» Articles » PMID: 27147243

Comparison of Restraint Data from Four Countries

Overview
Date 2016 May 6
PMID 27147243
Citations 28
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

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.

Citing Articles

Seclusion and mechanical restraint in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic: an increased use in mental health settings.

Goulet M, Cassivi C, Hupe C, Jean-Baptiste F, Dumais A Front Psychiatry. 2024; 15:1428599.

PMID: 39429527 PMC: 11486725. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2024.1428599.


Effect of coercive measures on mental health status in adult psychiatric populations: a nationwide trial emulation.

Baggio S, Kaiser S, Huber C, Wullschleger A Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci. 2024; 33:e35.

PMID: 39262155 PMC: 11450418. DOI: 10.1017/S2045796024000416.


Characteristics and correlates of seclusion and mechanical restraint measures in a Parisian psychiatric hospital group.

Dauriac-Le Masson V, El-Khoury Lesueur F, Lahaye J, Launay C, Christodoulou A, Boiteux C Front Psychiatry. 2024; 15:1296356.

PMID: 38445090 PMC: 10913196. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2024.1296356.


Comparison of coercive practices in worldwide mental healthcare: overcoming difficulties resulting from variations in monitoring strategies.

Savage M, Lepping P, Newton-Howes G, Arnold R, Staggs V, Kisely S BJPsych Open. 2024; 10(1):e26.

PMID: 38205597 PMC: 10790218. DOI: 10.1192/bjo.2023.613.


Bringing together the World Health Organization's QualityRights initiative and the World Psychiatric Association's programme on implementing alternatives to coercion in mental healthcare: a common goal for action.

Gill N, Drew N, Rodrigues M, Muhsen H, Morales Cano G, Savage M BJPsych Open. 2024; 10(1):e23.

PMID: 38179597 PMC: 10790219. DOI: 10.1192/bjo.2023.622.


References
1.
Kalisova L, Raboch J, Nawka A, Sampogna G, Cihal L, Kallert T . Do patient and ward-related characteristics influence the use of coercive measures? Results from the EUNOMIA international study. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2014; 49(10):1619-29. DOI: 10.1007/s00127-014-0872-6. View

2.
Bowers L, Alexander J, Bilgin H, Botha M, Dack C, JAMES K . Safewards: the empirical basis of the model and a critical appraisal. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2014; 21(4):354-64. PMC: 4237197. DOI: 10.1111/jpm.12085. View

3.
Steinert T, Lepping P . Legal provisions and practice in the management of violent patients. a case vignette study in 16 European countries. Eur Psychiatry. 2008; 24(2):135-41. DOI: 10.1016/j.eurpsy.2008.03.002. View

4.
Kruger C, Mayer H, Haastert B, Meyer G . Use of physical restraints in acute hospitals in Germany: a multi-centre cross-sectional study. Int J Nurs Stud. 2013; 50(12):1599-606. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2013.05.005. View

5.
Wu W . Psychosocial Correlates of Patients Being Physically Restrained within the First 7 Days in an Acute Psychiatric Admission Ward: Retrospective Case Record Review. East Asian Arch Psychiatry. 2015; 25(2):47-57. View