Approaches used to prevent and reduce the use of restrictive practices on adults with learning disabilities: a realist review.

Joy Duxbury, Alina Haines-Delmont, John Baker, Peter Baker, Gary Bourlet, Elaine Craig, James Ridley, Rachel Whyte, Beth Morrison, Michaela Thomson, Anthony Tsang, Tella Lantta
{"title":"Approaches used to prevent and reduce the use of restrictive practices on adults with learning disabilities: a realist review.","authors":"Joy Duxbury, Alina Haines-Delmont, John Baker, Peter Baker, Gary Bourlet, Elaine Craig, James Ridley, Rachel Whyte, Beth Morrison, Michaela Thomson, Anthony Tsang, Tella Lantta","doi":"10.3310/PGAS1755","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There is some evidence to support approaches to reduce restrictive practices in settings for people with a learning disability who may also have a diagnosis of autism or mental health problems. However, there is a significant knowledge gap in how and why such approaches work and in what contexts.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>This study aimed to understand how, why, for whom, and under what circumstances approaches used by healthcare staff to prevent and reduce the use of restrictive practices on adults with learning disability or autism work (or do not work).</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>The review followed a realist approach. This approach was chosen to understand the mechanisms by which approaches to prevent and reduce the use of restrictive practices work. The review adhered to current Realist and Meta Narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards quality and publication standards.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts (ProQuest), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (EBSCO), MEDLINE (Ovid), PsycInfo (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid) and Web of Science Core Collection and stakeholder consultations.</p><p><strong>Review methods: </strong>Four main steps were followed: (1) locating existing theories, (2) searching for evidence, (3) extracting and organising data and (4) synthesising the evidence and drawing conclusions. In Steps 1 and 4, the views of stakeholders (academics, key experts, practitioners, people with lived experiences, carers) supplemented systematic searches in electronic databases, supporting the interpretation of results and making recommendations.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 53 articles were included, after screening 14,383 articles. In line with realist methods, eight context-mechanism-outcome configurations and an overarching programme theory were used to explain the why and how of preventing and reducing the use of restrictive practices for people with a learning disability. Restrictive practices commonly occur when people with a learning disability, who display behaviour that can harm or who experience communication difficulties, are detained in environments that are unsuitable for their needs, including mental health hospitals. Furthermore, they happen when staff are inadequately trained, lack person-centred values, struggle to regulate their emotions and display limited communication skills. Restrictive practices happen where there is a lack of adequate staffing, a negative organisational culture, and where they are accepted as the 'norm'. Drawing on these findings, we set out recommendations to include positive risk-taking, greater involvement for families and carers, and targeted training for staff. Organisations need to recognise overuse of restrictive practices and using coproduction and leadership within the organisation to implement change.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>Many of the papers reviewed were not directly related to people with learning disability, therefore there is a clear need for greater research in this area. Primary research from focus groups has been used to highlight issues and compliment the limited evidence base. While it is recognised that commissioning individualised community approaches is a possible way to reduce the use of restrictive practices, this was beyond the scope of this review.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This review shows that solutions for reducing restrictive practices exist, but that targeted frameworks are lacking and resources to support the implementation of evidence-based strategies in this population and related settings are compromised. More research is needed on how approaches shown to be effective in other settings such as mental health could be tailored for people with learning disability. Furthermore, more research regarding carers' roles is warranted.</p><p><strong>Study registration: </strong>This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019158432.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR129524) and is published in full in <i>Health and Social Care Delivery Research</i>; Vol. 13, No. 14. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.</p>","PeriodicalId":519880,"journal":{"name":"Health and social care delivery research","volume":"13 14","pages":"1-64"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health and social care delivery research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3310/PGAS1755","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: There is some evidence to support approaches to reduce restrictive practices in settings for people with a learning disability who may also have a diagnosis of autism or mental health problems. However, there is a significant knowledge gap in how and why such approaches work and in what contexts.

Aim: This study aimed to understand how, why, for whom, and under what circumstances approaches used by healthcare staff to prevent and reduce the use of restrictive practices on adults with learning disability or autism work (or do not work).

Design: The review followed a realist approach. This approach was chosen to understand the mechanisms by which approaches to prevent and reduce the use of restrictive practices work. The review adhered to current Realist and Meta Narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards quality and publication standards.

Data sources: Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts (ProQuest), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (EBSCO), MEDLINE (Ovid), PsycInfo (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid) and Web of Science Core Collection and stakeholder consultations.

Review methods: Four main steps were followed: (1) locating existing theories, (2) searching for evidence, (3) extracting and organising data and (4) synthesising the evidence and drawing conclusions. In Steps 1 and 4, the views of stakeholders (academics, key experts, practitioners, people with lived experiences, carers) supplemented systematic searches in electronic databases, supporting the interpretation of results and making recommendations.

