Explore the vast range of titles available.

Objective The aim of this study was to identify quantitative data on the use of seclusion and restraint in different countries and on initiatives to reduce these interventions. Methods Combined literature review on initiatives to reduce seclusion and restraint, and epidemiological data on the frequency and means of use in the 21st century in different countries. Unpublished study was detected by contacting authors of conference presentations. Minimum requirements for the inclusion of data were reporting the incidence of coercive measures in complete hospital populations for defined periods and related to defined catchment areas. Results There are initiatives to gather data and to develop new clinical practice in several countries. However, data on the use of seclusion and restraint are scarcely available so far. Data fulfilling the inclusion criteria could be detected from 12 different countries, covering single or multiple hospitals in most counties and complete national figures for two countries (Norway, Finland). Both mechanical restraint and seclusion are forbidden in some countries for ethical reasons. Available data suggest that there are huge differences in the percentage of patients subject to and the duration of coercive interventions between countries. Conclusions Databases on the use of seclusion and restraint should be established using comparable key indicators. Comparisons between countries and different practices can help to overcome prejudice and improve clinical practice.

Background Seclusion is an invasive clinical intervention used in inpatient psychiatric wards as a continuation of milieu therapy with vast behavioural implications that raise many ethical challenges. Seclusion is in Norway defined as an intervention used to contain the patient, accompanied by staff, in a single room, a separate unit, or an area inside the ward. Isolation is defined as the short-term confinement of a patient behind a locked or closed door with no staff present. Few studies examine how staff experiences the ethical challenges they encounter during seclusion. By making these challenges explicit and reflecting upon them, we may be able to provide better care to patients. The aim of this study is to examine how clinical staff in psychiatric inpatient wards describes and assess the ethical challenges of seclusion. Methods This study was based on 149 detailed written descriptions of episodes of seclusion from 57 psychiatric wards. A descriptive and exploratory approach was used. Data were analysed using qualitative content analysis. Results The main finding is that the relationship between treatment and control during seclusion presents several ethical challenges. This is reflected in the balance between the staff’s sincere desire to provide good treatment and the patients’ behaviour that makes control necessary. Particularly, the findings show how taking control of the patient can be ethically challenging and burdensome and that working under such conditions may result in psychosocial strain on the staff. The findings are discussed according to four core ethical principles: autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice. Conclusion Ethical challenges seem to be at the core of the seclusion practice. Systematic ethical reflections are one way to process the ethical challenges that staff encounters. More knowledge is needed concerning the ethical dimensions of seclusion and alternatives to seclusion, including what ethical consequences the psychosocial stress of working with seclusion have for staff.

The authors of a recent systematic review concluded that the use of non-pharmacological containment methods, excluding restraint and seclusion, was not supported by evidence. Their focus on randomised, controlled trials, however, does not reflect the research that has been, or could be, conducted. To find empirically supported interventions that allow reduction in the use of seclusion in psychiatric facilities. We reviewed English-language, peer-reviewed literature on interventions that allow reduction in the use of seclusion. Staff typically used multiple interventions, including state-level support, state policy and regulation changes, leadership, examinations of the practice contexts, staff integration, treatment plan improvement, increased staff to patient ratios, monitoring seclusion episodes, psychiatric emergency response teams, staff education, monitoring of patients, pharmacological interventions, treating patients as active participants in seclusion reduction interventions, changing the therapeutic environment, changing the facility environment, adopting a facility focus, and improving staff safety and welfare. Reducing seclusion rates is challenging and generally requires staff to implement several interventions.

This commentary considers an extreme idea for protecting against human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) transmission to sex partners of individuals participating in HIV remission studies with an analytical treatment interruption (ATI). Other human challenge studies, such as studies of influenza, commonly isolate participants during the trial, to protect their contacts and the community against infection. Why should HIV studies with a treatment interruption be any different, one might wonder? This article concludes that isolation should not be used in HIV remission studies with an ATI but also shows that the matter is complex.

In this article, an intervention aimed at improving quality of care to prevent seclusion in psychiatry by focusing on the first five minutes at admission is analyzed from a care ethics perspective. Two cases are presented from an evaluation study in a psychiatric hospital. In both cases, the nurses follow the intervention protocol, but the outcome is different. In the first case, the patient ends up in the seclusion room. In the second case, this does not happen. Analyzing the cases from a care ethics perspective, we conclude that applying the intervention in the right way implies more than following the steps laid down in the protocol. It requires a new way of thinking and acting, resulting in new relationships between nurses and patients. Care ethics theory can help clarify what good care is actually about and keep in mind what is needed to apply the intervention. Thus, care ethics theory can be highly practical and helpful in changing and improving healthcare practice.

In India a symptom-free man returning from Liberia after being treated for Ebola virus disease (EVD) was recently put into isolation because his semen was still positive for the virus. 1 2 Even though blood, saliva, and urine samples gave negative results, he will remain in isolation until his semen also tests negative, which could take as long as three months. 3 There is no conclusive evidence of sexual transmission of Ebola virus, 4 and WHO does not recommend isolating patients whose blood tests negative for Ebola.

The use of patient restrictions (e.g. involuntary admission, seclusion, restraint) is a complex ethical dilemma in psychiatric care. The present study explored nurses’ (n = 22) and physicians’ (n = 5) perceptions of what actually happens when an aggressive behaviour episode occurs on the ward and what alternatives to seclusion and restraint are actually in use as normal standard practice in acute psychiatric care. The data were collected by focus group interviews and analysed by inductive content analysis. The participants believed that the decision-making process for managing patients’ aggressive behaviour contains some in-built ethical dilemmas. They thought that patients’ subjective perspective received little attention. Nevertheless, the staff proposed and appeared to use a number of alternatives to minimize or replace the use of seclusion and restraint. Medical and nursing staff need to be encouraged and taught to: (1) tune in more deeply to reasons for patients’ aggressive behaviour; and (2) use alternatives to seclusion and restraint in order to humanize patient care to a greater extent.

Changing professionals’ attitudes toward seclusion is seen as an important condition to reduce its use. The purpose of this study was to determine whether professionals from a mental health institute in the Netherlands changed in their attitudes toward seclusion after implementation of a multifaceted seclusion reduction program. Professionals working on four acute admission wards filled in the Professional Attitudes Toward Seclusion Questionnaire (PATS-Q) before and after a seclusion reduction program. Changes were analyzed by comparing mean scores on the PATS-Q. After the program, professionals scored significantly higher on ‘ethics’ and ‘more care’. As expected, no change occurred on ‘reasons’ for the use of seclusion. In addition, no significant changes were found on ‘confidence’, ‘better care’ and ‘other care’. Significant changes in professional attitudes concerning the ethics of using seclusion and involving issues of more care were observed after a seclusion reduction program. Mental health professionals moved in the direction of ‘transformers’, indicating an increased criticism of the practice of seclusion and increased willingness to change their own use of seclusion.