Seclusion is a restrictive practice that many healthcare services are trying to reduce. Previous studies have sought to identify predictors of seclusion initiation, but few have investigated factors associated with adverse outcomes after seclusion termination.

To assess the factors that predict an adverse outcome within 24 h of seclusion termination.

In a cohort study of individuals secluded in psychiatric intensive care units, we investigated factors associated with any of the following outcomes: actual violence, attempted violence, or reinitiation of seclusion within 24 h of seclusion termination. Among the seclusion episodes that were initiated between 29 March 2018 and 4 March 2019, we investigated the exposures of medication cooperation, seclusion duration, termination out of working hours, involvement of medical staff in the final seclusion review, lack of insight, and agitation or irritability. In a mixed-effects logistic regression model, associations between each exposure and the outcome were calculated. Odds ratios were calculated unadjusted and adjusted for demographic and clinical variables.

We identified 254 seclusion episodes from 122 individuals (40 female, 82 male), of which 106 (41.7%) had an adverse outcome within 24 h of seclusion termination. Agitation or irritability was associated with an adverse outcome, odds ratio 1.92 (95% CI 1.03 to 3.56, P = 0.04), but there was no statistically significant association with any of the other exposures, although confidence intervals were broad.

Agitation or irritability in the hours preceding termination of seclusion may predict an adverse outcome. The study was not powered to detect other potentially clinically significant factors.

This paper explores factors linking gender with increased perceived coercion, perceived negative pressures and procedural injustice during psychiatric admission.

We used validated tools to perform detailed assessments of 107 adult psychiatry inpatients admitted to acute psychiatry admission units at two general hospitals in Dublin, Ireland, between September 2017 and February 2020.

Among female inpatients (n = 48), perceived coercion on admission was associated with younger age and involuntary status; perceived negative pressures were associated with younger age, involuntary status, seclusion, and positive symptoms of schizophrenia; and procedural injustice was associated with younger age, involuntary status, fewer negative symptoms of schizophrenia, and cognitive impairment. Among females, restraint was not associated with perceived coercion on admission, perceived negative pressures, procedural injustice, or negative affective reactions to hospitalisation; seclusion was associated with negative pressures only. Among male inpatients (n = 59), not being born in Ireland appeared more relevant than age, and neither restraint nor seclusion were associated with perceived coercion on admission, perceived negative pressures, procedural injustice, or negative affective reactions to hospitalisation.

Factors other than formal coercive practices are primarily linked with perceived coercion. Among female inpatients, these include younger age, involuntary status, and positive symptoms. Among males, not being born in Ireland appears more relevant than age. Further research is needed on these correlations, along with gender-aware interventions to minimise coercive practices and their consequences among all patients.

Coercive measures (such as seclusion, mechanical restraint, and forced medication) during psychiatric inpatient treatment should be avoided whenever possible. Different interventions were already developed to reduce coercion, but for their effective application, it is crucial to know the risk factors of individuals and clinical situations that might be associated with coercion. Since the results of previous studies differ considerably the current study aims to fill this gap by evaluating the course of the exertion of coercion in detail.

In this study, we analyzed clinical, procedural, and sociodemographic data from patients (n = 16,607 cases) who were treated as inpatients in Switzerland’s largest psychiatric institution with 320 beds during the years 2017 to 2020. We used regression models to identify predictors for the exertion of coercion, the number of coercive measures during a treatment episode and time until exertion of the first and last coercive measure.

Coercive measures are mostly used during the first days of treatment. We identified clinical parameters such as manic or psychotic episodes to be the most relevant predictors for the exertion of coercion. Cases with those disorders also received coercion more often and earlier in their treatment course than other diagnostic groups. Other promoting factors for frequency and early application of coercion were involuntary admission and factors of chronicity and clinical severity.

Knowing the risk factors may help to target preventive strategies for those at highest risk. In particular, interventions should focus on the critical timeframe at the beginning of treatment.

There 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.

To determine the number and characteristics of violent incidents in a secure forensic hospital in Ireland.

A 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.

A 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%).

Physical 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.

No significant relationships.

Seclusion 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.

To identify safety hazards during seclusion in psychiatric hospital care.

Descriptive 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.

Clinical 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.

According 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.

No significant relationships.

Restrictive interventions (seclusion, restraint and special observations) are used on psychiatric wards when there are no other means available to keep a patient or others safe. These measures can be traumatic, and the Mental Health Commission and the Health Service Executive are focused on minimising their use. We set out to determine whether, following a COVID related reduction in bed numbers on a high dependency psychiatric ward in St John of God Hospital in Dublin, there was a change in their incidence.

