Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Prevalence and risk factors for seclusion and restraint: results of a retrospective analysis
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Prevalence and risk factors for seclusion and restraint: results of a retrospective analysis
Do you wish to request the book?
Prevalence and risk factors for seclusion and restraint: results of a retrospective analysis
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Prevalence and risk factors for seclusion and restraint: results of a retrospective analysis
2025
Overview
Background
The reduction of coercion is a central challenge of inpatient mental health services. Little is known about the use of seclusion and restraint in open-door settings. This work aims to analyse the prevalence and risk factors of coercive measures in open inpatient wards of a Swiss university psychiatric hospital.
Methods
The use of seclusion and restraint was retrospectively analysed between 2017 and 2019. Incidence rate ratios using multivariable Poisson regressions were calculated to determine patient- and hospital stay-related risk factors for coercion.
Results
Of 1764 patients, 293 (16.6%) underwent at least one coercive measure (mostly seclusion) during their stay. The experience of coercive measures was associated with the following factors: male gender (IRR 1.34 [1.26, 1.38],
p
< 0.001), younger age (IRR 0.97 [0.97, 0.97],
p
< 0.001), being single or divorced (IRR 1.49 [1.43, 1.60],
p
< 0.001), diagnoses of organic (IRR 13.43 [13.38, 13.48],
p
< 0.001), psychotic (IRR 1.79 [1.79, 1.79],
p
< 0.001), or bipolar (IRR 2.17 [2.16, 2.17],
p
< 0.001) disorders, receiving disability benefits (IRR 1.92 [1.90, 2.07],
p
< 0.001), higher number of previous psychiatric hospitalizations (IRR 1.03 [1.03, 1.03],
p
< 0.001), and higher Health of the Nation Outcome Scales (HoNOS) item 1-scores (overactive, aggressive, or agitated behaviour) at admission 1.27 [1.27, 1.27],
p
< 0.001). Referrals from the emergency department (ED) (IRR 0.78 [0.77, 0.86],
p
< 0.001) were associated with a lower risk of coercion.
Conclusions
Young age, being single or divorced, male gender, diagnoses of organic, bipolar, or psychotic disorders, being on disability benefits, and previous psychiatric hospitalizations were identified as risk factors of coercion. The incidence of coercion was lower in ED referrals. Item 1 HoNOS scores at admission might be sufficient for a meaningful assessment of coercion risk. Our results suggest a strong link between aggressive behaviour and the use of coercive measures. Identification of patients at risk should be integrated to coercion reduction programs. The role of institutional and cultural factors influencing the use of coercion should be further investigated.
Publisher
BioMed Central,BioMed Central Ltd,Springer Nature B.V,BMC
Subject
/ Aged
/ Coercion
/ Female
/ Gender
/ Hospitals, Psychiatric - statistics & numerical data
/ Humans
/ Inpatients - statistics & numerical data
/ Male
/ Medicine
/ Mental Disorders - epidemiology
/ Patient Isolation - statistics & numerical data
/ Patients
