Search

From 2004 onwards, above 50 seclusion reduction programs (SRP) were developed, implemented and evaluated in the Netherlands. However, little is known about their sustainability, as to which extent obtained reduction could be maintained. This study monitored three programs over ten years seeking to identify important factors contributing to this. We reviewed documents of three SRPs that received governmental funding to reduce seclusion. Next, we interviewed key figures from each institute, to investigate the SRP documents and their implementation in practice. We monitored the number of seclusion events and the number of seclusion days with the Argus rating scale over ten years in three separate phases: 2008–2010, 2011–2014 and 2015–2017. As we were interested in sustainability after the governmental funding ended in 2012, our focus was on the last phase. Although in different rate, all mental health institutes showed some decline in seclusion events during and immediately after the SRP. After end of funding one institute showed numbers going up and down. The second showed an increase in number of seclusion days. The third institute displayed a sustained and continuous reduction in use of seclusion, even several years after the received funding. This institute was the only one with an ongoing institutional SRP after the governmental funding. To sustain accomplished seclusion reduction, a continuous effort is needed for institutional awareness of the use of seclusion, even after successful implementation of SRPs. If not, successful SRPs implemented in psychiatry will easily relapse in traditional use of seclusion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

International comparative studies show that Dutch seclusion rates are relatively high. Therefore, several programs to change this practice were developed and implemented. The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of a seclusion reduction program over a long time frame, from 2004 until 2013. Three phases could be identified; the phase of development and implementation of the program (2004-2007), the project phase (2008-2010) and the consolidation phase (2011-2013). Five inpatient wards of a mental health institute were monitored. Each ward had one or more seclusion rooms. Primary outcome were the number and the duration of seclusion incidents. Involuntary medication was monitored as well to rule out substitution of one coercive measure by another. Case mix correction for patient characteristics was done by a multi-level logistic regression analysis with patient characteristics as predictors and hours seclusion per admission hours as outcome. Seclusion use reduced significantly during the project phase, both in number (−73%) and duration (−80%) and was not substituted by the use of enforced medication. Patient compilation as analyzed by the multi- level regression seemed not to confound the findings. Findings show a slight increase in number and seclusion days over the last year of monitoring. Whether this should be interpreted as a continuous or temporary trend remains unclear and is subject for further investigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Previous studies comparing restraint data from different countries had to rely on randomly published data and showed wide variance in the prevalence of restraint between countries.Aim: To systematically compare datasets from four similar European countries with regard to restraint prevalence.Methods: We analysed whole country or area datasets on restraint from Wales, Ireland, Germany and the Netherlands systematically, thus excluding selection, patient and setting bias. Learning disability (LD) and forensic settings were analysed separately. Differences in proportions between countries were tested by means of Chi square, with number of admissions, admission days and catchment area as denominator and counts of restraint as numerators.Results: Full datasets were obtained allowing calculations of total admissions, total restraint numbers, numbers of patients involved and total occupied bed days. Data for Ireland is from 2012 and from 2013 for the other three countries. The percentage of patients exposed to restraint varies between 4.5 and 9.4 %. The average number of restraints per patient is stable at around 3 in all countries. Patient numbers affected by restraint per 100 occupied bed days per month vary between 0.095 and 0.200. The Netherlands have the highest use of seclusion (79 %), the longest restraint times and low use of enforced medication. Wales the lowest use of seclusion (2 %), followed by Ireland (29 %) and Germany (49 %). Events per 100 admissions per month vary between 17 and 21. Patients affected by restraint per 100 admissions per month vary between 5.4 and 7.5. LD services account for a disproportionately high number of restraint events.Conclusion: Patient related restraint data are remarkably similar between countries. Type and length of restraint still vary significantly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]