W.A. Janssen

The use of seclusion in the Netherlands compared to countries in and outside Europe

The use of seclusion in psychiatric practice is a contentious issue in the Netherlands as well as other countries in and outside Europe. The aim of this study is to describe Dutch seclusion data and compare these with data on other countries, derived from the literature. An extensive search revealed only 11 articles containing seclusion rates of regions or whole countries either in Europe, Australia or the United States. Dutch seclusion rates were calculated from a governmental database and from a database covering twelve General Psychiatric Hospitals in the Netherlands. According to the hospitals database, on average one in four hospitalized patients experienced a seclusion episode. The mean duration according to the governmental database is a staggering 16 days. Both numbers seem much higher than comparable numbers in other countries. However, different definitions, inconsistent methods of registration, different methods of data collection and an inconsistent expression of the seclusion use in rates limit comparisons of the rates found in the reviewed studies with the data gathered in the current study. Suggestions are made to improve data collection, to enable better comparisons.

Methodological issues in monitoring the use of coercive measures

PURPOSE In many European countries, initiatives have emerged to reduce the use of seclusion and restraint in psychiatric institutions. To study the effects of these initiatives at a national and international level, consensus on definitions of coercive measures, assessment methods and calculation procedures of these coercive measures are required. The aim of this article is to identify problems in defining and recording coercive measures. The study contributes to the development of consistent comparable measurements definitions and provides recommendations for meaningful data-analyses illustrating the relevance of the proposed framework. METHODS Relevant literature was reviewed to identify various definitions and calculation modalities used to measure coercive measures in psychiatric inpatient care. Figures on the coercive measures and epidemiological ratios were calculated in a standardized way. To illustrate how research in clinical practice on coercive measures can be conducted, data from a large multicenter study on seclusion patterns in the Netherlands were used. RESULTS Twelve Dutch mental health institutes serving a population of 6.57 million inhabitants provided their comprehensive coercion measure data sets. In total 37 hospitals and 227 wards containing 6812 beds were included in the study. Overall seclusion and restraint data in a sample of 31,594 admissions in 20,934 patients were analyzed. Considerable variation in ward and patient characteristics was identified in this study. The chance to be exposed to seclusion per capita inhabitants of the institutes catchment areas varied between 0.31 and 1.6 per 100.000. Between mental health institutions, the duration in seclusion hours per 1000 inpatient hours varied from less than 1 up to 18h. The number of seclusion incidents per 1000 admissions varied between 79 up to 745. The mean duration of seclusion incidents of nearly 184h may be seen as high in an international perspective. CONCLUSION Coercive measures can be reliably assessed in a standardized and comparable way under the condition of using clear joint definitions. Methodological consensus between researchers and mental health professionals on these definitions is necessary to allow comparisons of seclusion and restraint rates. The study contributes to the development of international standards on gathering coercion related data and the consistent calculation of relevant outcome parameters.

Differences in seclusion rates between admission wards: Does patient compilation explain?

Comparison of seclusion figures between wards in Dutch psychiatric hospitals showed substantial differences in number and duration of seclusions. In the opinion of nurses and ward managers, these differences may predominantly be explained by differences in patient characteristics, as these are expected to have a large impact on these seclusion rates. Nurses assume more admissions of severely ill patients are related to higher seclusion rates. In order to test this hypothesis, we investigated differences in patient and background characteristics of 718 secluded patients over 5,097 admissions on 29 different admission wards over seven Dutch psychiatric hospitals. We performed an extreme group analysis to explore the relationship between patient and ward characteristics and the wards’ number of seclusion hours per 1,000 admission hours. In a multivariate and a multilevel analysis, various characteristics turned out to be related to the number of seclusion hours per 1,000 admission hours as well as to the likelihood of a patient being secluded, confirming the nurses assumptions. The extreme group analysis showed that seclusion rates depended on both patient and ward characteristics. A multivariate and multilevel analyses revealed that differences in seclusion hours between wards could partially be explained by ward size next to patient characteristics. However, the largest deal of the difference between wards in seclusion rates could not be explained by characteristics measured in this study. We concluded ward policy and adequate staffing may, in particular on smaller wards, be key issues in reduction of seclusion.

The Power of Day-to-Day Motivational Techniques and Family Participation in Reducing Seclusion: A Comparison of Two Admission Wards With and Without a Seclusion Prevention Protocol

The use of seclusion in psychiatric practice is a controversial issue in the Netherlands, as a number of recent studies have shown seclusion to be a predominant restrictive measure. In contrast to many surrounding countries, Dutch legislation is arranged in such a way that the protection of the physical integrity of the patient is more important than professional considerations with respect to the treatment of severe mental illness. The opening of a new admission ward provided the opportunity to study the effect of a number of preventive measures both before and after admission on the use of seclusion. Two admission wards with the approximately the same staff compilation, the same admission criteria, and a comparable catchment area were followed for 29 months. In the experimental ward, a project was started with the aim to abandon seclusion in three years while, at the same time, reducing all other forms of restrain; the comparable ward had care as usual. The data show a decrease of number and duration of seclusion in the experimental ward in comparison to the ward providing care as usual. This difference could be related to a number of patient and ward characteristics.

Long-Term Impact of a Tailored Seclusion Reduction Program: Evidence for Change?

International comparative studies show that Dutch seclusion rates are relatively high. Therefore, several programs to change this practice were developed and implemented. The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of a seclusion reduction program over a long time frame, from 2004 until 2013. Three phases could be identified; the phase of development and implementation of the program (2004–2007), the project phase (2008–2010) and the consolidation phase (2011–2013). Five inpatient wards of a mental health institute were monitored. Each ward had one or more seclusion rooms. Primary outcome were the number and the duration of seclusion incidents. Involuntary medication was monitored as well to rule out substitution of one coercive measure by another. Case mix correction for patient characteristics was done by a multi-level logistic regression analysis with patient characteristics as predictors and hours seclusion per admission hours as outcome. Seclusion use reduced significantly during the project phase, both in number (−73%) and duration (−80%) and was not substituted by the use of enforced medication. Patient compilation as analyzed by the multi- level regression seemed not to confound the findings. Findings show a slight increase in number and seclusion days over the last year of monitoring. Whether this should be interpreted as a continuous or temporary trend remains unclear and is subject for further investigation.

Erratum to: One-year incidence and prevalence of seclusion: Dutch findings in an international perspective

In the Table 3 of the original publication, the value ‘‘32’’ in 5th column has been misplaced. It should belong to the third row instead of the fourth row. Language: en