Literature DB >> 28960741

Prolonged use of seclusion and mechanical restraint in mental health services: A statewide retrospective cohort study.

Brian McKenna1,2, Samantha McEvedy3, Tessa Maguire2,4, Jo Ryan2,4, Trentham Furness5.   

Abstract

Seclusion and mechanical restraint are restrictive interventions that should be used only as a last resort and for the shortest possible time, yet little is known about duration of use in the broader context. Adult area mental health services throughout Victoria, Australia, were asked to complete a report form for prolonged episodes of seclusion (>8 hours) and mechanical restraint (>1 hour). The present, retrospective cohort study aimed to understand the individual (age, sex, type of service, duration of intervention) and contextual factors associated with prolonged use of restrictive interventions. Contextual factors describing the reasons for prolonged use of the restrictive interventions were captured qualitatively, and then coded using content analysis. Median duration was compared across individual factors using Mann-Whitney U-tests. During 2014, 690 episodes of prolonged restrictive intervention involving 311 consumers were reported. Close to half (n = 320, 46%) involved mechanical restraint. Seclusion episodes (n = 370) were longer in forensic mental health services compared to adult area mental health services (median: 24 hours and 18 min vs 16 hours and 42 min, P < 0.001). Mechanical restraint episodes (n = 320) were shorter in forensic mental health services compared to adult area mental health services (median: 3 hours and 25 min vs 4 hours and 15 min, P = 0.008). Some consumers were subject to multiple episodes of prolonged seclusion (55/206, 27%) and/or prolonged mechanical restraint (31/131, 24%). The most commonly occurring contextual factor for prolonged restrictive interventions was 'risk of harm to others'. Means for reducing the use of prolonged restrictive interventions are discussed in light of the findings.
© 2017 Australian College of Mental Health Nurses Inc.

Keywords:  benchmark; mechanical restraint; restrictive intervention; seclusion

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28960741     DOI: 10.1111/inm.12383

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Ment Health Nurs        ISSN: 1445-8330            Impact factor:   3.503


  4 in total

1.  Physical Restraint Events in Psychiatric Hospitals in Hong Kong: A Cohort Register Study.

Authors:  Maritta Välimäki; Yuen Ting Joyce Lam; Kirsi Hipp; Po Yee Ivy Cheng; Tony Ng; Glendy Ip; Paul Lee; Teris Cheung; Daniel Bressington; Tella Lantta
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2022-05-16       Impact factor: 4.614

2.  A "Necessary Evil": Staff Perspectives of Soft Restraint Kit Use in a High-Security Hospital.

Authors:  Helen Walker; Lindsay Tulloch
Journal:  Front Psychiatry       Date:  2020-05-14       Impact factor: 4.157

3.  Perceptions of nurses working with psychiatric consumers regarding the elimination of seclusion and restraint in psychiatric inpatient settings and emergency departments: An Australian survey.

Authors:  Adam Gerace; Eimear Muir-Cochrane
Journal:  Int J Ment Health Nurs       Date:  2018-07-18       Impact factor: 3.503

4.  Using the Nominal Group Technique to determine a nursing framework for a forensic mental health service: A discussion paper.

Authors:  Tessa Maguire; Loretta Garvey; Jo Ryan; Michael Olasoji; Georgina Willets
Journal:  Int J Ment Health Nurs       Date:  2022-05-19       Impact factor: 5.100

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.