Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa

Attitudes towards seclusion and restraint in mental health settings: findings from a large, community-based survey of consumers, carers and mental health professionals

  • S. A. Kinner (a1) (a2) (a3) (a4) (a5), C. Harvey (a6) (a7), B. Hamilton (a8) (a9), L. Brophy (a2) (a10), C. Roper (a11), B. McSherry (a12) and J. T. Young (a2) (a13) (a14)...
Abstract
Aims.

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.

Methods.

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.

Results.

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.

Conclusions.

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.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Attitudes towards seclusion and restraint in mental health settings: findings from a large, community-based survey of consumers, carers and mental health professionals
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Attitudes towards seclusion and restraint in mental health settings: findings from a large, community-based survey of consumers, carers and mental health professionals
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Attitudes towards seclusion and restraint in mental health settings: findings from a large, community-based survey of consumers, carers and mental health professionals
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Corresponding author
*Address for correspondence: Professor S. Kinner, Griffith Criminology Institute, Griffith University, 176 Messines Ridge Rd., Mt Gravatt QLD 4122, Australia. (Email: s.kinner@unimelb.edu.au)
Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

SA Barton , R Johnson , LV Price (2009). Achieving restraint-free on an in-patient behavioural health unit. Journal of Psychosocial Nursing and Mental Health Services 47, 3440.

L Bowers (2014). Safewards: a new model of conflict and containment on psychiatric wards. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing 21, 499508.

L Bowers , K James , A Quirk , A Simpson , SUGAR, S Duncan , J Hodsoll (2015). Reducing conflict and containment rates on acute psychiatric wards: the Safewards cluster randomised controlled trial. International Journal of Nursing Studies 52, 14121422.

LM Brophy , CE Roper , BE Hamilton , JJ Tellez , BM McSherry (2016 a). Consumers and their supporters’ perspectives on poor practice and the use of seclusion and restraint in mental health settings: results from Australian focus groups. International Journal of Mental Health Systems 10, 110. doi: 10.1186/s13033-016-0038-x.

T Burns , D Rose (2013). How can the service user voice be best heard at psychiatric meetings? British Journal of Psychiatry 203, 8889.

J Chan (2016). Challenges to realizing the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) in Australia for people with intellectual disability and behaviours of concern. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law 23, 207214.

A Gerace , DR Pamungkas , C Oster , D Thomson , E Muir-Cochrane (2014). The use of restraint in four general hospital emergency departments. Australasian Psychiatry 22, 366369.

S Kumble , B McSherry (2010). Seclusion and restraint: rethinking regulation from a human rights perspective. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law 17, 551561.

J LeBel , N Stromberg , K Duckworth , J Kerzner , R Goldstein , M Weeks , G Harper , L LaFlair , M Sudders (2004). Child and adolescent inpatient restraint reduction: a state initiative to promote strength-based care. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 43, 3745.

M Lewis , K Taylor , J Parks (2009). Crisis prevention management: a program to reduce the seclusion and restraint in an inpatient mental health setting. Issues in Mental Health Nursing 30, 159164.

PS Mann-Poll , A Smit , M Van Doeselaar , GJM Hutschemaekers (2013). Professionals’ attitudes after a seclusion reduction program: anything changed? Psychiatric Quarterly 84, 110.

A Putkonen , S Kuivalainen , O Louheranta , E Repo-Tiihonen , O Ryynänen , H Kautiainen , J Tiihonen (2013). Cluster-randomized controlled trial of reducing seclusion and restraint in secured care of men with schizophrenia. Psychiatric Services 64, 850855.

GM Smith , RH Davis , EO Bixler , H Lin , A Altenor , RJ Altenor , BD Hardentstine , GA Kopchick (2005). Pennsylvania state hospital system's seclusion and restraint reduction program. Psychiatric Services 56, 11151122.

SM Soliday (1985). A comparison of patient and staff attitudes towards seclusion. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 173, 282291.

T Steinert , M Birk , E Flammer , J Bergk (2013). Subjective distress after seclusion or mechanical restraint: one-year follow-up of a randomized controlled study. Psychiatric Services 64, 10121017.

AM Sullivan , J Bezmen , CT Barron , J Rivera , L Curley-Casey , D Marino (2005). Reducing restraints: alternatives to restraints on an inpatient psychiatric service – utilizing safe and effective methods to evaluate and treat the violent patient. Psychiatric Quarterly 76, 5165.

M Van Doeselaar , P Sleegers , G Hutschemaekers (2008). Professionals’ attitudes toward reducing restraint: the case of seclusion in the Netherlands. Psychiatric Quarterly 79, 97109.

G Zou (2004). A modified poisson regression approach to prospective studies with binary data. American Journal of Epidemiology 159, 702706.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences
  • ISSN: 2045-7960
  • EISSN: 2045-7979
  • URL: /core/journals/epidemiology-and-psychiatric-sciences
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords:

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 71
Total number of PDF views: 653 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 841 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 23rd September 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.