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

Kenniscentrum GGNet, Warnsveld, The Netherlands.
International Journal of Law and Psychiatry (Impact Factor: 1.19). 01/2009; 31(6):463-70. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijlp.2008.09.002
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT 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.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Patient care in a psychiatric setting can benefit from a more systematic, transparent, and goal-driven way of working. The methodical work approach, with its cyclic five phases, provides such an approach: (i) translation of problems into goals; (ii) search for means to realize the goals; (iii) formulation of an individualized plan; (iv) implementation of the plan; and (v) evaluation and readjustment. We examined the effect of the methodical work approach on the use of seclusion at a ward for the intensive treatment of inpatients with psychoses and substance-use disorders. The team of this ward implemented the methodical work approach. Special attention was paid to the involvement of the patient and his/her family in the treatment process and to the role of the coordinating nurse. Compared to control wards within the same hospital, at the ward where the methodical work approach was implemented, a more pronounced reduction was achieved in the number of incidents and in the total hours of seclusion. Implementation of the methodical work approach can contribute to a reduction in the use of seclusion.
    International journal of mental health nursing 07/2013; DOI:10.1111/inm.12037 · 2.01 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: 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. 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. 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 institute's 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. 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.
    International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 11/2011; 34(6):429-38. DOI:10.1016/j.ijlp.2011.10.008 · 1.19 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The use of seclusion is unpalatable to nurses and frequently unpleasant for patients. Time out is rated by nurses and patients as more acceptable. Several countries have initiated exercises to reduce the use of seclusion, but England has not. In this study, data were collected on the sequence of conflict (aggression, rule breaking, absconding etc.) and containment (coerced medication, restraint, special observation etc., including time out and seclusion) for the first 2 weeks of 522 acute admissions on 84 wards in 31 English hospitals between June 2009 and March 2010. Data were analysed to describe what preceded and followed time out and seclusion episodes in a nursing shift. Seclusion was used with 7·5% of patients, and time out with 15·5%. Both containment methods were used with similar patients in similar circumstances, and both brought disturbed behaviour to a close in half of the cases. Some seclusion appeared to follow less serious disturbed behaviour. There was an important variation in rates of seclusion between hospitals. Seclusion and time out had equally good outcomes in the management of physical violence to others. There is good evidence that seclusion rates can be reduced safely, and time out can sometimes be used as a substitute. A national registration and reporting system should be introduced in England, and serious efforts made to reduce seclusion use in hospitals where rates are high.
    Journal of Advanced Nursing 07/2011; 68(4):826-35. DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2011.05784.x · 1.69 Impact Factor