Mental health patients' preferences regarding restrictive interventions: An integrative review.

WHAT IS KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT?: The use of restrictive interventions is described as a violation of patients' rights and autonomy. It must only be used as a last resort to manage dangerous behaviour, to prevent or reduce the risk of mental health patients harming themselves or others. International mental health policy and legislation agree that when restrictive interventions are applied, the least restrictive alternative should be chosen. WHAT THE PAPER ADDS TO EXISTING KNOWLEDGE?: The results are ambiguous, as to which restrictive intervention is preferred over others, but there are tendencies towards the majority preferring observation, with mechanical restraint being the least preferred. To make the experience less intrusive and restrictive, certain factors are preferred, such as a more pleasant and humane seclusion room environment, staff communicating during the application and staff of same gender applying the intervention. WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE?: When applying restrictive interventions, mental health professionals should consider environment, communication and duration factors that influence patient preferences, such as the opportunity to keep some personal items in the seclusion room, or, when using restraint, to communicate the reason and explain what is going to happen. More research is needed to clarify patients' preferences regarding restrictive interventions and their views on which are the least restrictive. Preferably, agreement is needed on standard measures, and global use of the same definition of restrictive interventions. ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION: The use of restrictive interventions is a violation of patients' rights that causes physical and psychological harm and which is a well-known challenge globally. Mental health law and legislative principles and experts agree that when restrictive interventions are applied, the least restrictive alternative should be used. However, there is no consensus on what is the least restrictive alternative, especially from the patient perspective. AIM: To investigate the literature on mental health patients' preferences regarding restrictive interventions applied during admission to a psychiatric hospital. METHOD: An integrative review informed by the PRISMA statement and thematic analysis were undertaken. RESULTS: There were tendencies towards patients preferring observation and, for the majority, mechanical restraint was the least preferred restrictive intervention. Factors such as environment, communication and duration were found to influence patients' preferences. DISCUSSION: There is a lack of agreement on how best to measure patients' preferences and this complicates the choice of the least restrictive alternative. Nonetheless, our findings show that staff should consider environment, communication and duration when applying restrictive interventions. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: More research on restrictive interventions and the least restrictive alternative is warranted, but agreement is needed on standard measures, and a standard global definition of restrictive interventions.

Implementing Trauma-Informed Care-Settings, Definitions, Interventions, Measures, and Implementation across Settings: A Scoping Review.

Traumatic experiences can have long-lasting negative effects on individuals, organizations, and societies. If trauma is not addressed, it can create unsafe cultures with constant arousal, untrusting relationships, and the use of coercive measures. Trauma-informed care (TIC) can play a central role in mitigating these negative consequences, but it is unknown how and in which way(s) TIC should be implemented. Our objective was to conduct a scoping review that systematically explored and mapped research conducted in this area and to identify existing knowledge about the implementation of TIC. The search was conducted on the CINAHL, Cochrane, Embase, ERIC, Medline, PsycINFO, and Web of Science databases, and more than 3000 empirical papers, published between 2000 and 2022, were identified. Following further screening, we included 157 papers in our review, which were mainly from the USA, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada, focusing on study settings, methodologies, and definitions of TIC, as well as the types of interventions and measures used. This review shows that TIC is a complex and multifaceted framework, with no overarching structure or clear theoretical underpinnings that can guide practical implementations. TIC has been defined and adapted in varied ways across different settings and populations, making it difficult to synthesize knowledge. A higher level of agreement on how to operationalize and implement TIC in international research could be important in order to better examine its impact and broaden the approach.

Short-term risk assessment in the long term: A scoping review and meta-analysis of the Brøset Violence Checklist.

