Protest behaviors among patients placed in seclusion in a psychiatric emergency service.

BACKGROUND: Patients placed in seclusion for behavioral dyscontrol often perceive that the health care team is treating them inappropriately. These patients may express their indignation in many ways. To better characterize these behaviors, we conducted a study of protest behaviors in a psychiatric emergency service. METHODS: Video surveillance of seclusion room occupants is routinely reviewed as part of our safety protocol. For 1 month in 2022, we noted the frequency and timing of potential protest behaviors such as disrobing and evacuation. Descriptive statistics were applied. RESULTS: A total of 41 seclusion events (8.1%) occurred over the surveillance period, which included 504 initial emergency psychiatric evaluations. Six patients (14.6%) engaged in protest behaviors (all within 5 minutes of being placed in seclusion), including 3 (7.3%) who urinated and 3 (7.3%) who disrobed. One patient urinated almost immediately (2.4%), and another urinated 25 minutes after entering seclusion; the latter was not interpreted as a protest behavior. CONCLUSIONS: Immediate behaviors in seclusion that are different from behaviors that led to seclusion can be interpreted as protest behaviors. The 2 most often observed protest behaviors were urination and disrobing.

Inhaled loxapine for acute agitation in a psychiatric emergency service.

BACKGROUND: Rapid control of agitation in medical settings is necessary for safety and provision of care. Inhaled loxapine achieves peak plasma levels within 2 minutes of administration and is FDA-approved for managing acute agitation. METHODS: We examined the use of inhaled loxapine vs non-parenteral treatment as usual (TAU) in a psychiatric emergency service for consecutive patients with acute agitation or aggression. Data were collected retrospectively. T tests were used for continuous variables and Chi-square tests were used for categorical data. RESULTS: A total of 61 patients received inhaled loxapine and 29 received TAU. Time to outcome for patients receiving inhaled loxapine was 21 ± 21 minutes compared with 121 ± 206 minutes for TAU (t =-2.61; P = .014). At outcome, 89% of patients treated with loxapine experienced symptom resolution, compared with 69% of TAU (Chi-square = 17.4, P < .0001). Ten percent of patients receiving loxapine had no change in symptoms and 1% had worsening symptoms vs 14% in the TAU group who experienced no change in symptoms (z = 0.5, not significant), and 17% who described worsening symptoms (z = 6153.9, P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: The rapid absorption of inhaled loxapine is associated with a 6-fold faster and more robust symptom control.

Resource Utilization with the Use of Seclusion and Restraint in a Dedicated Emergency Psychiatric Service.

OBJECTIVES: There is a dearth of data regarding the use of emergency interventions in dedicated emergency psychiatric service settings, and reliable data are needed. This article describes the frequency and duration of the use of seclusion and restraint for imminent or existing agitation, aggression, or violence in a dedicated emergency psychiatric service located within an academic university hospital and staffed by sufficient numbers of trained personnel. METHODS: We performed a retrospective chart review of 6 months' visits to a dedicated emergency psychiatric service. RESULTS: Men outnumbered women with a 1.6 ratio of visits. Of 2843 subjects, 425 (14.6%) received emergent medication for anxiety (n = 90), substance withdrawal (n = 28), or agitation (n = 290). Physical interventions were used in 3.4%; 96 (3.3%) were secluded, and 9 (0.3%) were restrained. The average duration of seclusion was (mean ± standard deviation) 58.7 ± 37.4 minutes and for restraint 63.2 ± 23.4 minutes. Each episode of seclusion or restraint required approximately 3 hours of staff time. CONCLUSIONS: The use of an intervention such as seclusion in >3% and restraint in 0.3% of patients represents the use of seclusion and restraint in a dedicated psychiatric emergency service with personnel trained to minimize the use of seclusion and restraint.

Updates in the Assessment and Management of Agitation.

Agitated patients can be dangerous to themselves and others. In fact, severe medical complications and death can occur with severe agitation. Because of this, agitation is considered a medical and psychiatric emergency. Regardless of the treatment setting, identifying the agitated patient early is a necessary skill. The authors review relevant literature regarding the identification and management of agitation and summarize current recommendations for adults, as well as children and adolescents.

Waiting room crowding and agitation in a dedicated psychiatric emergency service.

BACKGROUND: Emergency department crowding is a growing problem that impacts patient care and safety. The effect of crowding has not been examined in emergency psychiatric services. METHODS: The association between patient census and use of restraints, seclusion, and anti-agitation medications as needed was examined for 1 month. RESULTS: A total of 689 patients were seen in 31 days. The average hourly census was 6.8 ± 2.8 (range 0 to 18). There were 33 incidences of seclusion or restraint and an additional 15 instances of medications administered for agitation. The use of seclusion, restraint, or medication for agitation was significantly associated with census (r2 = 0.3, F = 5.47, P = .036). CONCLUSION: Crowding in emergency psychiatric waiting rooms may increase the need for seclusion, restraint, or medications for agitation.

Case study: design may influence use of seclusion and restraint.

OBJECTIVE: The psychiatric emergency room is a dynamic and sometimes volatile environment. Its design may be an important variable in patient care, but most design decisions are based on models of thought and treatment with a minimal evidence base. BACKGROUND: The concept of open design, increasing access of patients to nursing staff, for inpatient psychiatric units has recently gained widespread acceptance, despite a dearth of empirical data. METHODS: We examined rates of seclusion and restraint before and after a design change that reduced the openness of the unit in a dedicated emergency psychiatric service in a general university hospital. Quality assurance data regarding the census, occurrence of assaults, and the use of seclusion and restraint were queried. Two independent analyses utilizing a test of proportional data were performed to replicate the findings. RESULTS: After placement of a door to restrict patients' access to the waiting area of the unit, the rate of the use of seclusion and restraint went from 0.03 (44/777) to 0.0185 (27/1,514; z = 2.02, p < .04). Replication over a separate time period saw reduction from 0.029 (67/2,277) to 0.018 (44/2,431), z = 2.44, p < .02). CONCLUSION: A design change that reduced the openness of the unit resulted in the reduction of seclusion and restraint.