Open-door policy versus treatment-as-usual in urban psychiatric inpatient wards: a pragmatic, randomised controlled, non-inferiority trial in Norway.

BACKGROUND: Open-door policy is a recommended framework to reduce coercion in psychiatric wards. However, existing observational data might not fully capture potential increases in harm and use of coercion associated with open-door policies. In this first randomised controlled trial, we compared coercive practices in open-door policy and treatment-as-usual wards in an urban hospital setting. We hypothesised that the open-door policy would be non-inferior to treatment-as-usual on the proportion of patients exposed to coercive measures. METHODS: We conducted a pragmatic, randomised controlled, non-inferiority trial comparing two open-door policy wards and three treatment-as-usual acute psychiatric wards at Lovisenberg Diaconal Hospital in Oslo, Norway. An exemption from the consent requirements enabled inclusion and random allocation of all patients admitted to these wards using an open list (2:3 ratio) administrated by a team of ward nurses. The primary outcome was the proportion of patient stays with one or more coercive measures, including involuntary medication, isolation or seclusion, and physical and mechanical restraints. The non-inferiority margin was set to 15%. Primary and safety analyses were assessed using the intention-to-treat population. The trial is registered with ISRCTN registry and is complete, ISRCTN16876467. FINDINGS: Between Feb 10, 2021, and Feb 1, 2022, we randomly assigned 556 patients to either open-door policy wards (n=245; mean age 41·6 [SD 14·5] years; 119 [49%] male; 126 [51%] female; and 180 [73%] admitted to the ward involuntarily) or treatment-as-usual wards (n=311; mean age 41·6 [4·3] years; 172 [55%] male and 138 [45%] female; 233 [75%] admitted involuntarily). Data on race and ethnicity were not collected. The open-door policy was non-inferior to treatment-as-usual on all outcomes: the proportion of patient stays with exposure to coercion was 65 (26·5%) in open-door policy wards and 104 (33·4%) in treatment-as-usual wards (risk difference 6·9%; 95% CI -0·7 to 14·5), with a similar trend for specific measures of coercion. Reported incidents of violence against staff were 0·15 per patient stay in open-door policy wards and 0·18 in treatment-as-usual wards. There were no suicides during the randomised controlled trial period. INTERPRETATION: The open-door policy could be safely implemented without increased use of coercive measures. Our findings underscore the need for more reliable and relevant randomised trials to investigate how a complex intervention, such as open-door policy, can be efficiently implemented across health-care systems and contexts. FUNDING: South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority and The Research Council of Norway.

Protocol for the Lovisenberg Open Acute Door Study (LOADS): a pragmatic randomised controlled trial to compare safety and coercion between open-door policy and usual-care services in acute psychiatric inpatients.

INTRODUCTION: The reduction of coercion in psychiatry is a high priority for both the WHO and many member countries. Open-door policy (ODP) is a service model for psychiatric ward treatment that prioritises collaborative and motivational measures to better achieve acute psychiatric safety - and treatment objectives. Keeping the ward main door open is one such measure. Evidence on the impact of ODP on coercion and violent events is mixed, and only one randomised controlled trial (RCT) has previously compared ODP to standard practice. The main objectives of the Lovisenberg Open Acute Door Study (LOADS) are to implement and evaluate a Nordic version of ODP for acute psychiatric inpatient services. The evaluation is designed as a pragmatic RCT with treatment-as-usual (TAU) control followed by a 4-year observational period. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In this 12-month pragmatic randomised trial, all patients referred to acute ward care will be randomly allocated to either TAU or ODP wards. The primary outcome is the proportion of patient stays with one or more coercive measures. Secondary outcomes include adverse events involving patients and/or staff, substance use and users' experiences of the treatment environment and of coercion. The main hypothesis is that ODP services will not be inferior to state-of-the art psychiatric treatment. ODP and TAU wards are determined via ward-level randomisation. Following conclusion of the RCT, a longitudinal observational phase begins designed to monitor any long-term effects of ODP. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial has been approved by the Regional Committees for Medical and Health Research Ethics (REC) in Norway (REC South East #29238), who granted LOADS exemption from consent requirements for all eligible, admitted patients. Data are considered highly sensitive but can be made available on request. Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at scientific conferences and meetings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN16876467. PROTOCOL VERSION: 1.4, 21 December 2021.