De-escalation techniques used, and reasons for seclusion and restraint, in a forensic psychiatric hospital.

In Finland, the Mental Health Act determines the legal basis for seclusion and restraint. Restrictive measures are implemented to manage challenging situations and should be used as a last resort in psychiatric inpatient care. In the present study, we examined the reasons for seclusion and restraint, as well as whether any de-escalation techniques were used to help patients calm down. Seclusion and restraint files from a 4-year period (1 June 2009-31 May 2013) were retrospectively investigated and analysed by content analysis. Descriptive statistics were calculated. A total of 144 episodes of seclusion and restraint were included to analyse the reasons for seclusion and restraint, and 113 episodes were analysed to examine unsuccessful de-escalation techniques. The most commonly-used techniques were one-to-one interaction with a patient (n = 74, 65.5% of n = 113) and administration of extra medication (n = 37, 32.7% of n = 113). The reasons for seclusion and restraint were threatening harmful behaviour (n = 51, 35.4% of n = 144), direct harmful behaviour (n = 43, 29.9%), indirect harmful behaviour (n = 42, 29.1%), and other behaviours (n = 8, 5.6%). In general, the same de-escalation techniques were used with most patients. Most episodes of seclusion or restraint were due to threats of violence or direct violence. Individual means of self-regulation and patient guidance on these techniques are needed. Additionally, staff should be educated on a diverse range of de-escalation techniques. Future studies should focus on examining de-escalation techniques for the prevention of seclusion.

Seasonal variation of hospital violence, seclusion and restraint in a forensic psychiatric hospital.

Several epidemiological studies have reported seasonal patterns in both violent and self-destructive behaviour. However, a few studies on hospital violence have found contradictory results. The aim of this study was to investigate whether there was any seasonal variation of violence in a forensic psychiatric hospital providing care for persons suffering from psychotic disorders and violent or self-destructive behaviour. Seasonal variation of the prevalence of seclusion and restraint was also investigated. Reports of violent incidents and seclusion and restraint statistics from between 2007 and 2012 were examined with Poisson regression analysis. There was significant variation in the prevalence of seclusion and restraint between months (p<0.001), and between seasons (p<0.001). Monthly prevalence of seclusion and restraint was the lowest in January compared to other months. In comparison, the prevalence of seclusion and restraint was lower in winter than in other seasons. In a hospital with persons suffering from psychotic disorders, no significant variation of violence or self-destructive behaviour was found, similarly as in the society. By contrast, the prevalence of seclusion and restraint showed marked seasonality. Variation in the prevalence of seclusion and restraint was not consistent with the variance in violence, which implies that the use of coercive measures is related to seasonal variation among staff.

Cluster-randomized controlled trial of reducing seclusion and restraint in secured care of men with schizophrenia.

OBJECTIVE: This randomized controlled trial studied whether seclusion and restraint could be prevented in the psychiatric care of persons with schizophrenia without an increase of violence. METHODS: Over the course of a year, 13 wards of a secured national psychiatric hospital in Finland received information about seclusion and restraint prevention. Four high-security wards (N=88 beds) for men with psychotic illness were then stratified by coercion rates and randomly assigned to two equal groups. In the intervention wards, staff, patients, and doctors were trained for six months in applying six core strategies to prevent seclusion-restraint; six months of supervised intervention followed. Poisson's regression analyses compared monthly incidence rate ratios (IRRs) of coercion and violence (per 100 patient-days). RESULTS: The proportion of patient-days with seclusion, restraint, or room observation declined from 30% to 15% for intervention wards (IRR=.88, 95% confidence interval [CI]=.86-.90, p<.001) versus from 25% to 19% for control wards (IRR=.97, CI=.93-1.01, p=.056). Seclusion-restraint time decreased from 110 to 56 hours per 100 patient-days for intervention wards (IRR=.85, CI=.78-.92, p<.001) but increased from 133 to 150 hours for control wards (IRR=1.09, CI=.94-1.25, p=.24). Incidence of violence decreased from 1.1% to .4% for the intervention wards and from .1% to .0% for control wards. Between-groups differences were significant for seclusion-restraint-observation days (p=.001) and seclusion-restraint time (p=.001) but not for violence (p=.91). CONCLUSIONS: Seclusion and restraint were prevented without an increase of violence in wards for men with schizophrenia and violent behavior. A similar reduction may also be feasible under less extreme circumstances.