Explore the vast range of titles available.

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.

Introduction: The objective of this research was to identify legal and practical challenges in the application of means of coercion based on the opinions of medical staff.Materials and methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted using an original survey questionnaire among 205 medical staff (nurses and doctors) from 3 hospitals in Poland in 2019–2020.Results: The vast majority of survey participants found the use of coercion in their workplace to be challenging (38% always difficult, 51% sometimes difficult). Immobilization was identified as the most difficult measure to apply (45.86%). The majority of respondents rated the preparation for the use of coercion in their workplace as “poor,” “very poor,” or nonexistent in terms of procedures, personnel numbers, training, and equipment (with ratings ranging from 60–90%). Most respondents expressed a desire for more frequent cooperation with external institutions. Among the socio-demographic variables analyzed, only age was significantly associated with difficulty in using coercive measures, with older participants (M = 50.00 years) reporting more difficulty.Conclusions: The respondents generally applied coercion in accordance with Polish legislation, though several difficulties were noted in practice. These challenges may be due to shortcomings in workplace preparation for the use of coercion or inadequate cooperation with external institutions. Consequently, medical staff may resort to coercive measures that are not ideally suited to the patient but are feasible to apply. The greater difficulty reported by older respondents may reflect a higher awareness of practical issues in applying coercion. There is an urgent need to align legal requirements with practical realities, ensuring adequate funding for services.

IntroductionSeclusion is part of the clinical practice in European psychiatric hospital care with the aim to maintain the safety of patients and staff. Adverse events and harm have been reported for patients and staff resulting from seclusion. Safety hazards, which are the prerequisite of adverse events, can be identified using video observation methods. Identifying safety hazards can be used to prevent adverse events and improve the quality of psychiatric care.ObjectivesTo identify safety hazards during seclusion in psychiatric hospital care.MethodsDescriptive design with non-participant video-observation of seclusion care practice. Data consisted of video recordings (n = 36) from six wards of one psychiatric hospital in Finland. The data were analysed with inductive thematic analysis.ResultsClinical practice of seclusion included safety hazards stemming from the actions of patients and staff. Patients’ actions were as follows: aggressive behaviour, attempting to escape, precarious movements, preventing the visibility of staff, exposing themselves to contamination, and falls during seclusion. Staff actions included: leaving dangerous items to seclusion, issues in the administration of medication, performing physical and mechanical restraints in unsecure way, and precarious movements and postures.ConclusionsAccording to our results, the use of seclusion has safety hazards that can result in harm for patients and staff. To improve the quality and safety of seclusion in clinical practice, the guidelines, practices, and staff training need to consider the various safety hazards. While the work in Europe to abolish the use of seclusion is still in progress, this topic requires attention in clinical practice, education, and policymaking.DisclosureNo significant relationships.

IntroductionThere is an established association between serious mental illness and violence. Secure forensic psychiatric services provide care and treatment to mentally disordered offenders. The majority of patients in forensic services suffer from severe mental illnesses such as schizophrenia, with co-morbid polysubstance abuse and maladaptive personality traits. Psychiatric services are under significant pressure to reduce the use of seclusion and restrictive practices, whilst mandated to provide safe environments for patients and staff.ObjectivesTo determine the number and characteristics of violent incidents in a secure forensic hospital in Ireland.MethodsA retrospective review of all incidents in Central Mental Hospital, Ireland between 1st March 2019 and 31st August 2021 was completed. Incidents were categorised into physical assaults and other violent incidents. Demographic measures and measures of violence risk (HCR-20), functioning (GAF), programme completion and recovery (DUNDRUM tool) were collated.ResultsA total of 321 incidents took place during the period examined, of which 47 (14.6%) involved physical assaults perpetrated by patients. Between March 2020 and August 2021, numbers of assaults increased by 50% and 78% compared to the preceding six-month period respectively. The majority of assaults were committed by a relatively small group of patients. Victims of assaults were more likely to be patients (n=27, 57.4%) and more likely to be males (n=43, 91.9%).ConclusionsPhysical assaults and other violent incidents happen in forensic and general psychiatric units. Restrictive practices, used in accordance with the law, are necessary at times to prevent serious harm to patients and staff in psychiatric hospitals.DisclosureNo significant relationships.

Harald lives alone in a lost world. There's nothing left to hunt, and his food supplies are starting to rot. He must leave his cabin to search for the remains of a vanished humanity. He then discovers a strange ghost town, settles in it, and decides to revive it. But strange phenomena will disrupt this new life.