WHAT IS KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT?: The Brøset Violence Checklist (BVC) has been widely translated and implemented in diverse mental healthcare settings to improve prevention of violence. It is valued as a brief but effective tool in clinical practice. WHAT THE PAPER ADDS TO EXISTING KNOWLEDGE?: This review is the largest and most comprehensive international review of the BVC conducted in the 25+ years since the inception of the instrument in 1995. It integrates findings from existing studies and establishes that the tool has many impressive strengths considering the brief time investment required for completion. The review reveals that the tool has been used in more than 20 different countries around the world in a variety of mental health and other settings as both a risk assessment tool to guide clinical practice and as a formally structured intervention to minimize violence. There is much variation in how the tool is implemented and scored in different services. This variation questions its applicability as a resource and consistency and its use needs attention. This variation in use also limits the conclusions regarding best practices. WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE?: The review supports the use of the BVC as one part of the package for mental health services committed to preventive action aimed at reducing violence and coercion. The review identified that the patient perspective was often absent when completing the BVC, and so this should be considered as an option by services as part of a collaborative philosophy of care. ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION: Existing literature on the Brøset Violence Checklist (BVC) is examined in the context of usability, implementation and validity to provide evidence-based recommendations on its application and identify opportunities for future development. AIM/QUESTION: To identify current knowledge on the BVC and guide clinicians and researchers toward the next steps in using this tool in clinical practice to prevent violence in healthcare settings. METHOD: A scoping review approach with a meta-analysis supplement was adopted to broadly identify and map available evidence on the BVC and provide specific estimates of predictive validity in different contexts. RESULTS: Sixty-two studies conducted in 23 countries addressed the implementation of the BVC across various settings. Many studies adapted the original BVC, and the clinical utility was noted as an important feature. A meta-analysis of the original BVC format estimated a pooled area under the curve at 0.83 (95% CI 0.78-0.87) in a subset of 15 studies. DISCUSSION: The BVC combines high predictive validity and good clinical utility across a wide range of settings and cultures. It should continue to be incorporated into routine practice in mental health services focused on preventing violence and coercion. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Development of collaborative approaches with service users involved in assessing their own risk of future violence.

National Strategies to Reduce the Use of Coercive Measures in Psychiatry in Denmark - A Review of Two Decades of Initiatives.

Coercive measures are a major infringement of the autonomy of psychiatric patients and no medical justification exists for applying mechanical restraint (MR) to these patients currently. Knowledge regarding how preventive strategies affect the use of MR is limited. This paper aimed to understand the link between the initiatives taken by national authorities and the practical implications to MR reduction. Policy texts and the number of coercive measures used in two decades were reviewed. Trends were discussed with five experts with real-life experience and suggestions were obtained regarding how to end the use of mechanical restraint in mental health care settings.

Effects of Implementing the Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability for Mechanical Restraint in a Forensic Male Population: A Stepped-Wedge, Cluster-Randomized Design.

The assessment and formulation of the risk of violence and other unwanted behaviors at forensic psychiatric facilities have been attempted for decades. Structured professional judgment tools, such as the Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability (START), are among the recent attempts to overcome the challenge of accomplishing these goals. This study examined the effect of implementing START in clinical practice for the most serious adverse events among the target group of severely mentally ill forensic psychiatric inpatients. Results were based on the use of mechanical restraints as an outcome. This study is a pragmatic, stepped-wedge, cluster-randomized controlled trial and was conducted over 5 years. It included eight forensic psychiatric units. Fifty out of 156 patients who had a basic aggression score of more than 0 were included in the study. We found that the rate of mechanical restraint use within the START period were 82% [relative risk (RR) = 0.18], lower than those outside of the START period. Patients evaluated within the START period were also found to have a 36% (RR = 0.64) lower risk of having higher Brøset Violence Checklist scores than patients evaluated outside the START period. Previous studies on START have primarily focused on validation, the predictive capability of the assessment, and implementation. We were only able to identify one study that aimed to identify the benefits and outcomes of START in a forensic setting. This study showed a significant reduction in the chance for inpatients in a forensic psychiatric facility to become mechanically restrained during periods where the START was used as risk assessment.