Results: A total of 53 articles were included, after screening 14,383 articles. In line with realist methods, eight context-mechanism-outcome configurations and an overarching programme theory were used to explain the why and how of preventing and reducing the use of restrictive practices for people with a learning disability. Restrictive practices commonly occur when people with a learning disability, who display behaviour that can harm or who experience communication difficulties, are detained in environments that are unsuitable for their needs, including mental health hospitals. Furthermore, they happen when staff are inadequately trained, lack person-centred values, struggle to regulate their emotions and display limited communication skills. Restrictive practices happen where there is a lack of adequate staffing, a negative organisational culture, and where they are accepted as the 'norm'. Drawing on these findings, we set out recommendations to include positive risk-taking, greater involvement for families and carers, and targeted training for staff. Organisations need to recognise overuse of restrictive practices and using coproduction and leadership within the organisation to implement change.

Limitations: Many of the papers reviewed were not directly related to people with learning disability, therefore there is a clear need for greater research in this area. Primary research from focus groups has been used to highlight issues and compliment the limited evidence base. While it is recognised that commissioning individualised community approaches is a possible way to reduce the use of restrictive practices, this was beyond the scope of this review.

Conclusions: This review shows that solutions for reducing restrictive practices exist, but that targeted frameworks are lacking and resources to support the implementation of evidence-based strategies in this population and related settings are compromised. More research is needed on how approaches shown to be effective in other settings such as mental health could be tailored for people with learning disability. Furthermore, more research regarding carers' roles is warranted.

Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019158432.

Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR129524) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 13, No. 14. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

用于预防和减少对有学习障碍的成年人使用限制性做法的方法:现实主义回顾。
背景:有一些证据支持在有学习障碍的人可能也被诊断为自闭症或精神健康问题的环境中减少限制性做法的方法。然而,在这些方法如何以及为什么起作用以及在什么情况下起作用方面存在着重大的知识差距。目的:本研究旨在了解卫生保健人员如何、为什么、为谁以及在什么情况下使用预防和减少对有学习障碍或自闭症的成年人使用限制性做法的方法起作用(或不起作用)。设计:审查遵循现实主义的方法。选择这种方法是为了了解防止和减少限制性实践使用的方法的机制。本综述遵循当前现实主义和元叙事证据综合:不断发展的标准、质量和出版标准。数据来源:应用社会科学索引和摘要(ProQuest),护理和相关健康文献累积索引(EBSCO), MEDLINE (Ovid), PsycInfo (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid)和Web of Science核心集合和利益相关者咨询。综述方法:主要遵循四个步骤:(1)定位现有理论,(2)寻找证据,(3)提取和组织数据,(4)综合证据并得出结论。在步骤1和步骤4中,利益相关者(学者、关键专家、从业人员、有实际经历的人、护理人员)的观点补充了电子数据库中的系统搜索,支持对结果的解释和提出建议。结果:共纳入文献53篇,筛选文献14383篇。与现实主义方法一致,使用八种情境-机制-结果配置和总体规划理论来解释为什么以及如何预防和减少学习障碍患者使用限制性实践。限制性做法通常发生在有学习障碍的人表现出可能造成伤害的行为或有沟通困难的人被拘留在不适合其需要的环境中,包括精神病院。此外,当员工培训不足、缺乏以人为本的价值观、难以调节自己的情绪、沟通技巧有限时,就会发生这种情况。限制性做法发生在缺乏足够的人员配备、消极的组织文化以及它们被视为“规范”的地方。根据这些发现,我们提出了包括积极承担风险、家庭和照顾者更多参与以及对工作人员进行有针对性的培训等建议。组织需要认识到限制性实践的过度使用,并在组织内使用合作生产和领导来实施变革。局限性:许多被审查的论文与学习障碍患者没有直接关系,因此在这一领域显然需要更多的研究。焦点小组的初步研究被用来强调问题和补充有限的证据基础。虽然人们认识到,委托个性化的社区方法是减少限制性做法使用的一种可能方法,但这超出了本审查的范围。结论:本综述表明,减少限制性做法的解决方案是存在的,但缺乏有针对性的框架,支持在这一人群和相关环境中实施循证战略的资源受到损害。需要进行更多的研究,以了解如何为有学习障碍的人量身定制在心理健康等其他环境中显示有效的方法。此外,有必要对照顾者的角色进行更多的研究。研究注册:本研究注册号为PROSPERO CRD42019158432。资助:该奖项由国家卫生和保健研究所(NIHR)卫生和社会保健提供研究项目(NIHR奖励编号:NIHR129524)资助,全文发表在《卫生和社会保健提供研究》上;第13卷,第14号有关进一步的奖励信息,请参阅美国国立卫生研究院资助和奖励网站。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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