Outcomes of Restrictive Practice Review Meetings in an Acute Mental Health Unit: A Retrospective Before-and-After Study

IF 3.3 2区 医学 Q1 NURSING
Esario IV Daguman, Alison Taylor, Matthew Flowers, Richard Lakeman, Marie Hutchinson
{"title":"Outcomes of Restrictive Practice Review Meetings in an Acute Mental Health Unit: A Retrospective Before-and-After Study","authors":"Esario IV Daguman,&nbsp;Alison Taylor,&nbsp;Matthew Flowers,&nbsp;Richard Lakeman,&nbsp;Marie Hutchinson","doi":"10.1111/inm.70059","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>A structured process of reviewing incidents of seclusion and physical restraint supports nurses in managing the emotional and relational impact of restrictive practices. However, these reviews are not a routine feature of everyday acute care provision, and have historically been influenced by practices that reflect a managerial or disciplinary focus. A retrospective before-and-after study was conducted in an adult acute mental health inpatient unit in regional New South Wales, Australia. The goal was to determine the impact of strengths-based restrictive practice review meetings from January 2019 to March 2020, with an equivalent timeframe before its implementation (October 2017–December 2018). The events of seclusion, physical restraint, and Code Blacks (emergency codes requiring security personnel in response to personal safety threats) were compared before and after the implementation of review meetings, with covariate balancing applied to enhance comparability. The reduction in the rate of seclusion was statistically significant post-implementation (incidence rate ratios [IRR] = 0.37, 95% CI [0.24, 0.57], <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001). At the same time, physical restraint showed a statistically insignificant reduction (IRR = 0.76, 95% CI [0.53, 1.09], <i>p</i> = 0.14). Code Black incidents remained stable (IRR = 1.02, 95% CI [0.70, 1.49], <i>p</i> = 0.91). These mixed results indicate that strengths-based reviews play a role in reducing coercion, although additional strategies may be needed to achieve significant reductions in restrictive practice outcomes. Intervention development requires broader service-level changes, with open and robust evaluations that enhance accountability and capture key influencing factors.</p>","PeriodicalId":14007,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Mental Health Nursing","volume":"34 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/inm.70059","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Mental Health Nursing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/inm.70059","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

A structured process of reviewing incidents of seclusion and physical restraint supports nurses in managing the emotional and relational impact of restrictive practices. However, these reviews are not a routine feature of everyday acute care provision, and have historically been influenced by practices that reflect a managerial or disciplinary focus. A retrospective before-and-after study was conducted in an adult acute mental health inpatient unit in regional New South Wales, Australia. The goal was to determine the impact of strengths-based restrictive practice review meetings from January 2019 to March 2020, with an equivalent timeframe before its implementation (October 2017–December 2018). The events of seclusion, physical restraint, and Code Blacks (emergency codes requiring security personnel in response to personal safety threats) were compared before and after the implementation of review meetings, with covariate balancing applied to enhance comparability. The reduction in the rate of seclusion was statistically significant post-implementation (incidence rate ratios [IRR] = 0.37, 95% CI [0.24, 0.57], p < 0.001). At the same time, physical restraint showed a statistically insignificant reduction (IRR = 0.76, 95% CI [0.53, 1.09], p = 0.14). Code Black incidents remained stable (IRR = 1.02, 95% CI [0.70, 1.49], p = 0.91). These mixed results indicate that strengths-based reviews play a role in reducing coercion, although additional strategies may be needed to achieve significant reductions in restrictive practice outcomes. Intervention development requires broader service-level changes, with open and robust evaluations that enhance accountability and capture key influencing factors.

Abstract Image

急性精神卫生部门限制性实践回顾会议的结果:回顾性前后研究
审查隔离和身体约束事件的结构化过程有助于护士管理限制性做法对情感和关系的影响。然而,这些审查并不是日常急症护理提供的常规特征,并且历来受到反映管理或学科重点的实践的影响。在澳大利亚新南威尔士州地区的一个成人急性精神健康住院病房进行了回顾性的前后研究。目标是确定2019年1月至2020年3月期间基于优势的限制性实践审查会议的影响,在实施之前(2017年10月至2018年12月)有相同的时间框架。在实施审查会议之前和之后,比较了隔离、人身约束和黑色代码(需要保安人员应对人身安全威胁的紧急代码)事件,并采用协变量平衡来增强可比性。实施后隔离率的降低具有统计学意义(发生率比[IRR] = 0.37, 95% CI [0.24, 0.57], p < 0.001)。与此同时,身体约束的减少在统计学上不显著(IRR = 0.76, 95% CI [0.53, 1.09], p = 0.14)。黑色代码事件保持稳定(IRR = 1.02, 95% CI [0.70, 1.49], p = 0.91)。这些混合结果表明,基于优势的评估在减少强迫方面发挥了作用,尽管可能需要额外的策略来显著减少限制性实践结果。干预措施的发展需要更广泛的服务水平变革,并进行公开和有力的评估,以加强问责制并捕捉关键的影响因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
8.90%
发文量
128
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Mental Health Nursing is the official journal of the Australian College of Mental Health Nurses Inc. It is a fully refereed journal that examines current trends and developments in mental health practice and research. The International Journal of Mental Health Nursing provides a forum for the exchange of ideas on all issues of relevance to mental health nursing. The Journal informs you of developments in mental health nursing practice and research, directions in education and training, professional issues, management approaches, policy development, ethical questions, theoretical inquiry, and clinical issues. The Journal publishes feature articles, review articles, clinical notes, research notes and book reviews. Contributions on any aspect of mental health nursing are welcomed. Statements and opinions expressed in the journal reflect the views of the authors and are not necessarily endorsed by the Australian College of Mental Health Nurses Inc.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信