These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: [The review of seclusion and restraint in psychiatric practice].
    Author: Hatta K, Nogi W, Igarashi Y, Kon H, Sawa Y, Seki K, Masuko S, Wakejima T, Asai K.
    Journal: Seishin Shinkeigaku Zasshi; 2003; 105(2):252-73. PubMed ID: 12708026.
    Abstract:
    In order to create the least restrictive setting in psychiatric practice, we investigated the effects of an assessment by a committee on seclusion and restraint. Using consistent procedures, the committees, which were established in 9 hospitals, reviewed seclusion and restraint maintained for periods of over 2 weeks during a 4-month period. Frequency and duration of seclusion and restraint, staff perceptions of and attitudes to the review system, and patient satisfaction were evaluated before and after the study period. As a result of this review process, the frequency of seclusion decreased slightly in 7 hospitals and 1 of the remaining 2 hospitals showed an increased frequency of seclusion days that were partially interrupted. Frequency of restraint decreased slightly in 5 hospitals, and of the remaining 3, 1 interrupted all periods of restraint, while the other 2 institutions showed an increase in interruption of restraint periods. As there were no common patients in 2 specialist psychiatric emergency hospitals between before and after the study periods, statistical analyses were performed. Only minor variables such as duration of partially interrupted periods of restraint, and duration of periods of restraint that were partially released showed a statistically significant increase. Although patient satisfaction showed a significant increase, staff attitudes to and perceptions of the review system became appreciably more negative. These findings suggest that although the review system had the potential to slightly reduce the use of seclusion and restraint, and to increase patient satisfaction, staff burnout was risked because staff effort was perceived to be disproportionately high in relation to the effect achieved. Furthermore, the possibility remains that the slight decrease of seclusion and restraint demonstrated did not necessarily reflect the appropriate use of these strategies, and were not necessarily lasting effects. However, as differences in opinion existed between the review system committee and treating clinicians regarding continuation of long term seclusion and restraint, the review system could have a role in monitoring the long term use of seclusion and restraint. Further investigation is needed into the long term effectiveness of procedures reviewing the use of seclusion and restraint in the psychiatric setting, taking into account both positive and negative outcomes.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]