Multinational experiences in reducing and preventing the use of restraint and seclusion.

Restraint and seclusion (R/S) have been used in many countries and across service sectors for centuries. With the recent and increasing recognition of the harm associated with these procedures, efforts have been made to reduce and prevent R/S. Following a scathing media exposé in 1998 and congressional scrutiny, the United States began a national effort to reduce and prevent R/S use. With federal impetus and funding, an evidence-based practice, the Six Core Strategies to Prevent Conflict, Violence and the Use of Seclusion and Restraint, was developed. This model was widely and successfully implemented in a number of U.S. states and is being adopted by other countries, including Finland, Australia, and the United Kingdom. Recently, the first cluster randomized controlled study of the Six Core Strategies in Finland provided the first evidence-based data of the safety and effectiveness of a coercion prevention methodology. Preliminary findings of some of the international efforts are discussed. Reduction in R/S use and other positive outcomes are also reported.

The dollars and sense of restraints and seclusion.

Restraints and seclusion are a common practice in many human service settings despite the increasing evidence questioning their efficacy and appropriateness. There are many detrimental effects on people subject to these practices, such as falls, injury, psychological trauma and even death. In addition to the impact on people being served, there is also a range of negative effects on organisations and the workforce. This article outlines and discusses the costs to organisations in implementing restraints and seclusion, and the economic cost-benefits to be gained in working towards the safe elimination of restraints and seclusion. A brief outline of ethical alternatives to restraints and seclusion is explored. The emerging research evidence suggests that it is possible to achieve the safe elimination of restraints and seclusion in a human service organisation.

Tied up and isolated in the schoolhouse.

In 1999, the United States General Accountability Office (USGAO) investigated restraints and seclusion use in mental health settings and found patterns of misuse and abuse. A decade later, it found the same misuse and abuse in schools. Restraints and seclusion are traumatizing and dangerous procedures that have caused injury and death. In the past decade, restraints and seclusion have gone from being considered an essential part of the psychiatric mental health toolkit to being viewed as a symptom of treatment failure. In most mental health settings, the use of restraints and seclusion has plummeted due to federal regulations, staff education, and concerted effort of psychiatric national and local leadership. The purpose of this article is to provide a background to and an overview of the present imbroglio over restraints and seclusion in public and private schools, articulate their dangers, dispel myths and misinformation about them, and suggest a leadership role for school nurses in reducing the use of these procedures.

Restraint use in residential programs: why are best practices ignored?

Several states and providers have embarked on initiatives to reduce using restraint and seclusion in residential programs. Restraint and seclusion are associated with harm to youth and staff, significant costs, reduced quality of care, and less engagement of youth and families. Successful reduction/prevention strategies have been identified, implemented, and reported. Both states and residential providers have implemented prevention approaches, made significant changes, reduced restraint/seclusion use, and offered their experience and positive outcomes.

Regulatory change: a pathway to eliminating seclusion and restraint or "regulatory scotoma"?

Historical and current experience indicates that regulatory changes in seclusion and restraint practice are often spurred by patient abuse but can ultimately enhance protection for consumers, prevent use of seclusion and restraint, and help transform care so it becomes recovery oriented. Reports of deaths related to restraint and seclusion fueled recent national regulatory changes and a federal agenda to eliminate their use. Some states, many facilities, and the federal initiative have focused on seclusion and restraint prevention and alternatives and have made important strides in reducing and eliminating these practices. However, new national regulations lessen previous oversight requirements, heighten risk, and threaten gains in reducing and eliminating such practices. Courageous, knowledgeable leadership is needed to challenge these minimum-practice thresholds and prevent seclusion and restraint "regulatory scotoma."

