COVID-19: A systematic evaluation of personal protective equipment (PPE) performance during restraint.

BACKGROUND: Restraint is widely practised within inpatient mental health services and is considered a higher-risk procedure for patients and staff. There is a sparsity of evidence in respect of the efficacy of personal protective equipment (PPE) used during restraint for reducing risk of infection. METHODS: A series of choreographed restraint episodes were used to simulate contact contamination in research participants playing the roles of staff members and a patient. For comparison, one episode of simulated recording of physical observations was taken. Ultraviolet (UV) fluorescent material was used to track the simulated contact contamination, with analysis undertaken using established image registration techniques of UV photographs. This was repeated for three separate sets of PPE. RESULTS: All three PPE sets showed similar performance in protecting against contamination transfer. For teams not utilising coveralls, this was dependent upon effective cleansing as part of doffing. There were similar patterns of contamination for restraint team members assigned to specific roles, with hands and upper torso appearing to be higher-risk areas. The restraint-related contamination was 23 times higher than that observed for physical observations. DISCUSSION: A second layer of clothing that can be removed showed efficacy in reducing contact contamination. PPE fit to individual is important. Post-restraint cleansing procedures are currently inadequate, with new procedures for face and neck cleansing required. These findings leave scope for staff to potentially improve their appearance when donning PPE and engaging with distressed patients.

Joint BAP NAPICU evidence-based consensus guidelines for the clinical management of acute disturbance: De-escalation and rapid tranquillisation.

The British Association for Psychopharmacology and the National Association of Psychiatric Intensive Care and Low Secure Units developed this joint evidence-based consensus guideline for the clinical management of acute disturbance. It includes recommendations for clinical practice and an algorithm to guide treatment by healthcare professionals with various options outlined according to their route of administration and category of evidence. Fundamental overarching principles are included and highlight the importance of treating the underlying disorder. There is a focus on three key interventions: de-escalation, pharmacological interventions pre-rapid tranquillisation and rapid tranquillisation (intramuscular and intravenous). Most of the evidence reviewed relates to emergency psychiatric care or acute psychiatric adult inpatient care, although we also sought evidence relevant to other common clinical settings including the general acute hospital and forensic psychiatry. We conclude that the variety of options available for the management of acute disturbance goes beyond the standard choices of lorazepam, haloperidol and promethazine and includes oral-inhaled loxapine, buccal midazolam, as well as a number of oral antipsychotics in addition to parenteral options of intramuscular aripiprazole, intramuscular droperidol and intramuscular olanzapine. Intravenous options, for settings where resuscitation equipment and trained staff are available to manage medical emergencies, are also included.

Searching for prohibited items in mental-health hospitals: A randomised controlled trial of two metal-detecting technologies.

Weapons and other items with potential to cause harm are usually prohibited in mental-health hospitals and other psychiatric facilities. Detecting such prohibited items (PIs) can be problematic, particularly if concealed, and metal detectors are commonly used to search for such items. Our study compared two types of metal detection: continuous wave detection (CWD) by hand-held metal detector (HHMD) and magnetic anomaly detection (MAD) by a static pole device. In the study, real and dummy PIs were hidden on test subjects and in a simulated body cavity. The results showed MAD to be significantly superior to CWD in detecting small concealed PIs containing ferrous metal. The MAD pole found 100% of the real PIs on the test subjects and in the simulated body cavity. The CWD HHMD found only 5.2% of the real PIs, and these were limited to those on the test subjects, as it detected none in the simulated body cavity. In addition, the time taken to search by MAD pole was shorter than time taken to search by CWD HHMD.