Variations in definitions used for describing restrictive care practices (seclusion and restraint) in adult mental health inpatient units: a systematic review and content analysis.

PURPOSE: The main purpose of this review was to (1) identify thematic elements within definitions used by recently published literature to describe the constructs of physical/mechanical restraint, seclusion and chemical restraint in adult mental health inpatient units. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive literature search of six databases (Scopus, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Embase, and CINAHL-Plus). In this review, we conducted content analysis to synthesize evidence to understand and compare the commonalities and discrepancies in conceptual elements that were incorporated within the definitions of different forms of restrictive care practices. RESULTS: A total of 95 studies that provided definitions for different forms of restrictive care practices [physical/mechanical restraint (n = 72), seclusion (n = 65) and chemical restraint (n = 19)] were included in this review. Significant variations existed in the conceptual domains presented within the applied definitions of physical/mechanical restraint, seclusion, and chemical restraint. Conceptual themes identified in this review were methods of restrictive care practice, reasons and desired outcomes, the extent of patient restriction during restrictive care practice episodes, timing (duration, frequency, and time of the day), the level of patient autonomy, and the personnel implementing these practices. CONCLUSIONS: Inconsistencies in the terminologies and conceptual boundaries used to describe the constructs of different forms of restrictive care practices underscore the need to move forward in endorsing consensus definitions that reflect the diverse perspectives, ensuring clarity and consistency in practice and research. This will assist in validly measuring and comparing the actual trends of restrictive care practice use across different healthcare institutions and jurisdictions.

Prevalence and variability of restrictive care practice use (physical restraint, seclusion and chemical restraint) in adult mental health inpatient settings: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: There is a growing consensus to reduce the use of restrictive care practices in mental health settings to minimise the physical and psychological complications for patients. However, data regarding restrictive care practice use and factors contributing to variations in the proportion estimates has not previously been synthesised. AIMS: This study aimed to synthesise evidence on (1) the pooled proportions of physical restraint, seclusion or chemical restraint in adult mental health inpatients and (2) sources of variability in these proportion estimates. METHODS: Studies were identified from Scopus, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Embase and CINAHL databases following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. We conducted a meta-analysis of studies published in English language from 1 January 2010 to 15 August 2022. Binomial data were pooled using a random effect model, with 95% confidence intervals. Meta-regression was also computed to identify factors that may contribute to variations in the proportion estimates. RESULTS: A total of 77 studies were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence of physical restraint, seclusion and chemical restraint was 14.4%, 15.8% and 25.7%, respectively. Data were heterogeneous across studies (I2 > 99%). Reporting practices and geographical locations contributed to the variability in the reported estimates of restrictive care practices, with studies from Asian countries reporting higher proportions. CONCLUSION: There appear differences between geographical locations in the proportion of restrictive practices in mental health inpatients; however, this is complicated by how these prevalence data have been measured and defined. Consistency in the reporting of restrictive care practices in mental health is required to make valid comparisons between geographical regions, policy settings and practice innovations. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Efforts are needed to develop training programmes and policy changes to ensure consistency in defining and reporting of restrictive care practices in mental health facilities. PATIENT/PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This is a systematic review that analysed data from previously published studies, and there was no patient/public contribution in this study. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: The protocol for this review has been registered to PROSPERO: CRD42022335167.

Staff Perspectives in Mental Health Research Regarding Restrictive Interventions: An Australian Scoping Review and Thematic Analysis.

Service users and their families have raised concerns about safety in current acute mental health service delivery. Restrictive interventions are routinely used across mental health settings despite increasing awareness of the negative impacts. Underfunding and risk-averse management practices are implicated as key challenges. Utilizing a scoping review and thematic analysis method, this review explored the existing literature of mental health staff perspectives across various settings (including psychiatric wards and emergency departments), focusing on their experience of restrictive interventions. Four themes were developed: 1. Safety (both staff and patient); 2. Barriers to staff reducing their restrictive interventions; 3. Strength in current practice; 4. Recommendations for change. Key gaps in the literature were the limited perspectives of emergency and crisis clinicians (despite these areas being settings where restrictive interventions are utilized) and limited perspectives from allied health disciplines (despite their employment as clinicians in these settings). It also noted a divide between staff and patient safety, as though these concerns are mutually exclusive rather than cooccurring, which is the experienced reality. Advocacy bodies, governments and the media are calling for a reduction in restrictive interventions in crisis settings. This research synthesis proposes that, to achieve this, clinical staff must be involved in the process and their perspectives actively sought and drawn upon to enable reform.

Who experiences seclusion? An examination of demographics and duration in a public acute inpatient mental health service.

Restrictive interventions such as seclusion may occur during an acute mental health crisis. Such interventions are experienced by people as traumatic and counter to recovery. The current study aimed to investigate the use of seclusion and who was secluded amongst patients presenting with psychotic symptomology. All acute inpatient admissions were examined across a 12-month period January-December 2013. Electronic and paper records were accessed and audited for all 655 admissions. There were 91 admissions that included a seclusion and 200 seclusion events. There were 79 unique patients who experienced seclusion. For those experiencing seclusion: two-thirds were male, 49% were either homeless or had no fixed abode, 32% received case management in the community prior to their inpatient stay, and 56% were unemployed or not in the workforce. The median and mode duration of seclusion was 4 h. By understanding seclusion interventions better, changes can be made to enhance practice. This descriptive research into seclusion has clarified the demographics of who is most likely to experience seclusion, for how long, and the implications for reducing restrictive interventions. How the social work role could contribute to reforms to protect and enhance the rights and well-being of marginalized members of our communities, at their most vulnerable, is considered.