Data on restrictive interventions and challenging behaviours were gathered for 9-month periods before and after March 2020 when COVID related ward changes took place. Figures were also collected on seclusion and restraint for the previous 18 months for a longer-term view. Ward and hospital occupancy levels were also recorded.

Between the two time periods, episodes of seclusion fell by 53% and episodes of restraint by 56%. The hours devoted to special observation declined by 30% and incidents of challenging behaviours fell by 26%. Ward occupancy levels fell by only 5%. The longer-term comparison of figures for seclusion and restraint point towards a downward trend from mid-2019 that was accentuated in the post-COVID period.

The changes found may relate to reduced crowding on the ward or other COVID related factors such as the emphasis on social distancing and a shared sense of purpose on the ward. The longer-term trend points towards an emerging cultural shift. The challenge now is to sustain and build upon these changes.

Violent behaviors in psychiatric emergency departments are a common problem. The aim is to study characteristics of patients who need intense preventive care measures and who act violently.

The study was conducted in a locked short term psychiatric inpatient unit and involved 172 patients admitted in a 8 months period. Sociodemographic and clinical data were obtained through a review of the medical records. Secclusion, restraint and agressive behaviors were noted on specific nurse sheets.

Aggressive behaviors or intense preventive measures concerned 34% (n=59) of the 172 patients. Among these 59 patients, 61% (n=36) are men and the mean age is 34,9 years, 28 had seclusion, 51 had restraint and 11 had physical aggression or against object aggression. The diagnosis are schizophrenic disorders for 63% (n=37), dependence or substance abuse for 11% (n=7), mania for 10% (n=6), depression for 3,5% (n=2). For 27% (n=16) of them it was first time in Emergency Department and 30,5% (n=18) were intoxicated at admission. The mean neuroleptic treatments dosis of these patients at admission were 656mg (equivalent chlorpromazine).

Patients concerned by seclusion, restraint and aggressive behavior are more frequently men with schizophrenic disorders, high neuroleptic dosis, and various past admissions in the Emergency Department.

The use of coercive measures in psychiatry is still poorly understood. Most empirical research has been limited to compulsory admission and to risk factors on an individual patient level. This study addresses three coercive measures and the role of predictive factors at both patient and institutional levels.

Using the central psychiatric register that covers all psychiatric hospitals in Canton Zurich (1.3 million people), Switzerland, we traced all inpatients in 2007 aged 18–70 (n = 9698). We used GEE models to analyse variation in rates between psychiatric hospitals.

Overall, we found quotas of 24.8% involuntary admissions, 6.4% seclusion/restraint and 4.2% coerced medication. Results suggest that the kind and severity of mental illness are the most important risk factors for being subjected to any form of coercion. Variation across the six psychiatric hospitals was high, even after accounting for risk factors on the patient level suggesting that centre effects are an important source of variability. However, effects of the hospital characteristics ‘size of the hospital’, ‘length of inpatient stay’, and ‘work load of the nursing staff’ were only weak (‘bed occupancy rate’ was not statistically significant).

The significant variation in use of coercive measures across psychiatric hospitals needs further study.

To compare the clinical management of typical scenarios by using three case vignettes in a substantial number of European countries.

Three case vignettes and an associated questionnaire, filled in and finalised by at least two experts from each country.

Legislation and clinical practice varies widely across the 16 included countries. No specific pattern emerged. Certain practices (intravenous medication, mechanical restraint, net beds and forensic transfers, respectively) only exist in few countries. Legislation for involuntary medication is most restrictive in the Netherlands.

There is little harmonisation and a lack of consistent standards within and across European countries regarding treatment and management of violent patients.

There are growing calls to reduce, and where possible eliminate, the use of seclusion and restraint in mental health settings, but the attitudes and beliefs of consumers, carers and mental health professionals towards these practices are not well understood. The aim of this study was to compare the attitudes of mental health service consumers, carers and mental health professionals towards seclusion and restraint in mental health settings. In particular, it aimed to explore beliefs regarding whether elimination of seclusion and restraint was desirable and possible.

In 2014, an online survey was developed and widely advertised in Australia via the National Mental Health Commission and through mental health networks. The survey adopted a mixed-methods design, including both quantitative and qualitative questions concerning participants’ demographic details, the use of seclusion and restraint in practice and their views on strategies for reducing and eliminating these practices.

