Managing the risks associated with physical intervention: a discussion paper

Living with restraint: Reactions of nurses and lived experience workers to restrictions placed on the use of prone restraint

Despite recent changes to mental health policy in Australia and overseas, physical restraint continues to be widely employed in mental health services. While mental health nurses have a critical role to play in supporting initiatives designed to reduce restraint, it is unclear how they feel about moves to restrict the use of prone restraint. In this qualitative study, focus group interviews were conducted with mental health nursing staff and lived experience workers (LEWs) to gain their perspectives on the use of physical restraint in general and the restrictions being placed on prone ('face down') restraint. Five themes emerged: justifying the need for restraint, reliance on the prone position, the position is not the issue, time limits, and the psychological impact. Although mental health nurses were concerned about the risks associated with physical restraint, they provided strong justification for continued use of the prone position. LEWs raised concerns about the psychological impact of prone restraint and noted the need for a greater emphasis on de-escalation and other restraint avoidance strategies. The findings highlight the complexities and challenges to be considered when developing initiatives to reduce reliance on the use of restraint in general, and prone in particular.

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.