways with variations in the use of these coercive interventions. An effective ward structure of rules and routines was associated with less dependence on these control methods. Training for manual restraint should incorporate the scenarios of attempted absconding and enforcement of treatment, as well as violent behaviour. Attempts to lessen usage of these interventions could usefully focus on increasing the availability of medical staff to patients, reducing reliance on security guards and establishing a good ward structure.

Choosing staff members reduces time in mechanical restraint due to self-injurious behaviour and requesting restraint

BACKGROUND

Using mechanical restraints to protect a person who engaged in dangerous self-injury was decreased by manipulation of an establishing operation involving the client choosing the staff person who would work with her.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The client was a 28-year-old woman diagnosed with autism, bipolar disorder, static cerebral encephalopathy, moderate intellectual disabilities, hypotonia and musculoskeletal deformities. She had a history of biting herself and further bites could produce irreversible nerve damage. Mechanical restraints were applied when she bit, tried to bite herself or asked for them.

RESULTS

When she was allowed to choose staff members, the use of mechanical restraint decreased.

CONCLUSION

Reducing the time spent in mechanical restraint by giving the client a choice of staff members who would work with her demonstrates that such a choice may be an establishing operation. The usefulness of cumulative records and scatterplots to evaluate changes in the occurrence of self-injurious behaviour (SIB) and associated mechanical restraint is shown as are the advantages of using alternating treatment designs to assess the effectiveness of treatment conditions for someone who exhibits long-term cyclic behaviour.

Physical restraint in a therapeutic setting; a necessary evil?

Physical restraint of people experiencing mental health problems is a coercive and traumatic procedure which is only legally permitted if it is proportionate to the risk presented. This study sought to examine the decision-making processes used by mental health staff involved in a series of restraint episodes in an acute care setting. Thirty nurses were interviewed either individually or in focus groups to elicit their views on restraint and experience in specific incidents. Four factors which influenced the decision to restrain were identified: contextual demands; lack of alternatives; the escalatory effects of restraint itself; and perceptions of risk. While some of these factors are amenable to change through improvements in practice, training and organisational culture, nurses viewed restraint as a necessary evil, justified on the basis of the unpredictable nature of mental illness and the environment in which they worked.

Are physical intervention techniques likely to cause pain or injury when applied to manage the severely aggressive older adult? A survey of physiotherapist's expert views in the UK

AIM

To establish whether a professional consensus can be established amongst musculoskeletal physiotherapists or whether they believe certain physical intervention techniques would cause pain or injury if applied to an older adult.

BACKGROUND

Physiotherapist involvement in the context of a multidisciplinary team framework to develop adaptive techniques as required for complex physical presentations has resulted in lower injury rates than in working-age adults. Physiotherapists are experts in anatomy and human movement and are ideally placed to contribute to the safe application of physical intervention in older adults.

DESIGN

A survey design was used.

METHOD

A questionnaire was developed and tested to ascertain the physiotherapist's opinions of the likelihood of each technique causing the patient pain and/or injury. The lead author distributed 41 questionnaires to physiotherapists in two busy hospitals in the UK.

RESULTS

Thirty-four (83%) of physiotherapists returned the completed questionnaires. The physiotherapists had particular concerns about the use of wrist flexion and kneeling on the older adult in prone causing pain and/or injury. Some other techniques that we have advocated in our earlier research were approved by many of the respondents, e.g. supporting the forearm with both hands proximal to the wrist joint. None of the physiotherapists had attended a physical intervention course or applied it in the clinical setting, thus enabling them to analyse the techniques purely from a biomechanical movement perspective. Implications for nursing practice are discussed.

CONCLUSIONS

It is anticipated that this research will stimulate nurses and course providers to develop patient group-specific physical intervention techniques and thus reduce the risk of causing them pain and/or injury.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

This study reaffirms the heightened risks associated with applying restraint techniques to older adults. An issue that needs to be addressed is whether the duty of care which is explicit and implicit within the relationship between nurse and patient is to be fully discharged. It also reinforces prior research that has called for patient-specific physical intervention techniques and highlights some commonly used techniques that may have a deleterious effect on aggressive older adults. It also identifies the professional support that physiotherapists can offer to teams implementing physical intervention techniques within the context of clinical practice.

TREC-SAVE: a randomised trial comparing mechanical restraints with use of seclusion for aggressive or violent seriously mentally ill people: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Thousands of people whose aggression is thought due to serious mental illness are secluded or restrained every day. Without fair testing these techniques will continue to be used outside of a rigorous evidence base. With such coercive treatment this leaves all concerned vulnerable to abuse and criticism. This paper presents the protocol for a randomised trial comparing seclusion with restraints for people with serious mental illnesses.

METHODS/DESIGN

Setting-General psychiatric wards of a large psychiatric hospital in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Participants-Anyone aggressive or violent suspected or known to have serious mental illness for whom restriction is felt to be indicated by nursing and medical staff, but also for whom they are unsure whether seclusion or restraint would be indicated. Interventions-The standard care of either strong cotton banding to edge of bed with medications as indicated and close observation or the other standard care of use of a minimally furnished seclusion room but with open but barred windows onto the nursing station. Outcomes-time to restrictions lifted, early change of treatment, additional episodes, adverse effects/events, satisfaction with care during episode. Duration-2 weeks. Identifier: ISRCTN 49454276 http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN49454276.

