Jose I Pérez-Revuelta1,2, Rocío Torrecilla-Olavarrieta3, Edgar García-Spínola4, Ángela López-Martín1,4, Rafael Guerrero-Vida5, Jose M Mongil-San Juan5, Carmen Rodríguez-Gómez5, Juan M Pascual-Paño5, Francisco González-Sáiz2,4,6, Jose Mª Villagrán-Moreno4,5. 1. Instituto de Investigación e Innovación Biomédica de Cádiz (INiBICA), Unidad Investigación Hospital Universitario de Puerta del Mar Universidad de Cádiz, España Hospital Universitario Puerta del Mar, Avda. Ana de Viya, 21, Novena planta, unidad de investigación, 11009, Cádiz, Spain. 2. Unidad de Salud Mental Comunitaria Jerez, UGC Salud Mental, Área de Gestión Sanitaria Norte de Cádiz, Servicio Andaluz de Salud.Calle José Luis Diez, 14, 11403, Jerez de la Frontera, Cádiz, Spain. 3. Unidad de Salud Mental Comunitaria Villamartín, UGC Salud Mental, Área de Gestión Sanitaria Norte de Cádiz, Servicio Andaluz de Salud, Avda. de la Feria, 58, 11650, Villamartín, Cádiz, Spain. 4. Departamento Neurociencias, Área Psiquiatría, Universidad de Cádiz, Plaza Falla, 9, 11003, Cádiz, Spain. 5. Unidad de Salud Mental Hospitalaria Jerez, UGC Salud Mental, Área de Gestión Sanitaria Norte de Cádiz, Servicio Andaluz de Salud., Hospital General Universitario de Jerez de la Frontera, Ronda de Circunvalación, s/n, 11407, Jerez de la Frontera, Cádiz, Spain. 6. Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Salud Mental (CIBERSAM), Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Madrid, Spain.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Mechanical restraint is a controversial restrictive practice to manage agitation or violent behaviour. Numerous studies have evaluated the factors and organizational changes that influence on mechanical restraint, but only for short time periods. None of those studies have assessed the effects of measures applied within the framework of a long-term plan to reduce the use of mechanical restraint. Given the lack of specific legislation in Spain, more data are required for its proper regulation. AIM/QUESTION: To evaluate the risk factors associated and the impact of specific measures designed to minimize the application of mechanical restraint in an acute mental health unit over an 8-year period and previous observation of 5 years. METHODS: Cross-sectional study based on a retrospective analysis of mechanical restraint records. We compared admissions requiring ≥ one episode of restraint versus admissions not requiring this coercive measure. RESULTS: Between 2007 and 2014, 412 admissions (12%) required mechanical restraint. The data show that the measures applied in the previous five years had significantly reduced the total hours of restraint per semester. The factors associated with admissions requiring mechanical restraint were: involuntary, unscheduled, and longer admissions. The best predictor of restraint was involuntary admission (OR = 6.37), followed by the diagnosis of personality disorder (OR = 5.01). DISCUSSION: Identification of the factors associated with mechanical restraint would allow for early detection strategies. Our results provide additional evidence on the usefulness of organizational changes to reduce coercive measures, even in a country without specific legislation. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Organizational changes, such as staff training and increased family support during admission of episodes of mechanical restraint, can reduce the use of this measure. These measures also give the nursing staff greater responsibility in terms of their role in registering and monitoring the restrictive practice, thus helping to prevent or minimise the use of mechanical restraint. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
INTRODUCTION: Mechanical restraint is a controversial restrictive practice to manage agitation or violent behaviour. Numerous studies have evaluated the factors and organizational changes that influence on mechanical restraint, but only for short time periods. None of those studies have assessed the effects of measures applied within the framework of a long-term plan to reduce the use of mechanical restraint. Given the lack of specific legislation in Spain, more data are required for its proper regulation. AIM/QUESTION: To evaluate the risk factors associated and the impact of specific measures designed to minimize the application of mechanical restraint in an acute mental health unit over an 8-year period and previous observation of 5 years. METHODS: Cross-sectional study based on a retrospective analysis of mechanical restraint records. We compared admissions requiring ≥ one episode of restraint versus admissions not requiring this coercive measure. RESULTS: Between 2007 and 2014, 412 admissions (12%) required mechanical restraint. The data show that the measures applied in the previous five years had significantly reduced the total hours of restraint per semester. The factors associated with admissions requiring mechanical restraint were: involuntary, unscheduled, and longer admissions. The best predictor of restraint was involuntary admission (OR = 6.37), followed by the diagnosis of personality disorder (OR = 5.01). DISCUSSION: Identification of the factors associated with mechanical restraint would allow for early detection strategies. Our results provide additional evidence on the usefulness of organizational changes to reduce coercive measures, even in a country without specific legislation. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Organizational changes, such as staff training and increased family support during admission of episodes of mechanical restraint, can reduce the use of this measure. These measures also give the nursing staff greater responsibility in terms of their role in registering and monitoring the restrictive practice, thus helping to prevent or minimise the use of mechanical restraint. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Entities:
Keywords:
Acute Mental Health; Emergency Psychiatry; Risk Assessment; Seclusion and Restraint; Service Management and Planning
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