Working towards least restrictive environments in acute mental health wards in the context of locked door policy and practice.

There has been a shift towards provision of mental health care in community-based settings in Australia. However, hospitals continue to care for people in acute mental health wards. An increasing proportion of the people in wards are admitted involuntarily, subject to restrictions of movement to minimize risk of harm to self and others. In response to concerns about the safety of people absconding from care, Queensland Health introduced a policy requiring all acute mental health wards in the State to be locked. In response, the Queensland Mental Health Commission funded a project to understand the impact of this policy and develop evidence-based recommendations regarding provision of least restrictive, recovery-oriented practices in acute wards. Facilitated forums were conducted with 35 purposively selected participants who identified as consumers, carers, or staff of acute mental health hospital wards, to test the acceptability, feasibility, and face validity of a set of evidence-informed recommendations for providing least restrictive, recovery-oriented practices. Participant responses were recorded, and data were analysed through an inductive, thematic approach. A recovery-oriented approach was supported by all stakeholders. Reducing boredom and increasing availability of peer support workers were considered key to achieving this. Focusing less on risk aversion was reported as central to enabling true Recovery Orientation. This project enabled recognition of the perspectives of consumers, carers, and staff in the consideration of evidence-informed recommendations that could be implemented to provide least restrictive care in the context of locked doors.

Community treatment orders: towards a new research agenda.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to report on a half-day multi-stakeholder symposium on community treatment orders (CTOs) hosted by the Melbourne Social Equity Institute (MSEI), which identified research gaps and opportunities, and produced an agreed agenda for future CTO research. METHODS: The MSEI convened a symposium for 22 experts in CTO research to discuss research priorities in this field in Australasia. An independent moderator elicited views and recommendations and produced a report detailing possible research projects. RESULTS: Research on CTOs is contentious and there is a need to gather and examine information regarding both their use and utility. Due to the complexities involved, it was agreed that research should be undertaken in partnership with persons with had lived experience of mental health problems, clinicians, policymakers and other interdisciplinary stakeholders. Five key areas for future investigation were identified. CONCLUSIONS: The issues and recommendations arising from the symposium should shape the scope, nature and conduct of future research directions in the field.

Enabling choice, recovery and participation: evidence-based early intervention support for psychosocial disability in the National Disability Insurance Scheme.

OBJECTIVES:: The aim of this study was to identify the most effective interventions for early intervention in psychosocial disability in the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) through an evidence review. METHODS:: A series of rapid reviews were undertaken to establish possible interventions for psychosocial disability, to develop our understanding of early intervention criteria for the NDIS and to determine which interventions would meet these criteria. RESULTS:: Three interventions (social skills training, supported employment and supported housing) have a strong evidence base for effectiveness in early intervention in people with psychosocial disability, with the potential for adoption by the NDIS. They support personal choice and recovery outcomes. Illness self-management, cognitive remediation and cognitive behavioural therapy for psychosis demonstrate outcomes to mitigate impairment. The evidence for family psycho-education is also very strong. CONCLUSIONS:: This review identified evidence-based, recovery-oriented approaches to early intervention in psychosocial disability. They meet the criteria for early intervention in the NDIS, are relevant to participants and consider their preferences. Early intervention has the potential to save costs by reducing participant reliance on the scheme.

Consumers' and their supporters' perspectives on barriers and strategies to reducing seclusion and restraint in mental health settings.

Objective This paper examines the perspectives of consumers and their supporters regarding the use of seclusion and restraint in mental health settings. Methods Five focus groups for consumers and five focus groups for supporters were conducted in four Australian cities and in one rural location. The 66 participants were asked about strategies to reduce or eliminate the use of seclusion and restraint in mental health settings. Results All participants supported the reduction of the use of seclusion and restraint. Barriers to reducing these practices related to the environment, the effects of drug and alcohol issues, lack of a human rights focus and poor recognition of trauma, stigma and discrimination. Strategies for reducing or eliminating seclusion and restraint included workforce development, environmental and cultural changes. Conclusions Participants clearly identified that the status quo needs to change and conveyed urgency for action. Participants suggested that the involvement of supporters and a range of consumer roles are integral to reducing the use of seclusion and restraint. The findings support the current policy emphasis of working towards the elimination of these practices. What is known about the topic? Mental health policies across many jurisdictions support the reduction and elimination of restraint and seclusion. Evidence suggests those subjected to restraint and seclusion largely experience a range of harmful consequences. No studies focus on the views of supporters of consumers regarding the reduction and elimination of seclusion and restraint, whereas the views of consumers appear in a minority of international studies. What does this paper add? The research enabled an opportunity to hear from people who have been personally affected by and/or have lived experience of these coercive practices. Participants identified local reforms that can uphold the human rights of consumers. They suggested practices to increase accountability, peer support and family involvement, areas that have not been analysed in depth in any of the seclusion and restraint literature. What are the implications for practitioners? This paper will give healthcare services a deeper insight into how to reduce or eliminate restraint or seclusion from the perspective of those with lived experience.