In total 1150 survey responses were analysed. A large majority of participants believed that seclusion and restraint practices were likely to cause harm, breach human rights, compromise trust and potentially cause or trigger past trauma. Consumers were more likely than professionals to view these practices as harmful. The vast majority of participants believed that it was both desirable and feasible to eliminate mechanical restraint. Many participants, particularly professionals, believed that seclusion and some forms of restraint were likely to produce some benefits, including increasing consumer safety, increasing the safety of staff and others and setting behavioural boundaries.

There was strong agreement across participant groups that the use of seclusion and restraint is harmful, breaches human rights and compromises the therapeutic relationship and trust between mental health service providers and those who experience these restrictive practices. However, some benefits were also identified, particularly by professionals. Participants had mixed views regarding the feasibility and desirability of eliminating these practices.

To assess the impact of a changed ward environment upon levels of inpatient arousal and aggression on a National Health Service psychiatric intensive care unit.

A retrospective service evaluation comparing seclusion episodes, duration of close observation, recorded aggressive incidents and data from the Nursing Observed Illness Intensity Scale (NOIIS) on a psychiatric intensive care unit for two three-month periods either side of a move from an old, temporary building to a new, purpose-built ward. The ward environments were also objectively assessed and compared using the Environment Assessment Inventory (EAI).

A statistically significant reduction in episodes of seclusion, total seclusion hours and aggressive incidents, as well as a reduction in levels of agitation from the NOIIS data on the new ward compared to the old ward. The EAI scores showed important qualitative improvements on the new ward.

This study supports the hypothesis that the physical environment of a psychiatric intensive care unit has a significant impact on levels of arousal and aggression. Established measures of ward environment should be applied to the development and improvement of psychiatric wards.

We recently showed that restraint and seclusion differed in children and adolescents (n = 2411) who were receiving treatment as psychiatric inpatients, with children experiencing more episodes of both of these interventions of shorter duration. In this report, we examine restraint and seclusion in members of that sample (n = 471) who experienced a readmission within two years.

The initial database included two years of data on a total of 2411 child and adolescent inpatients, with 20% being readmitted within that period. Statistical analyses examine the characteristics of the sample at the readmission, including correlations between satisfaction with treatment at discharge from the readmission and the comparisons of the frequency of restraint and seclusion at both admissions. These analyses were performed separately for the samples of children and adolescents.

In the cases who experienced restraint or seclusion at their first admission there was a 22% reduction in occurrence of restraint at the second admission for children and 44% for adolescents. Comparisons of the patients who did and did not experience restraint and seclusion across admissions suggested that these are different populations with different overall risk for restraint seclusions. Risk for seclusion and the number of seclusions was correlated across admissions. Length of stay was shorter at readmission for patients who experienced seclusion or restraint during their first admission. Patients who experienced restraint or seclusion at their readmission did not differ in their satisfaction with treatment at discharge from their readmission from those who did not.

Children and adolescents who experienced restraint and seclusion during a psychiatric admission had a reduced risk of seclusion at a readmission, but were still at higher risk than cases without restraint and seclusion at the first admission. These reductions in risk, as well as a shorter length of stay at readmission, suggest potentially beneficial effects. The lack of increased dissatisfaction with treatment also indicates that these cases did not see themselves as excessively coerced or victimised by the experience. Nonetheless, the high rate of occurrence of restraint and seclusion suggests that alternative treatment interventions are clearly important.

After de-escalation techniques have failed, restraints, seclusion and/or rapid tranquillization may be used for people whose aggression is due to psychosis. Most coercive acts of health care have not been evaluated in trials.

People admitted to the emergency room of Instituto Philippe Pinel, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, whose aggression/agitation was thought due to psychosis and for whom staff were unsure if best to restrict using physical restraints or a seclusion room, were randomly allocated to one or the other and followed up to 14 days. The primary outcomes were ‘no need to change intervention early – within 1 h’ and ‘not restricted by 4 h’.

A total of 105 people were randomized. Two-thirds of the people secluded were able to be fully managed in this way. Even taking into account the move out of seclusion into restraints, this study provides evidence that embarking on the less restrictive care pathway (seclusion) does not increase overall time in restriction of some sort [not restricted by 4 h: relative risk 1.09, 95% confidence interval 0.75–1.58; mean time to release: restraints 337.6 (s.d.=298.2) min, seclusion room 316.3 (s.d.=264.5) min, p=0.48]. Participants tended to be more satisfied with their care in the seclusion group (17.0% v. 11.1%) but this did not reach conventional levels of statistical significance (p=0.42).

This study should be replicated, but suggests that opting for the least restrictive option in circumstances where there is clinical doubt does not harm or prolong coercion.