Unlocking an acute psychiatric ward: the impact on unauthorised absences, assaults and seclusions

Examining the role of psychiatrists in involuntary admissions under the Mental Health Act in New Zealand

ObjectivesThis perspective examines the role of psychiatrists in section 10 assessments under the Mental Health Act (MHA) in Aotearoa New Zealand, focusing on their involvement, concordance with preliminary assessments, and implications for service delivery. It also explores the potential impact of a capacity-based model.MethodsData was requested from all 20 District Health Boards (DHBs) on section 10 assessments completed between July 2022 and July 2023, including how many resulted in a section 11 certificate. Response rates and concordance between section 8(b) and section 10 assessments were analyzed.ResultsData from six DHBs showed over 95% of section 10 assessments led to a section 11 certificate, demonstrating high concordance. Psychiatrists conducted most section 10 assessments. However, approximately 1 in 20 cases involved non-concordance, suggesting psychiatrist-led assessments serve as a critical safeguard.ConclusionsHigh concordance rates suggest inefficiencies, yet the 1 in 20 non-concordance highlights an important safeguard. Given psychiatrist shortages and after-hours workload, reconsideration of the MHA process is warranted. Possible reforms include streamlining assessments, enabling non-psychiatrist practitioners to conduct final evaluations in some cases, and adopting a capacity-based model to optimize service delivery while maintaining safeguards.

Open-door policy versus treatment-as-usual in urban psychiatric inpatient wards: a pragmatic, randomised controlled, non-inferiority trial in Norway

BACKGROUND

Open-door policy is a recommended framework to reduce coercion in psychiatric wards. However, existing observational data might not fully capture potential increases in harm and use of coercion associated with open-door policies. In this first randomised controlled trial, we compared coercive practices in open-door policy and treatment-as-usual wards in an urban hospital setting. We hypothesised that the open-door policy would be non-inferior to treatment-as-usual on the proportion of patients exposed to coercive measures.

METHODS

We conducted a pragmatic, randomised controlled, non-inferiority trial comparing two open-door policy wards and three treatment-as-usual acute psychiatric wards at Lovisenberg Diaconal Hospital in Oslo, Norway. An exemption from the consent requirements enabled inclusion and random allocation of all patients admitted to these wards using an open list (2:3 ratio) administrated by a team of ward nurses. The primary outcome was the proportion of patient stays with one or more coercive measures, including involuntary medication, isolation or seclusion, and physical and mechanical restraints. The non-inferiority margin was set to 15%. Primary and safety analyses were assessed using the intention-to-treat population. The trial is registered with ISRCTN registry and is complete, ISRCTN16876467.

FINDINGS

Between Feb 10, 2021, and Feb 1, 2022, we randomly assigned 556 patients to either open-door policy wards (n=245; mean age 41·6 [SD 14·5] years; 119 [49%] male; 126 [51%] female; and 180 [73%] admitted to the ward involuntarily) or treatment-as-usual wards (n=311; mean age 41·6 [4·3] years; 172 [55%] male and 138 [45%] female; 233 [75%] admitted involuntarily). Data on race and ethnicity were not collected. The open-door policy was non-inferior to treatment-as-usual on all outcomes: the proportion of patient stays with exposure to coercion was 65 (26·5%) in open-door policy wards and 104 (33·4%) in treatment-as-usual wards (risk difference 6·9%; 95% CI -0·7 to 14·5), with a similar trend for specific measures of coercion. Reported incidents of violence against staff were 0·15 per patient stay in open-door policy wards and 0·18 in treatment-as-usual wards. There were no suicides during the randomised controlled trial period.

INTERPRETATION

The open-door policy could be safely implemented without increased use of coercive measures. Our findings underscore the need for more reliable and relevant randomised trials to investigate how a complex intervention, such as open-door policy, can be efficiently implemented across health-care systems and contexts.

FUNDING

South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority and The Research Council of Norway.