Consumers and Carer perspectives on poor practice and the use of seclusion and restraint in mental health settings: results from Australian focus groups.

BACKGROUND: Seclusion and restraint are interventions currently permitted for use in mental health services to control or manage a person's behaviour. In Australia, serious concerns about the use of such seclusion and restraint have been raised at least since 1993. Consumers and their supporters have also expressed strong views about the harm of these practices. This paper presents the results of ten focus group discussions with people with lived experience of mental health issues and also carers, family members and support persons in relation to the use of seclusion and restraint. METHODS: The 30 consumers and 36 supporters participating in the focus groups convened in four Australian cities and one regional centre discussed their understandings of the use of seclusion and restraint and its impact on the people involved. Participants also presented their observations about poor practice and what contributes to it as well as providing ideas and recommendations regarding strategies to reduce or eliminate seclusion and restraint. Focus group discussions were recorded and transcribed, then analysed using the NVivo 10 qualitative data analysis software with a general inductive approach used to analyse data. This analysis enabled consideration of the responses to key questions in the focus groups as well as the identification of emerging themes. RESULTS: Six themes emerged from the analysis, these being: human rights, trauma, control, isolation, dehumanisation and 'othering', and anti-recovery. Examples of poor practice identified by focus groups included the use of excessive force, lack of empathy/paternalistic attitudes, lack of communication and interaction and a lack of alternative strategies to the use of seclusion and restraint. There was a confluence of factors identified by participants as contributing to poor practice, with the main factors being organisational culture, the physical environment, under-resourced mental health services and fear and stigma. CONCLUSIONS: Focus group participants in the main viewed seclusion and restraint practices in mental health settings as unnecessarily overused, exacerbating problems for individuals, carers, staff and the broader system of care. This study highlights that lived experience of both consumers and their supporters can make an important contribution to mental health services and its ongoing reform.

Erratum to: Consumers and their supporters' perspectives on poor practice and the use of seclusion and restraint in mental health settings: results from Australian focus groups.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1186/s13033-016-0038-x.].

Current Challenges for the Regulation of Chemical Restraint in Health Care Settings.

Various forms of restraint may be used in a variety of health care settings to control behaviour. Laws and policies regulate the use of physical and mechanical restraint across health care settings, but there is a gap in relation to the regulation of chemical restraint. This may partly be because of problems in defining the term and partly because of a lack of information as to the extent of the use of drugs aimed at controlling behaviour rather than ameliorating a medical condition. This column provides an overview of current definitions and argues that there is a need for national guidance as to what constitutes chemical restraint in order to reduce its use.

Service user and clinical perspectives of psychiatric advance directives in New Zealand.

Advance care planning is becoming an increasingly important feature of health service provision. Although the New Zealand Mental Health Commission has advocated strongly for the provision of advance directives in mental health services, little is known about clinician or service user views on advance directives. The aim of the study was to survey the perspectives of service users and clinicians on the use of psychiatric advance directives. The study used an anonymous online survey to collect data from 110 mental health service users and 175 clinicians. Survey items included existing knowledge, preferred content and potential benefits of advance directives. Descriptive statistics and intergroup comparisons were conducted. Over 90% of service users and clinicians agreed that they support advance directives in mental health. There were similarities in the preferred content of an advance directive across the two groups, particularly regarding the notification of support persons, cultural support and preferred methods of de-escalation. Significant differences in opinion were found regarding the use of coercive measures and the ability of mental health legislation to override advance directives. The results indicate strong support for the use of advance directives within New Zealand mental health services, as well as for further research in the area.