A Clinical Decision Support System to Prevent Aggression and Reduce Restrictive Practices in a Forensic Mental Health Service

Risk assessment for aggressive behaviour in schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Aggressive or violent behaviour is often associated with people with schizophrenia in common perceptions of the disease. Risk assessment methods have been used to identify and evaluate the behaviour of those individuals who are at the greatest risk of perpetrating aggression or violence or characterise the likelihood to commit acts. Although many different interventions have been developed to decrease aggressive or violent incidences in inpatient care, staff working in inpatient settings seek easy-to-use methods to decrease patient aggressive events. However, many of these are time-consuming, and they require intensive training for staff and patient monitoring. It has also been recognised in clinical practice that if staff monitor patients' behaviour in a structured manner, the monitoring itself may result in a reduction of aggressive/violent behaviour and incidents in psychiatric settings.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of structured aggression or violence risk assessment methods for people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like illnesses.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials, which is based on CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PubMed, ISRCTN registry, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP, on 10 February 2021. We also inspected references of all identified studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing structured risk assessment methods added to standard professional care with standard professional care for the evaluation of aggressive or violent behaviour among people with schizophrenia.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently inspected citations, selected studies, extracted data, and appraised study quality. For binary outcomes, we calculated a standard estimation of the risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI). For continuous outcomes, we calculated the mean difference (MD) and its 95% CI. We assessed risk of bias in the included studies and created a summary of findings table using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four studies in the review. The total number of participants was not identifiable, as some studies provided number of participants included, and some only patient days. The studies compared a package of structured assessment methods with a control group that included routine nursing care and drug therapy or unstructured psychiatric observations/treatment based on clinical judgement. In two studies, information about treatment in control care was not available. One study reported results for our primary outcome, clinically important change in aggressive/violent behaviour, measured by the rate of severe aggression events. There was likely a positive effect favouring structured risk assessment over standard professional care (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.85; 1 RCT; 1852 participants; corrected for cluster design: RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.93; moderate-certainty evidence). One trial reported data for the use of coercive measures (seclusion room). Compared to standard professional care, structured risk assessment may have little or no effect on use of seclusion room as days (corrected for cluster design: RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.27 to 3.07; N = 20; low-certainty evidence) or use of seclusion room as secluded participants (RR 1.83, 95% CI 0.39 to 8.7; 1 RCT; N = 20; low-certainty evidence). However, seclusion room may be used less frequently in the standard professional care group compared to the structured risk assessment group (incidence) (corrected for cluster design: RR 1.63, 95% CI 0.49 to 5.47; 1 RCT; N = 20; substantial heterogeneity, Chi2 = 0.0; df = 0.0; P = 0.0; I2 = 100%; low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a clear effect on adverse events of escape (RR 0.2, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.11; 1 RCT; n = 200; very low-certainty evidence); fall down (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.15; 1 RCT; n = 200; very low-certainty evidence); or choking (RR 0.2, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.11; 1 RCT; n = 200; very low-certainty evidence) when comparing structured risk assessment to standard professional care. There were no useable data for patient-related outcomes such as global state, acceptance of treatment, satisfaction with treatment, quality of life, service use, or costs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on the available evidence, it is not possible to conclude that structured aggression or violence risk assessment methods are effective for people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like illnesses. Future work should combine the use of interventions and structured risk assessment methods to prevent aggressive incidents in psychiatric inpatient settings.

Seclusion within the first 24 h following admission into inpatient mental health services and associations with referral pathways, recent service contact and HoNOS ratings

WHAT IS KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT?: Seclusion is a harmful and traumatising intervention for people accessing mental health services. People who are subject to seclusion in inpatient mental health services often first experience this within the first 24 h following admission. There is limited research examining how recent contact with services impacts the likelihood of seclusion when people are admitted to inpatient services. WHAT THE PAPER ADDS TO EXISTING KNOWLEDGE?: Males, Māori and Pasifika experience higher rates of seclusion within the first 24 h following inpatient admission. People perceived by clinicians as overactive, aggressive, disruptive or agitated are seven times more likely to be secluded within the first 24 h. People referred from police or justice services are three times more likely to be secluded within the first 24 h. People who had frequent contact with community mental health services prior to inpatient admission were less likely to be secluded. WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE?: The first 24 h of inpatient admission is a critical focus for eliminating the use of seclusion. Initial interactions with people recently admitted should focus on nurturing relationships and reducing distress. Mental health staff should consider the person's cultural needs, referral pathway, recent service contact and baseline ratings on the Health of the Nation Outcomes Scales (HoNOS) when working proactively to prevent the use of seclusion in the first 24 h following admission. Strengthening the focus on nurturing relationships, cultural understanding and non-coercive de-escalation approaches requires leadership support and strategic workforce development. ABSTRACT: Introduction People who experience seclusion in inpatient mental health services often do so within the first 24 h following admission. There is limited research examining the potential contributing factors, particularly recent contact with services. Aim/Question To identify factors associated with seclusion within the first 24 h following admission into acute inpatient mental health services. Method A retrospective analysis was undertaken using routinely collected data from Aotearoa New Zealand mental health services. Results A higher likelihood of seclusion within the first 24 h following admission was associated with: males, Māori, Pasifika, referrals from police/justice services, inpatient transfers, recent contact with crisis assessment teams and clinician perceptions of aggression, problematic substance use, cognitive problems and hallucinations or delusions. Recent contact with community mental health services was associated with a lower likelihood. Discussion People's cultural needs, referral pathway, recent service contact and HoNOS scores should be considered when working to prevent the use of seclusion in the first 24 h following admission. Implications for Practice The first 24 h following inpatient admission is a critical period for preventing the use of seclusion. Nurturing relationships, cultural understanding and use of non-coercive de-escalation approaches can support better outcomes for people recently admitted.

