Three Pathways of Seclusion Reduction Programs to Sustainability: Ten Years Follow Up in Psychiatry.

From 2004 onwards, above 50 seclusion reduction programs (SRP) were developed, implemented and evaluated in the Netherlands. However, little is known about their sustainability, as to which extent obtained reduction could be maintained. This study monitored three programs over ten years seeking to identify important factors contributing to this. We reviewed documents of three SRPs that received governmental funding to reduce seclusion. Next, we interviewed key figures from each institute, to investigate the SRP documents and their implementation in practice. We monitored the number of seclusion events and the number of seclusion days with the Argus rating scale over ten years in three separate phases: 2008-2010, 2011-2014 and 2015-2017. As we were interested in sustainability after the governmental funding ended in 2012, our focus was on the last phase. Although in different rate, all mental health institutes showed some decline in seclusion events during and immediately after the SRP. After end of funding one institute showed numbers going up and down. The second showed an increase in number of seclusion days. The third institute displayed a sustained and continuous reduction in use of seclusion, even several years after the received funding. This institute was the only one with an ongoing institutional SRP after the governmental funding. To sustain accomplished seclusion reduction, a continuous effort is needed for institutional awareness of the use of seclusion, even after successful implementation of SRPs. If not, successful SRPs implemented in psychiatry will easily relapse in traditional use of seclusion.

Long-Term Impact of a Tailored Seclusion Reduction Program: Evidence for Change?

International comparative studies show that Dutch seclusion rates are relatively high. Therefore, several programs to change this practice were developed and implemented. The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of a seclusion reduction program over a long time frame, from 2004 until 2013. Three phases could be identified; the phase of development and implementation of the program (2004-2007), the project phase (2008-2010) and the consolidation phase (2011-2013). Five inpatient wards of a mental health institute were monitored. Each ward had one or more seclusion rooms. Primary outcome were the number and the duration of seclusion incidents. Involuntary medication was monitored as well to rule out substitution of one coercive measure by another. Case mix correction for patient characteristics was done by a multi-level logistic regression analysis with patient characteristics as predictors and hours seclusion per admission hours as outcome. Seclusion use reduced significantly during the project phase, both in number (-73%) and duration (-80%) and was not substituted by the use of enforced medication. Patient compilation as analyzed by the multi- level regression seemed not to confound the findings. Findings show a slight increase in number and seclusion days over the last year of monitoring. Whether this should be interpreted as a continuous or temporary trend remains unclear and is subject for further investigation.

Factors contributing to mental health professionals' decision to use seclusion.

OBJECTIVE: The authors constructed an explanatory model of factors contributing to the decision to use seclusion. METHODS: Experts helped develop 64 vignettes that manipulated multiple patient and environmental variables. Eighty-two mental health professionals working on inpatient wards in four institutes in the Netherlands rated the vignettes. A univariate general linear model examined vignette variables and rater characteristics influencing the decision to use seclusion. RESULTS: Almost half of the decision to seclude (46%) could be explained by a combination of rater characteristics and vignette variables. Rater characteristics explained 31.7%, and vignette variables explained 27.9% (with a 13.6% interaction effect). Rater characteristics, in order of explanatory influence, were type of care provided by the professional (such as on a crisis-intensive care or an observation-diagnostic unit), current frequency of participation in seclusion, the specific institute where the professional was employed (of the four participating institutes), experience using seclusion (number of years), and being in training to be a psychiatrist or a community mental health nurse. The primary vignette variables, in order of influence, were the approachability of the patient, seriousness of danger, availability of patient rooms and space, primary diagnosis, the professional's perceived trust in colleagues, staff-patient ratio during the shift, and voluntary or involuntary status. CONCLUSIONS: The model explained nearly half of the decision by mental health professionals to seclude vignette patients. Rater characteristics were at least as important as patient variables, including problem behaviors and diagnosis, and ward features. Because perceived approachability of the patient was a key factor, seclusion reduction policies should focus on supporting professionals in their efforts to manage inpatients with problem behaviors in an appropriate way.