Protocol for the Lovisenberg Open Acute Door Study (LOADS): a pragmatic randomised controlled trial to compare safety and coercion between open-door policy and usual-care services in acute psychiatric inpatients

INTRODUCTION

The reduction of coercion in psychiatry is a high priority for both the WHO and many member countries. Open-door policy (ODP) is a service model for psychiatric ward treatment that prioritises collaborative and motivational measures to better achieve acute psychiatric safety - and treatment objectives. Keeping the ward main door open is one such measure. Evidence on the impact of ODP on coercion and violent events is mixed, and only one randomised controlled trial (RCT) has previously compared ODP to standard practice. The main objectives of the Lovisenberg Open Acute Door Study (LOADS) are to implement and evaluate a Nordic version of ODP for acute psychiatric inpatient services. The evaluation is designed as a pragmatic RCT with treatment-as-usual (TAU) control followed by a 4-year observational period.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

In this 12-month pragmatic randomised trial, all patients referred to acute ward care will be randomly allocated to either TAU or ODP wards. The primary outcome is the proportion of patient stays with one or more coercive measures. Secondary outcomes include adverse events involving patients and/or staff, substance use and users' experiences of the treatment environment and of coercion. The main hypothesis is that ODP services will not be inferior to state-of-the art psychiatric treatment. ODP and TAU wards are determined via ward-level randomisation. Following conclusion of the RCT, a longitudinal observational phase begins designed to monitor any long-term effects of ODP.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The trial has been approved by the Regional Committees for Medical and Health Research Ethics (REC) in Norway (REC South East #29238), who granted LOADS exemption from consent requirements for all eligible, admitted patients. Data are considered highly sensitive but can be made available on request. Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at scientific conferences and meetings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN16876467.

PROTOCOL VERSION

1.4, 21 December 2021.

Non-pharmacological interventions to reduce restrictive practices in adult mental health inpatient settings: the COMPARE systematic mapping review

Objectives

The study aimed to provide a mapping review of non-pharmacological interventions to reduce restrictive practices in adult mental health inpatient settings; classify intervention components using the behaviour change technique taxonomy; explore evidence of behaviour change techniques and interventions; and identify the behaviour change techniques that show most effectiveness and those that require further testing.

Background

Incidents involving violence and aggression occur frequently in adult mental health inpatient settings. They often result in restrictive practices such as restraint and seclusion. These practices carry significant risks, including physical and psychological harm to service users and staff, and costs to the NHS. A number of interventions aim to reduce the use of restrictive practices by using behaviour change techniques to modify practice. Some interventions have been evaluated, but effectiveness research is hampered by limited attention to the specific components. The behaviour change technique taxonomy provides a common language with which to specify intervention content.

Design

Systematic mapping study and analysis.

Data sources

English-language health and social care research databases, and grey literature, including social media. The databases searched included British Nursing Index (BNI), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CCRCT), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), EMBASE, Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Database, HTA Canadian and International, Ovid MEDLINE®, NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), PsycInfo®and PubMed. Databases were searched from 1999 to 2019.

Review methods

Broad literature search; identification, description and classification of interventions using the behaviour change technique taxonomy; and quality appraisal of reports. Records of interventions to reduce any form of restrictive practice used with adults in mental health services were retrieved and subject to scrutiny of content, to identify interventions; quality appraisal, using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool; and data extraction, regarding whether participants were staff or service users, number of participants, study setting, intervention type, procedures and fidelity. The resulting data set for extraction was guided by the Workgroup for Intervention Development and Evaluation Research, Cochrane and theory coding scheme recommendations. The behaviour change technique taxonomy was applied systematically to each identified intervention. Intervention data were examined for overarching patterns, range and frequency. Overall percentages of behaviour change techniques by behaviour change technique cluster were reported. Procedures used within interventions, for example staff training, were described using the behaviour change technique taxonomy.

Results

The final data set comprised 221 records reporting 150 interventions, 109 of which had been evaluated. The most common evaluation approach was a non-randomised design. There were six randomised controlled trials. Behaviour change techniques from 14 out of a possible 16 clusters were detected. Behaviour change techniques found in the interventions were most likely to be those that demonstrated statistically significant effects. The most common intervention target was seclusion and restraint reduction. The most common strategy was staff training. Over two-thirds of the behaviour change techniques mapped onto four clusters, that is ‘goals and planning’, ‘antecedents’, ‘shaping knowledge’ and ‘feedback and monitoring’. The number of behaviour change techniques identified per intervention ranged from 1 to 33 (mean 8 techniques).

Limitations

Many interventions were poorly described and might have contained additional behaviour change techniques that were not detected. The finding that the evidence was weak restricted the study’s scope for examining behaviour change technique effectiveness. The literature search was restricted to English-language records.

Conclusions

Studies on interventions to reduce restrictive practices appear to be diverse and poor. Interventions tend to contain multiple procedures delivered in multiple ways.

