Models, frameworks and theories in the implementation of programs targeted to reduce formal coercion in mental health settings: a systematic review.

Introduction: Implementation models, frameworks and theories (hereafter tools) provide researchers and clinicians with an approach to understand the processes and mechanisms for the successful implementation of healthcare innovations. Previous research in mental health settings has revealed, that the implementation of coercion reduction programs presents a number of challenges. However, there is a lack of systematized knowledge of whether the advantages of implementation science have been utilized in this field of research. This systematic review aims to gain a better understanding of which tools have been used by studies when implementing programs aiming to reduce formal coercion in mental health settings, and what implementation outcomes they have reported. Methods: A systematic search was conducted using PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane, Scopus, and Web of Science. A manual search was used to supplement database searches. Quality appraisal of included studies was undertaken using MMAT-Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. A descriptive and narrative synthesis was formed based on extracted data. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed in this review. Results: We identified 5,295 references after duplicates were removed. Four additional references were found with a manual search. In total eight studies reported in nine papers were included in the review. Coercion reduction programs that were implemented included those that were holistic, and/or used professional judgement, staff training and sensory modulation interventions. Eight different implementation tools were identified from the included studies. None of them reported all eight implementation outcomes sought from the papers. The most frequently reported outcomes were acceptability (4/8 studies) and adaptation (3/8). With regards to implementation costs, no data were provided by any of the studies. The quality of the studies was assessed to be overall quite low. Discussion: Systematic implementation tools are seldom used when efforts are being made to embed interventions to reduce coercive measures in routine mental health care. More high-quality studies are needed in the research area that also involves perspectives of service users and carers. In addition, based on our review, it is unclear what the costs and resources are needed to implement complex interventions with the guidance of an implementation tool. Systematic review registration: [Prospero], identifier [CRD42021284959].

An Evaluation of the Implementation of a "No Force First" Informed Organisational Guide to Reduce Physical Restraint in Mental Health and Learning Disability Inpatient Settings in the UK.

BACKGROUND: The use of physical restraint on vulnerable people with learning disabilities and mental health problems is one of the most controversial and criticised forms of restrictive practice. This paper reports on the implementation of an organisational approach called "No Force First" within a large mental health organisation in England, UK. The aim was to investigate changes in violence/aggression, harm, and physical restraint following implementation. METHODS: The study used a pretest-posttest quasi-experimental design. Recorded incidents of violence/aggression from 44 inpatient mental health and learning disabilities (including forensic) wards were included (n = 13,599). Two study groups were created for comparison: the "intervention" group comprising all incidents on these wards during the 24 months post-implementation (2018-2019) (n = 6,551) and the "control" group comprising all incidents in the 24 months preceding implementation (2015-2016) (n = 7,048). Incidents recorded during implementation (i.e., 2017) were excluded (n = 3,705). Incidence rate ratios (IRR) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). Multivariate regression models using generalised estimating equations were performed to estimate unadjusted and adjusted prevalence ratios (aPR) of physical restraint and harm, using type of wards, incident, and violence/aggression as key covariates. RESULTS: A significant 17% reduction in incidence of physical restraint was observed [IRR = 0.83, 95% CI 0.77-0.88, p < 0.0001]. Significant reductions in rates of harm sustained and aggression/violence were also observed, but not concerning the use of medication during restraint. The prevalence of physical restraint was significantly higher in inpatients on forensic learning disability wards than those on forensic mental health wards both pre- (aPR = 4.26, 95% CI 2.91-6.23) and post-intervention (aPR = 9.09, 95% CI 5.09-16.23), when controlling for type of incident and type of violence/aggression. Physical assault was a significantly more prevalent risk factor of restraint use than other forms of violence/aggression, especially that directed to staff (not to other patients). CONCLUSIONS: This is a key study reporting the positive impact that organisational models and guides such as "No Force First" can have on equipping staff to focus more on primary and secondary prevention as opposed to tertiary coercive practices such as restraint in mental health and learning disabilities settings.