Best practice recommendations on the application of seclusion and restraint in mental health services: An evidence, human rights and consensus-based approach.
WHAT IS KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT?: Seclusion and restraint still regularly occur within inpatient mental health services. The Council of Europe requires the development of a policy on for instance age limits, techniques and time limits. However, they only define the outer limits of such a policy by indicating when rights are violated. Within these limits, many choices remain open. Staff and service managers lack clarity on safe and humane procedures. Research literature provides limited and contradictory insights on these matters. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS TO EXISTING KNOWLEDGE?: The study resulted in 77 best practice recommendations on the practical application of restraint and seclusion as last resort intervention in inpatient youth and adult mental health services, including forensic facilities. To our knowledge, this is the first study in which the development of recommendations on this topic is not only based on scientific evidence, but also on an analysis of European human rights standards and consensus within and between expert-professionals and experts-by-experience. This approach allowed to develop for the first time recommendations on time limits, asking for second opinion, and registration of seclusion and restraint. WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE?: The 77 recommendations encourage staff to focus on teamwork, safety measures, humane treatment, age and time limits, asking for second opinion, observation, evaluation and registration when applying seclusion and restraint as last resort intervention. The implementation of the best practice recommendations is feasible provided that they are combined with a broad preventive approach and with collaboration between service managers, staff (educators) and experts-by-experience. Under these conditions, the recommendations will improve safety and humane treatment, and reduce harm to both service users and staff.
INTRODUCTION: Seclusion and restraint still regularly occur within inpatient mental health services. Professionals lack clarity on safe and humane procedures. Nevertheless, a detailed policy on for instance age limits, techniques and time limits is required.
We developed recommendations on the humane and safe application of seclusion, physical intervention and mechanical restraint in inpatient youth and adult mental health services, including forensic facilities.
After developing a questionnaire based on a rapid scientific literature review and an analysis of human rights sources stemming from the Council of Europe, 60 expert-professionals and 18 experts-by-experience were consulted in Flanders (Belgium) through a Delphi-study.
After two rounds, all but one statement reached the consensus-level of 65% in both panels. The study resulted in 77 recommendations on teamwork, communication, materials and techniques, maximum duration, observation, evaluation, registration, second opinion and age limits.
Combining an evidence, human rights and consensus-based approach allowed for the first time to develop recommendations on time limits, asking for second opinion and registration.
When combined with a preventive approach and collaboration between service managers, staff (educators) and experts-by-experience, the recommendations will improve safety and humane treatment, and reduce harm to service users and staff.
De Cuyper K
，Vanlinthout E
，Vanhoof J
，van Achterberg T
，Opgenhaffen T
，Nijs S
，Peeters T
，Put J
，Maes B
，Van Audenhove C
... -
《-》
Perceptions of nurses working with psychiatric consumers regarding the elimination of seclusion and restraint in psychiatric inpatient settings and emergency departments: An Australian survey.
Seclusion and restraint continue to be used across psychiatric inpatient and emergency settings, despite calls for elimination and demonstrated efficacy of reduction initiatives. This study investigated nurses' perceptions regarding reducing and eliminating the use of these containment methods with psychiatric consumers. Nurses (n = 512) across Australia completed an online survey examining their views on the possibility of elimination of seclusion, physical restraint, and mechanical restraint as well as perceptions of these practices and factors influencing their use. Nurses reported working in units where physical restraint, seclusion, and, to a lesser extent, mechanical restraint were used. These were viewed as necessary last resort methods to maintain staff and consumer safety, and nurses tended to disagree that containment methods could be eliminated from practice. Seclusion was considered significantly more favourably than mechanical restraint with the elimination of mechanical restraint seen as more of a possibility than seclusion or physical restraint. Respondents accepted that use of these methods was deleterious to relationships with consumers. They also felt that containment use was a function of a lack of resources. Factors perceived to reduce the likelihood of seclusion/restraint included empathy and rapport between staff and consumers and utilizing trauma-informed care principles. Nurses were faced with threatening situations and felt only moderately safe at work, but believed they were able to use their clinical skills to maintain safety. The study suggests that initiatives at multiple levels are needed to help nurses to maintain safety and move towards realizing directives to reduce and, where possible, eliminate restraint use.
Gerace A
，Muir-Cochrane E
《-》
ResearchGate
(全网免费下载)
钛学术
(全网免费下载)