The economic cost of using restraint and the value added by restraint reduction or elimination.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to calculate the economic cost of using restraint on one adolescent inpatient service and to examine the effect of an initiative to reduce or eliminate the use of restraint after it was implemented. METHODS: A detailed process-task analysis of mechanical, physical, and medication-based restraint was conducted in accordance with state and federal restraint requirements. Facility restraint data were collected, verified, and analyzed. A model was developed to determine the cost and duration of an average episode for each type of restraint. Staff time allocated to restraint activities and medication costs were computed. Calculation of the cost of restraint was restricted to staff and medication costs. Aggregate costs of restraint use and staff-related costs for one full year before the restraint reduction initiative (FY 2000) and one full year after the initiative (FY 2003) were calculated. Outcome, discharge, and recidivism data were analyzed. RESULTS: A comparison of the FY 2000 data with the FY 2003 data showed that the adolescent inpatient service's aggregate use of restraint decreased from 3,991 episodes to 373 episodes (91 percent), which was associated with a reduction in the cost of restraint from $1,446,740 to $117,036 (a 92 percent reduction). In addition, sick time, staff turnover and replacement costs, workers' compensation, injuries to adolescents and staff, and recidivism decreased. Adolescent Global Assessment of Functioning scores at discharge significantly improved. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a restraint reduction initiative was associated with a reduction in the use of restraint, staff time devoted to restraint, and staff-related costs. This shift appears to have contributed to better outcomes for adolescents, fewer injuries to adolescents and staff, and lower staff turnover. The initiative may have enhanced adolescent treatment and work conditions for staff.

Child and adolescent inpatient restraint reduction: a state initiative to promote strength-based care.

OBJECTIVE: To reduce the use of restraint and seclusion with children and adolescents in psychiatric inpatient units by promoting a preventive, strength-based model of care. METHOD: The State Mental Health Authority used data analysis, quality improvement strategies, regulatory oversight, and technical assistance to develop and implement system change over a 22-month period. No changes in regulation or policy were undertaken. RESULTS: Comparative data collected before and after the interventions demonstrated substantial reductions in the use of restraint and seclusion. Child units (age 5-12) decreased from 84.03 to 22.78 episodes per 1,000 patient days (72.9%), adolescent units from 72.22 to 37.99 episodes (47.4%), and mixed child/adolescent units from 73.37 to 30.08 episodes (59%). CONCLUSIONS: The use of restraint and seclusion in child and adolescent inpatient settings can be reduced through a systems approach, which may have applicability to other settings and systems.

An organizational approach to reducing and preventing restraint and seclusion use with people with acquired brain injury.

INTRODUCTION: Seclusion, restraint (S/R) and coercive practices are used across human service populations, settings, with people of all ages. Their use has been increasingly scrutinized by the public, federal government and the media. Alternatives, interventions, and organizational approaches to these forms of containment are now emerging and advancing practice. AIM/PURPOSE: This article provides an overview of the work conducted to reduce the use of coercion restraint, seclusion and other invasive practices in behavioral health settings that often include the defacto admission of persons with Acquired Brain Injury (ABI). The article also examines treatment culture factors that can exacerbate behavior dysfunction and how to moderate such challenges to prevent the use of S/R procedures among people with ABI. CONCLUSION: Seclusion and restraint can be avoided and greatly reduced in settings serving people with ABI. When S/R use is recognized as an inadequate organizational response to harmful behavior that maintains patterns of aggression or harm, leadership-driven core strategies can be implemented to disrupt the behavioral sequence. The Six Core Strategies© provide a prevention based framework to anticipate challenge, intervene early, and analyze the factors that contribute to maintaining the cycle of violence if S/R is used.

Restraint and seclusion use in U.S. school settings: recommendations from allied treatment disciplines.

Restraint and seclusion (R&S) are high risk, emergency procedures that are used in response to perceived violent, dangerous situations. They have been employed for years in a variety of settings that serve children, such as psychiatric hospitals and residential treatment facilities, but are now being recognized as used in the public schools. The field of education has begun to examine these practices in response to national scrutiny and a Congressional investigation. The fields of mental health and child welfare were similarly scrutinized 10 years ago following national media attention and have advanced R&S practice through the adoption of a prevention framework and core strategies to prevent and reduce use. A review of the evolution of the national R&S movement, the adverse effects of these procedures, and a comprehensive approach to prevent their use with specific core strategies such as leadership, workforce development, and youth and family involvement in order to facilitate organizational culture and practice change are discussed. Proposed guidelines for R&S use in schools and systemic recommendations to promote R&S practice alignment between the child-serving service sectors are also offered.