Developing entrustable professional activities to enhance application of an aggression prevention protocol

AIM

The research aim of this study was to seek feedback from prevention of aggression training experts about the suitability of Entrustable Professional Activities (EPAs) as an assessment tool for an Aggression Prevention Protocol. The protocol was designed to structure intervention to prevent aggression and reduce the use of restrictive practices following risk assessment using a validated instrument (the Dynamic Appraisal of Situational Aggression).

BACKGROUND

Preventing aggression and limiting the use of restrictive practices are key priorities for inpatient mental health services. Assessing clinical activities using a competence framework has limitations, particularly when determining complex interventions. EPAs could provide a suitable method for assessing complex clinical activities like de-escalation and limit setting, which comprise some of the interventions in the Aggression Prevention Protocol. EPAs are new to forensic mental health nursing; therefore, feedback was sought regarding the utility of EPAs to assess aggression prevention interventions.

METHODS

Data were collected via focus groups including 11 aggression prevention experts from Australia and New Zealand. A thematic analysis, comparative analysis and a Strength, Weakness, Opportunity and Threats analysis was conducted.

RESULTS

Three themes were interpreted from the data: 1) Frameworks such as the APP are needed to work towards elimination of restrictive practices; 2) APP-EPAs afford an opportunity to set the standard for practice; and 3) 'who watches the watchers', were identified by the experts as well as areas to enhance EPAs prior to introduction into practice.

CONCLUSIONS

EPAs address a practice-gap and offer a framework to assist movement towards elimination of restrictive practices, while prompting best-practice, self-reflection and practice improvement guidance.

A Quality Improvement Approach to Violence Reduction: Standardizing the Risk Identification Process

BACKGROUND

The impact of aggressive and violent behaviors directed toward staff in psychiatric facilities has layers of implications tied to recruitment and retention, cost, quality and safety.

LOCAL PROBLEM

Increased patient aggressive behaviors contributed to staff dissatisfaction and high turnover rates, triggering an analysis of current aggression management approaches.

METHODS

The Plan-Do-Study-Act quality improvement method was used for this project.

INTERVENTIONS

The Dynamic Appraisal of Situational Aggression (DASA) risk assessment tool was implemented.

RESULTS

Daily aggression risk identification increased by 69%, and aggressive incidents toward staff and patients decreased by 64% and 28%, respectively, when the tool was completed more consistently. Surveys revealed acceptance of the tool by nurses.

CONCLUSIONS

Quality improvement statistical tools supported evidence-based strategies. A risk for aggression assessment laid the foundations for implementing strategies for reducing aggression and violence.

Using the Dynamic Appraisal of Situational Aggression (DASA) to assess the impact of unit atmosphere on violence risk assessment

WHAT IS KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT

Research suggests that the Dynamic Appraisal of Situational Aggression (DASA) is a useful risk assessment instrument to identify individuals who might be at risk of aggression in mental health inpatient units. Although, risk assessment research has typically focused on an individual's risk of aggression, recent research has begun exploring whether the DASA could be used to assess the likelihood that a group of patients would be aggressive.

WHAT THE PAPER ADDS TO EXISTING KNOWLEDGE

While the DASA was useful for assessing whether an individual was likely to be aggressive, the group average score was not a useful indicator for the likelihood of aggression once the individual DASA score was taken into consideration. Unexpectedly, patients who were assessed as high risk on the DASA were more likely to be aggressive on settled units compared to unsettled units, which included other individuals whose risk was elevated.

WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

There is not enough evidence to suggest that the group DASA average improves the identification of aggression above the individual DASA score.

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: The Dynamic Appraisal of Situational Aggression (DASA) is an inpatient aggression risk assessment instrument. Recently, research explored whether the unit atmosphere, as indicated by a unit's average DASA score, was related to inpatient aggression risk, but failed to control for individual risk.

AIM

Investigate whether the DASA unit average score or an interaction between the unit average and an individual patient's DASA score was related to the likelihood that an individual would act aggressively.

METHOD

Cox regression with repeated assessments and recurrent events was used to analyse 11,243 DASA risk assessments of 113 inpatients collected via retrospective file review.

RESULTS

The unit DASA average score was not related to aggression towards staff. There was a negative interaction between the individual and the unit DASA average scores when identifying patient-to-patient aggression; high-risk patients engaged in less aggression when the unit average was heightened relative to units with lower DASA average scores.

DISCUSSION

It is possible that there were more nursing interventions and/or patients engaged in greater self-regulation on unsettled units, thus reducing aggression.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Currently, there is insufficient evidence to suggest that the unit average score should be used to supplement individual DASA scores to identify aggression risk.

Implementation of the dynamic appraisal of situational aggression in inpatient mental health

PURPOSE

To implement structured violence risk assessment (VRA) using the Dynamic Appraisal of Situational Aggression (DASA) on a 25-bed, adult, inpatient psychiatric unit.

DESIGN AND METHODS

Inpatient DASA screening for 13 weeks with nursing communication orders (NCOs) to highlight patients at high risk for violence. Pre/posttests measured registered nurse (RN) knowledge and perceptions of the DASA.

FINDINGS

DASA completion rate equaled 81.8% with an NCO issue rate of only 32.8%. RN perceptions of the DASA were positive, and knowledge of structured violence risk assessment increased.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Structured violence risk assessment with the DASA is feasible and well-accepted on psychiatric units.