Effect of seated restraint and body size on lung function

BACKGROUND

Previous studies of death during law enforcement restraint have focused on lying restraint positions; this study extends this work to seated restraint positions.

METHODS

Lung function in a standing control position was compared with lung function in seated positions using 40 volunteers.

RESULTS

No significant reduction in lung function was detected in an upright seated position. When participants were leant forward while seated, significant reductions in lung function occurred. The application of restraint holds in the seated, leant forward position resulted in a non-significant further reduction in lung function. Reductions in lung function were greater in those participants with higher body mass index (BMI).

CONCLUSIONS

Seated restraint positions with the person leant forward may increase the risk of harm or death during prolonged restraint. The risk will be further increased where the person exhibits higher BMI.

[Safety problems associated with using physical restraint devices on the elderly]

The use of physical restraint devices on frail elderly could have significant negative consequences on their health. Apart from complications due to prolonged immobility, the use of this procedure is associated with other serious adverse effects which occur when a person is restricted in a position which carries a risk of asphyxiation. The devices most implicated in these incidents are bedrails, vests and restraining belts. Physical restraint could also be associated as much with the sudden death of patients, due to the stress that it causes, as with injuries from falling. This article presents the recommendations which experts, manufacturers and institutions dealing with the quality of health care have issued for the safest use of this procedure. It stresses the need for better training of professionals, as well as the importance of investigating the factors which can lead to accidents with the aim of preventing them.

Perspectives on the experience of being physically restrained: an integrative review of the qualitative literature

Publications providing information on the safe use of physical restraints, guidelines for restraint use, and journal articles on the care of mental health patients are frequently devoid of information regarding patients' perspectives on physical restraint. As physical restraint is a common procedure in many settings, the purpose of this review is to examine and summarize the qualitative literature on patients' perspectives on being physically restrained, from 1966 through to 2009. A formal integrative review of existing qualitative literature on patients' perspectives of physical restraint was conducted. Studies were critiqued, evaluated for their strength, and analysed for key themes and meanings. Twelve studies were ultimately identified and included in the review. Four themes emerged from the review, including negative psychological impact, retraumatization, perceptions of unethical practices, and the broken spirit. While little qualitative research on patients' perceptions of physical restraint exists, findings within the current literature reveal serious implications for patients and nurses alike. Additional research into physical restraint implications for the patient-nurse dyad is needed, and nurses should approach the use of physical restraint with caution and awareness of their potential psychological impact.

The practice of seclusion and time-out on English acute psychiatric wards: the City-128 Study

BACKGROUND

Seclusion is widely used internationally to manage disturbed behavior by psychiatric patients, although many countries are seeking to reduce or eliminate this practice. Time-out has been little described and almost completely unstudied.

AIM AND METHOD

To assess the relationship of seclusion and time-out to conflict behaviors, the use of containment methods, service environment, physical environment, patient routines, staff characteristics, and staff group variables. Data from a multivariate cross-sectional study of 136 acute psychiatric wards in England were used to conduct this analysis.

RESULTS

Seclusion is used infrequently on English acute psychiatric wards (0.05 incidents per day), whereas time-out use was more frequent (0.31 incidents per day). Usage of seclusion was strongly associated with the availability of a seclusion room. Seclusion was associated with aggression, alcohol use, absconding, and medication refusal, whereas time-out was associated with these and other more minor conflict behaviors. Both were associated with the giving of "as required" medication, coerced intramuscular medication, and manual restraint. Relationships with exit security for the ward were also found.

CONCLUSIONS

Given its low usage rate, the scope for seclusion reduction in English acute psychiatry may be small. Seclusion reduction initiatives need to take a wider range of factors into account. Some substitution of seclusion with time-out may be possible, but a rigorous trial is required to establish this. The safety of intoxicated patients in seclusion requires more attention.

Re-framing the problem of workplace violence directed towards nurses in mental health services in the UK: a work in progress

BACKGROUND

Research consistently suggests nurses working in mental health settings are more likely to be assaulted than nurses in other settings.

AIMS

Belated recognition of the issue in terms of social policy (Elston et al. 2006) has been accompanied by an as yet unexamined contest between conflicting 'frames' of the problem, which this paper seeks to make transparent.

METHOD

Frame analysis.

RESULTS

Two distinct 'master' frames are discussed: the 'individualizing' and the 'co-creationist'.

CONCLUSIONS

The influence of these frames has influenced the nature of responses to the problem but the recent dominance of the individualizing frame is being challenged by the emergence, or perhaps re-emergence, of co-creationism.

Managing the risks of physical intervention: developing a more inclusive approach

Since psychiatry evolved as a professional discipline, mental healthcare professionals have had to, as a last resort, physically intervene to manage physically aggressive patients. In the United Kingdom, physical intervention techniques migrated from the prison service in the mid 1980s where there was extensive use of two particularly controversial practices; 'pain compliance' and the 'prone restraint position'. This paper examines how the classification of the 'prone restraint position' has led to a narrowed focus on one technique and a resultant misunderstanding around the wider risks associated with the applying force and managing restraints. The paper goes on to propose the 'transitional stabilizing position' (TSP) as an alternative concept and puts forward a dynamic risk assessment model. It explores how a shift in staff training away from developing pure competence in the performance of tightly specified techniques to managing the patient in TSPs could conceivably reduce the relatively low risk of death or serious injury associated with the application of restraint techniques to an even lower level.