Aggression in Psychiatric Wards: Effect of the Use of a Structured Risk Assessment.

Health care workers are often exposed to violence and aggression in psychiatric settings. Short-term risk assessments, such as the Brøset Violence Checklist (BVC), are strong predictors of such aggression and may enable staff to take preventive measures against aggression. This study evaluated whether the routine use of the BVC could reduce the frequency of patient aggression. We conducted a study with a semi-random regression discontinuity design in 15 psychiatric wards. Baseline aggression risk was assessed using the Aggression Observation Short Form (AOS) over three months. The BVC was implemented in seven intervention wards, and the risk of aggressive incidents over three months of follow-up was compared with the risk in eight control wards. The analysis was conducted at the ward level because each ward was allocated to the intervention and control groups. At baseline, the risk of aggression varied between wards, from one aggressive incident per patient per 1,000 shifts to 147 aggressive incidents per patient per 1,000 shifts. The regression discontinuity analysis found a 45% reduction in the risk of aggression (Odds Ratio (OR) = 0.55, 95% confidence interval: 0.21-1.43). The study did not find a significant reduction in the risk of aggression after implementing a systematic short-term risk assessment with the BVC. Although our findings suggest that use of the BVC may reduce the risk of aggression, the results need to be confirmed in studies with more statistical power.

The Aggression Observation Short Form identified episodes not reported on the Staff Observation Aggression Scale--Revised.

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the underreporting of violence and aggression on the Staff Observation Aggression Scale-Revised (SOAS-R) when compared to a simpler assessment: the Aggression Observation Short Form (AOS). During a period of one year, two open and two closed wards gathered data on both the SOAS-R and the AOS for all of their patients. The 22-item SOAS-R is to be filled out after each violent episode. The 3-item AOS is to be filled out during each shift and should also record the absence of violence. The SOAS-R registered 703 incidents and the AOS registered 1,281 incidents. The agreement between the SOAS-R and the AOS was good (kappa = 0.65, 95% CI = 0.62-0.67). Among the 1,281 AOS episodes, 51% were also registered on the SOAS-R. For the 176 AOS episodes with harm, 42% were also registered on the SOAS-R. We found 44% missing registrations on the AOS, primarily for open wards and for patients with short admission lengths. Standard instruments such as the SOAS-R underreport aggressive episodes by 45% or more. Underreporting can be reduced by introducing shorter instruments, but it cannot be completely eliminated.

Sensitivity and specificity of the Brøset Violence Checklist as predictor of violence in forensic psychiatry.

BACKGROUND: Violence and aggressive behavior within psychiatric facilities are serious work environment problems, which have negative consequences for both patients and staff. It is therefore of great importance to reduce both the number and the severity of these violent incidents to improve quality of care. AIMS: To evaluate the specificity and sensitivity of the Brøset Violence Checklist (BVC) as a predictor of violent incidents for Danish forensic psychiatry patients. METHOD: A total of 156 patients were assessed three times daily with the BVC for 24 months. All aggressive or violent incidents were recorded using the Staff Observation Aggression Scale-Revised (SOAS-R). SOAS-R scores of 9 or more defined violent incidents. Data were analyzed using standard logistic regression models as well as models incorporating a random person effect. We used receiver operating curve (ROC) analysis to evaluate different BVC thresholds. RESULTS: Of a total of 139,579 BVC registrations we found 1999 scores above 0 and 419 violent incidents. The BVC score was a strong predictor of violence. For the standard cut-off point of 3, specificity was 0.997 and sensitivity was 0.656. For the general risk of violence seen in this study, the risk of violence given a BVC score > 3 (positive predictive value) was 37.2%, and the risk of violence given a BVC score < 3 (negative predictive value) was 0.1%. CONCLUSION: The BVC showed satisfactory specificity and sensitivity as a predictor of the short-term risk of violence against staff and others by patients in a forensic setting.