Future work

Prior to future commissioning decisions, further research to enhance the evidence base could help address the urgent need for effective strategies. Testing individual procedures, for example, audit and feedback, could ascertain which are the most effective intervention components. Separate testing of individual components could improve understanding of content and delivery.

Study registration

The study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018086985.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full inHealth Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 9, No. 5. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

[Open doors in psychiatric hospitals : An overview of empirical findings]

BACKGROUND

Currently, it is a topic of debate whether psychiatric hospitals can and should be managed with a full open door policy. The revised legislation of public law for involuntary commitment explicitly allows or even encourages such practice in several German federal states. In parts of Austria, open doors are required for legal reasons. A systematic literature search was conducted for articles providing empirical data related to this issue.

METHOD

Literature search in PubMed augmented by a manual search in references of retrieved papers and reviews with similar objectives.

RESULTS

A total of 26 articles reporting empirical data could be identified. Most of these articles came from Germany or Switzerland. The majority were published within the past 5 years. The definition of "open doors" ranged from an only vaguely defined open door policy up to explicit set time periods with open doors. Some studies reported a decrease in coercive interventions. No study reported any associated adverse events resulting from open doors in psychiatric wards.

DISCUSSION

Generally, all studies had methodological weaknesses. Prospective randomized controlled studies or quasi-experimental studies are missing in the context of European healthcare systems. The risk of bias was considerable in most studies. A final conclusion regarding the possible extent of psychiatry with open doors and the associated risks is currently not possible. There is an urgent need for future high-quality prospective studies.

Variation in seclusion rates across New Zealand's specialist mental health services: Are sociodemographic and clinical factors influencing this?

Rates of seclusion vary across New Zealand's publicly funded district health board (DHB) adult mental health inpatient services as indicated by national data. Anecdotally, this variation has been attributed to a range of factors directly relating to the people admitted to acute inpatient services. This study examined the extent to which variation in seclusion rates could be explained by the sociodemographic and clinical differences between populations admitted into adult mental health inpatient services. Retrospective data were obtained from the Programme for the Integration of Mental Health Data (PRIMHD). A logistic regression model was fitted to these data, with seclusion (yes/no) as the dependent variable and DHB groups as the independent variable. The DHBs were classified into four groups based on their seclusion rates. The model adjusted for ethnicity, age, number of bed nights, total Health of the Nation Outcome Scales (HoNOS) scores, and compulsory treatment status. Odds ratios remained virtually unchanged after adjustment for sociodemographic and clinical factors. People admitted to DHB Group 4 (highest secluding DHBs) were 11 times more likely to be secluded than people in Group 1 (lowest secluding DHBs), adjusted OR = 11.1, 95% CI [7.5,16.4], P < 0.001. Results indicate DHB variation in seclusion rates cannot be attributed to the sociodemographic and clinical factors of people admitted into DHB adult mental health inpatient services. Instead, this variation may be explained by differences in service delivery models and practice approaches. A model of system improvements aimed at reducing seclusion is discussed.

People who experience seclusion in adult mental health inpatient services: An examination of health of the nation outcome scales scores

The Health of the Nation Outcomes Scales (HoNOS) provides an overview of a person's behaviour, impairment, clinical symptoms, and social functioning. This study investigated the profile of people who had been secluded in New Zealand's adult mental health inpatient services using 12 individual HoNOS ratings. Routinely collected clinical data were extracted from the Programme for the Integration of Mental Health Data (PRIMHD). This is the national data set for mental health and addiction services. A logistic regression model was fitted to the data which adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity, bed nights, compulsory treatment, and district health board. After adjustment, three HoNOS items significantly predicted the risk of seclusion: overactive, aggressive, disruptive, or agitated behaviour (adjusted OR = 4.82, 95% CI [3.88, 5.97], P < 0.001); problem drinking or drug-taking (adjusted OR = 1.51, 95% CI [1.25, 1.82], P < 0.001); and problems with hallucinations and delusions (adjusted OR = 1.33, 95% CI [1.09, 1.63], P = 0.006). In addition, two HoNOS items were protective for seclusion: nonaccidental self-injury (adjusted OR = 0.65, 95% CI [0.51, 0.83], P < 0.001) and depressed mood (adjusted OR = 0.58, 95% CI [0.47, 0.72], P < 0.001). Thus, responding effectively to agitation and/or aggression, substance use, and psychosis plays an important role in reducing the use of seclusion. Mental health nurses and other workers can reduce seclusion through early assessment, effective communication, de-escalation techniques, reduction tools, trauma-informed care, and consulting with consumers and whānau.