18
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The effects of a nationwide program to reduce seclusion in the Netherlands

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          From 2006 to 2009, the Dutch government provided €5 m annually for a nationwide program to reduce seclusion in psychiatric hospitals by 10% a year. We aimed to establish whether the numbers of both seclusion and involuntary medication changed significantly after the start of this national program.

          Methods

          Using Poisson regression to estimate difference in logit slopes, we analyzed data for 1998–2009 from the Dutch Health Care Inspectorate, retrospectively examining the national numbers of seclusion and involuntary medication before and after the start of the program.

          Results

          The difference in slopes of the numbers of seclusion before and after the start of the program was statistically significant (difference 5.2%: p < 0.001). After the start of the program seclusions dropped 2.0% per year. Corrected for the increasing number of involuntary hospitalizations this figure was 4.7% per year. The difference in slopes of the numbers of involuntary medication did not change statistically significant (difference 0.5%, n.s.). After correction for the increasing number of involuntary hospitalizations the difference turned significant (difference 3.3%, p = 0.002).

          Conclusions

          After the start of the nationwide program the number of seclusions fell, and although significantly changing, the reduction was modest and failed to meet the objective of a 10% annual decrease. The number of involuntary medications did not change; instead, after correction for the number of involuntary hospitalizations, it increased.

          Related collections

          Most cited references10

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Incidence of seclusion and restraint in psychiatric hospitals: a literature review and survey of international trends.

          The aim of this study was to identify quantitative data on the use of seclusion and restraint in different countries and on initiatives to reduce these interventions. Combined literature review on initiatives to reduce seclusion and restraint, and epidemiological data on the frequency and means of use in the 21st century in different countries. Unpublished study was detected by contacting authors of conference presentations. Minimum requirements for the inclusion of data were reporting the incidence of coercive measures in complete hospital populations for defined periods and related to defined catchment areas. There are initiatives to gather data and to develop new clinical practice in several countries. However, data on the use of seclusion and restraint are scarcely available so far. Data fulfilling the inclusion criteria could be detected from 12 different countries, covering single or multiple hospitals in most counties and complete national figures for two countries (Norway, Finland). Both mechanical restraint and seclusion are forbidden in some countries for ethical reasons. Available data suggest that there are huge differences in the percentage of patients subject to and the duration of coercive interventions between countries. Databases on the use of seclusion and restraint should be established using comparable key indicators. Comparisons between countries and different practices can help to overcome prejudice and improve clinical practice.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Interventions for reducing the use of seclusion in psychiatric facilities: review of the literature.

            The authors of a recent systematic review concluded that the use of non-pharmacological containment methods, excluding restraint and seclusion, was not supported by evidence. Their focus on randomised, controlled trials, however, does not reflect the research that has been, or could be, conducted. To find empirically supported interventions that allow reduction in the use of seclusion in psychiatric facilities. We reviewed English-language, peer-reviewed literature on interventions that allow reduction in the use of seclusion. Staff typically used multiple interventions, including state-level support, state policy and regulation changes, leadership, examinations of the practice contexts, staff integration, treatment plan improvement, increased staff to patient ratios, monitoring seclusion episodes, psychiatric emergency response teams, staff education, monitoring of patients, pharmacological interventions, treating patients as active participants in seclusion reduction interventions, changing the therapeutic environment, changing the facility environment, adopting a facility focus, and improving staff safety and welfare. Reducing seclusion rates is challenging and generally requires staff to implement several interventions.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A 15-year national follow-up: legislation is not enough to reduce the use of seclusion and restraint.

              Seclusion and restraint are frequent but controversial coercive measures used in psychiatric treatment. Legislative efforts have started to emerge to control the use of these measures in many countries. In the present study, the nationwide trends in the use of seclusion and restraint were investigated in Finland over a 15-year span which was characterised by legislative changes aiming to clarify and restrict the use of these measures. The data were collected during a predetermined week in 1990, 1991, 1994, 1998 and 2004, using a structured postal survey of Finnish psychiatric hospitals. The numbers of inpatients during the study weeks were obtained from the National Hospital Discharge Register. The total number of the secluded and restrained patients declined as did the number of all inpatients during the study weeks, but the risk of being secluded or restrained remained the same over time when compared to the first study year. The duration of the restraint incidents did not change, but the duration of seclusion increased. A regional variation was found in the use of coercive measures. Legislative changes solely cannot reduce the use of seclusion and restraint or change the prevailing treatment cultures connected with these measures. The use of seclusion and restraint should be vigilantly monitored and ethical questions should be under continuous scrutiny.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMC Psychiatry
                BMC Psychiatry
                BMC Psychiatry
                BioMed Central
                1471-244X
                2012
                18 December 2012
                : 12
                : 231
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GGNet, PO Box 2003, 7230 GC, Warnsveld, the Netherlands
                [2 ]Public Mental Health, Research Center O3, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
                [3 ]Bavo Europoort, Mental Health Center Rotterdam, Prins Constantijnweg 48-54, 3066 TA, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
                [4 ]GGNet, Bestuursbureau, PO Box 2003, 7230 GC, Warnsveld, the Netherlands
                [5 ]Quantitative Skills, Consultancy for Research and Statistics, Lieven de Keylaan 7, 1222 LC, Hilversum, The Netherlands
                [6 ]Forensic psychology, Behavioural Science Institute (BSI), Radboud University, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
                [7 ]Altrecht Aventurijn, Dolderseweg 164, 3734 BN, Den Dolder, the Netherlands
                Article
                1471-244X-12-231
                10.1186/1471-244X-12-231
                3538066
                23249413
                5056e06c-5146-4033-9d53-776017916c47
                Copyright ©2012 Vruwink et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 9 May 2012
                : 15 December 2012
                Categories
                Research Article

                Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry
                seclusion,restraint,coercive measures,reduction,nationwide effort
                Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry
                seclusion, restraint, coercive measures, reduction, nationwide effort

                Comments

                Comment on this article