Identification and Analysis of Factors Contributing to the Reduction in Seclusion and Restraint for a Population with Intellectual Disability

Organisational impact on the use of restrictive measures: The perspective of Swedish front-line managers

BACKGROUND

Restrictive measures (RM) are prevalent in services for people with intellectual disabilities. This study investigates managerial awareness of RM and the nature of organisational supports required to reduce their use.

METHOD

A survey asked front-line managers and staff what (RM) were used, their purpose, impact and importance (10-item Likert scales) and what organisational changes were required (free text). Responses were analysed using descriptive methods and content analysis.

RESULTS

Managers reported a lower use of RM, compared with staff. According to managers, RM were mainly used to keep service users from harm, their use having a significant impact. Opportunities to change practices were limited by a lack of resources and organisational support.

CONCLUSION

Front-line managers seem to lack the capacity to address the use of RM due to organisational drift; limited manager time and opportunity to allocate resources; inadequate environments; and lack of skilled staff, knowledge and relevant professional input.

'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.

Reducing the Use of Mechanical Restraints in the Medical-Surgical Department

BACKGROUND

The most crucial discussion in psychiatric hospitals is the safety of patients, especially during incidents that have the potential to cause physical harm such as those where mechanical restraints are used.

AIM

The goal of the project was to reduce the use of mechanical restraints by 25% within 10 weeks in two piloted medical-surgical units.

METHOD

A total of 60 articles were examined for relevance; out of these, the author used 30 studies that were based on observational, literature review, quantitative analysis, or clinical trial methodologies to conduct a comprehensive literature review. The author used a retrospective and descriptive design of chart review data collection to implement the project. The six core strategies framework, coupled with the creation of mental health championship role, was implemented to mitigate the problem.

RESULTS

This study shows that the implementation of the six core strategies and the role of a mental health champion helped reduce the use of mechanical restraints by 100%.

CONCLUSION

A total of 3,072 patients' charts were reviewed in which there were three PERT (Psychiatric Emergency Response Team) activation and no mechanical restraint events, which showed a considerable quality improvement compared to the pre-implementation data collection of 37 PERT and 14 mechanical restraint events. The implications for practice and further study in the field are the involvement of more authors with similar expertise, the use of a control group for comparison, and a longer length of study duration.

“It’s possible”: reducing the coercion in care for adults living with neurodevelopmental disorders: a mixed-methods study

Introduction

Adults living with a neurodevelopmental disorder may present episodes of aggression, which may lead to the use of seclusion or restraint. The aim of the study was to assess the effect of an intervention aimed at reducing the use of coercive measures in a long-term care unit for adults suffering from a neurodevelopmental disorder with or without psychiatric co-morbidities.

Method

The single-center study used a sequential mixed-methods explanatory design. Retrospective data on periods of seclusion, with and without physical restraint, were collected for the ten-month pre-intervention and post-intervention periods. A qualitative survey was conducted at the end of the intervention period among the health professionals working in the unit to review the implementation and the efficiency of the approach.

Results

A significant decrease was observed between the pre- and post-intervention period in the number of seclusion and restraint sequences, the number of patients experiencing seclusion and restraint, and the duration of seclusion and restraint sequences. The efficiency of the approach was confirmed by the health care professionals and was attributed to leadership focused on limiting coercive measures, better adherence to legal obligations, team cohesion, and the implementation of alternative tools and methods.

Discussion

Reducing the use of coercive measures with adults with neurodevelopmental disorders is possible. Further studies are needed to confirm the effectiveness of alternative strategies to seclusion and restraint.

A systematic review of in-patient psychiatric care for people with intellectual disabilities and/or autism: effectiveness, patient safety and experience

BACKGROUND

An increasing number of children, adolescents and adults with intellectual disabilities and/or autism are being admitted to general psychiatric wards and cared for by general psychiatrists.

AIMS

The aim of this systematic review was to consider the likely effectiveness of in-patient treatment for this population, and compare and contrast differing models of in-patient care.

METHOD

A systematic search was completed to identify papers where authors had reported data about the effectiveness of in-patient admissions with reference to one of three domains: treatment effect (e.g. length of stay, clinical outcome, readmission), patient safety (e.g. restrictive practices) and patient experience (e.g. patient or family satisfaction). Where possible, outcomes associated with admission were considered further within the context of differing models of in-patient care (e.g. specialist in-patient services versus general mental health in-patient services).

RESULTS

A total of 106 studies were included and there was evidence that improvements in mental health, social functioning, behaviour and forensic risk were associated with in-patient admission. There were two main models of in-patient psychiatric care described within the literature: admission to a specialist intellectual disability or general mental health in-patient service. Patients admitted to specialist intellectual disability in-patient services had greater complexity, but there were additional benefits, including fewer out-of-area discharges and lower seclusion rates.

CONCLUSIONS

There was evidence that admission to in-patient services was associated with improvements in mental health for this population. There was some evidence indicating better outcomes for those admitted to specialist services.

Patient safety in inpatient mental health settings: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Patients in inpatient mental health settings face similar risks (eg, medication errors) to those in other areas of healthcare. In addition, some unsafe behaviours associated with serious mental health problems (eg, self-harm), and the measures taken to address these (eg, restraint), may result in further risks to patient safety. The objective of this review is to identify and synthesise the literature on patient safety within inpatient mental health settings using robust systematic methodology.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-synthesis. Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Health Management Information Consortium, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Web of Science were systematically searched from 1999 to 2019. Search terms were related to 'mental health', 'patient safety', 'inpatient setting' and 'research'. Study quality was assessed using the Hawker checklist. Data were extracted and grouped based on study focus and outcome. Safety incidents were meta-analysed where possible using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Of the 57 637 article titles and abstracts, 364 met inclusion criteria. Included publications came from 31 countries and included data from over 150 000 participants. Study quality varied and statistical heterogeneity was high. Ten research categories were identified: interpersonal violence, coercive interventions, safety culture, harm to self, safety of the physical environment, medication safety, unauthorised leave, clinical decision making, falls and infection prevention and control.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient safety in inpatient mental health settings is under-researched in comparison to other non-mental health inpatient settings. Findings demonstrate that inpatient mental health settings pose unique challenges for patient safety, which require investment in research, policy development, and translation into clinical practice.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42016034057.

Evaluation of Factors Related to Prolonged Lengths of Stay for Patients With Autism With or Without Intellectual Disability

Patients with autism spectrum disorder and/or intellectual disability (ASD/ID) face unique health care challenges. In addition to hospital experiences characterized by fear and insufficient staff training, these patients have 1.5-times longer lengths of stay (LOS) than patients without ASD/ID, and 3.4% of patients with ASD/ID have prolonged LOS (i.e., ≥30 days). Little research exists on factors related to prolonged LOS of patients with ASD/ID, hindering efforts to develop and implement evidence-based practices to improve care and reduce prolonged LOS. The purpose of the current study was to describe factors related to prolonged LOS of adult patients with ASD/ID in acute care settings using a retrospective chart review of 10 patients discharged from one academic medical center. Findings indicate that health care institutions should evaluate performance with this patient population and identify evidence-based strategies to provide a safe environment for care and reduce LOS that is due to non-health care needs. [Journal of Psychosocial Nursing and Mental Health Services, 57(7), 17-22.].