Purpose The main purpose of this review was to (1) identify thematic elements within definitions used by recently published literature to describe the constructs of physical/mechanical restraint, seclusion and chemical restraint in adult mental health inpatient units. Methods We conducted a comprehensive literature search of six databases (Scopus, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Embase, and CINAHL-Plus). In this review, we conducted content analysis to synthesize evidence to understand and compare the commonalities and discrepancies in conceptual elements that were incorporated within the definitions of different forms of restrictive care practices. Results A total of 95 studies that provided definitions for different forms of restrictive care practices [physical/mechanical restraint ( n  = 72), seclusion ( n  = 65) and chemical restraint ( n  = 19)] were included in this review. Significant variations existed in the conceptual domains presented within the applied definitions of physical/mechanical restraint, seclusion, and chemical restraint. Conceptual themes identified in this review were methods of restrictive care practice, reasons and desired outcomes, the extent of patient restriction during restrictive care practice episodes, timing (duration, frequency, and time of the day), the level of patient autonomy, and the personnel implementing these practices. Conclusions Inconsistencies in the terminologies and conceptual boundaries used to describe the constructs of different forms of restrictive care practices underscore the need to move forward in endorsing consensus definitions that reflect the diverse perspectives, ensuring clarity and consistency in practice and research. This will assist in validly measuring and comparing the actual trends of restrictive care practice use across different healthcare institutions and jurisdictions.

Purpose To identify and summarise extant knowledge about patient ethnicity and the use of various types of restrictive practices in adult mental health inpatient settings. Methods A scoping review methodological framework recommended by the JBI was used. A systematic search was conducted in APA PsycINFO, CINAHL with Full Text, Embase, PubMed and Scopus. Additionally, grey literature searches were conducted in Google, OpenGrey and selected websites, and the reference lists of included studies were explored. Results Altogether, 38 studies were included: 34 were primary studies; 4, reviews. The geographical settings were as follows: Europe ( n  = 26), Western Pacific ( n  = 8), Americas ( n  = 3) and South-East Asia ( n  = 1). In primary studies, ethnicity was reported according to migrant/national status ( n  = 16), mixed categories ( n  = 12), indigenous vs. non-indigenous ( n  = 5), region of origin ( n  = 1), sub-categories of indigenous people ( n  = 1) and religion ( n  = 1). In reviews, ethnicity was not comparable. The categories of restrictive practices included seclusion, which was widely reported across the studies ( n  = 20), multiple restrictive practices studied concurrently ( n  = 17), mechanical restraint ( n  = 8), rapid tranquillisation ( n  = 7) and manual restraint ( n  = 1). Conclusions Ethnic disparities in restrictive practice use in adult mental health inpatient settings has received some scholarly attention. Evidence suggests that certain ethnic minorities were more likely to experience restrictive practices than other groups. However, extant research was characterised by a lack of consensus and continuity. Furthermore, widely different definitions of ethnicity and restrictive practices were used, which hampers researchers’ and clinicians’ understanding of the issue. Further research in this field may improve mental health practice.

Restraints and seclusions are restrictive interventions used in psychiatric inpatient units when there is an imminent risk of harm to the patient or others. Coercive measures are controversial and can lead to negative consequences, including negative emotions, re-traumatization, injuries, or death. The article summarizes the last 10 years of literature regarding methods and strategies used for reducing seclusions and restraints in child and adolescent psychiatric inpatient units, and reports on their outcomes. The literature was reviewed by searching PubMed and PsycInfo for English-language articles published between May 2010 and May 2020. Eighteen articles were found that described methods or strategies aimed at reducing restraint or seclusion utilization in child and adolescent psychiatric inpatient units. The following interventions were evaluated: Trauma-Informed Care (TIC), Six Core Strategies, Child and Family Centered Care (CFCC), Collaborative & Proactive Solutions (CPS), Strength-Based Care, Modified Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (M-PBIS), Behavioral Modification Program (BMP), Autism Spectrum Disorder Care Pathway (ASD-CP), Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT), sensory rooms, Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction Training (MBSR) of staff, and Milieu Nurse-Client Shift Assignments. Most of the interventions reduced the use of seclusions and/or restraints. Two child-centered and trauma-informed initiatives eliminated the use of mechanical restraints. This review shows that the use of coercive measures can be reduced and should be prioritized. Successful implementation requires ongoing commitment on all levels of an organization and a willingness to learn. To facilitate comparisons, future models should evaluate different standardized parameters.

To assess the association between different types of coercive measures (forced medication, seclusion, and restraint) used during involuntary psychiatric admission and two treatment outcomes: retrospective views of patients towards their admission and length of inpatient stay. A secondary analysis was conducted of data previously gathered by the EUNOMIA study (n = 2030 involuntarily detained inpatients across 10 European countries, of whom 770 were subject to one or more coercive measures). Associations between coercive measures and outcomes were tested through multivariable regression models adjusted for patients' socio-demographic and clinical characteristics. Use of forced medication was associated with patients being significantly less likely to justify their admission when interviewed after three months. All coercive measures were associated with patients staying longer in hospital. When the influence of other variables was considered in a multi-variate analysis, seclusion remained as a significant predictor of longer inpatient stay, adding about 25 days to the average admission. Of the three coercive measures, forced medication appears to be unique in its significant impact on patient disapproval of treatment. While all coercive measures are associated with patients staying longer in hospital, only use of seclusion is associated with longer inpatient stays independently of coerced patients' having higher symptom scores at the time of admission.

This article is adapted from an assignment submitted as part of a postgraduate course at St George's University of London; O'Brien 2020.