Association of Black Race With Physical and Chemical Restraint Use Among Patients Undergoing Emergency Psychiatric Evaluation
Abstract
Objective:
Few studies have examined the disproportionate use of restraints for Black adults receiving emergency psychiatric care. This study sought to determine whether the odds of physical and chemical restraint use were higher for Black patients undergoing emergency psychiatric care compared with their White counterparts.
Methods:
This single-center retrospective cohort study examined 12,977 unique encounters of adults receiving an emergency psychiatric evaluation between January 1, 2014, and September 18, 2020, at a large academic medical center in Durham, North Carolina. Self-reported race categories were extracted from the electronic medical record. Primary outcomes were the presence of a behavioral physical restraint order or chemical restraint administration during the emergency department encounter. Covariates included age, sex, ethnicity, height, time of arrival, positive urine drug screen results, peak blood alcohol concentration, and diagnosis of a bipolar or psychotic disorder.
Results:
A total of 961 (7.4%) encounters involved physical restraint, and 2,047 (15.8%) involved chemical restraint. Models with and without a race covariate were compared by using quasi-likelihood information criterion scores; in each instance, the model with race performed better than the model without. Black patients were more likely to be physically (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]=1.35; 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.07–1.72) and chemically (AOR=1.33; 95% CI=1.15–1.55) restrained than White patients.
Conclusions:
After analyses were adjusted for measured confounders, Black patients undergoing psychiatric evaluation were at higher odds of experiencing physical or chemical restraint compared with White patients, which is consistent with the growing body of evidence revealing racial disparities in psychiatric care.
HIGHLIGHTS
•
This study used electronic medical record data from 12,977 emergency department encounters to determine whether Black patients were more likely than their White counterparts to undergo physical and chemical restraint.
•
Race was a significant predictor of physical and chemical restraint use for patients undergoing emergency psychiatric evaluation.
•
Black patients receiving emergency psychiatric evaluation were more likely to undergo chemical and physical restraint compared with White patients.
Racial disparities in psychiatric care for Black individuals are widely documented in the United States (1) and include reduced access to psychotropic medication, fewer outpatient mental health appointments (2), and less psychiatric specialty care than for White individuals (3). Decades of evidence point to systemic or structural inequity, along with health care provider bias, contributing to observed disparities in psychiatric care (4, 5) and highlighting the vulnerability of intersecting identities, such as Blackness and mental illness, in the United States (6). Whether because of socioeconomic status or other factors, emergency departments (EDs) are a major point of access to psychiatric care. Compared with Whites presenting to the ED, Black patients endure longer wait times, receive lower emergency severity index scores, are less likely to be admitted, are less likely to receive blood tests or other procedures, and are more likely to experience in-hospital death after their ED visit (7). Similarly, compared with White patients in this setting, Black patients receive less analgesic medication for abdominal pain, are less likely to be admitted to the hospital (8), and are less likely to undergo an electrocardiogram or chest radiograph (9). Although mental health–related visits account for an increasing proportion of ED visits (10), a setting in which Black individuals are consistently overrepresented (11), few studies are dedicated to elucidating disparities in emergency psychiatric care.
The use of physical or chemical restraint is common in emergency settings (12, 13). In one analysis of over 43,000 patients presenting to the ED, 84% of patients showing agitation received physical restraint, and 76% received sedation (12). Because restraint use is associated with adverse outcomes, such as aspiration, rhabdomyolysis, thrombosis, and posttraumatic stress symptoms (14–16), studies are needed to examine differential use of restraints in medically and psychiatrically vulnerable populations, such as among Black individuals. A pair of recent retrospective studies at large EDs found an association between Black race and physical restraint use (17, 18). A separate study using a national sample of ED visits revealed disproportionate chemical restraint use for Black patients, but the analysis was restricted to pediatric patients (19). Moreover, analyses on physical restraint in emergency settings have broadly examined the general ED population instead of focusing on individuals receiving psychiatric consultation (17, 18), a population at high risk of restraint (20). Given that patients with mental illness endure structural racism and bias (21, 22), disparities in restraint use in emergency psychiatric settings must be elucidated to develop clinically and culturally appropriate solutions.
In this study, we aimed to address this gap in the psychiatric literature by assessing whether Black patients receiving emergency psychiatric evaluation at a large academic medical center experienced different odds of receiving physical and chemical restraint compared with their White counterparts.
Methods
Design, Setting, and Population
In this single-center study, we identified a cohort of adults (≥18 years) receiving psychiatry consultation in the Duke University Hospital ED from January 1, 2014, to September 18, 2020. The study protocol was reviewed by the institutional review board at Duke University Hospital and was determined to be exempt; informed consent was waived because the study posed minimal risk to individuals. We followed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) reporting guidelines.
Data Collection, Measures, and Outcomes
Participants were identified, and key variables were collected by querying the electronic health record through the Duke Enterprise Data Unified Content Explorer (23). The exposure was self-reported race, which was categorized as Asian, Black, White, multiracial, other, and unreported. “Multiracial” was used when patients self-selected two or more races; “other” was used when patients self-selected American Indian-Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian-Pacific Islander, or a racial category not mentioned earlier; and “unreported” was used when patients did not report or declined to report race. Primary outcomes were record of violent (behavioral) physical restraint order, record of chemical restraint administration in the electronic medical record during the ED encounter, or both. Orders placed for violent restraints comprising physical holds, mitts, soft restraints, locking cuffs, or neoprene cuffs (invoked for patient behaviors including violence, severely aggressive behavior, self-injurious behavior, or inability to exhibit safe behaviors) were included. Orders for nonviolent (medical-surgical) restraints comprising siderails, mitts, soft restraints, vests or jackets, wheelchair belt loops, roll belts, and enclosed beds (ordered for patient behaviors including pulling of lines or tubes or behaviors related to toxic, metabolic, infectious syndromes, dementia, or brain injury) were excluded. The provider’s selection of physical restraint type (violent or nonviolent) and reason were required in the order. Chemical restraint was defined as documentation in the medication administration record of a non–long-acting parenteral formulation of a first- or second-generation antipsychotic available on the hospital formulary (chlorpromazine, fluphenazine, haloperidol, olanzapine, and ziprasidone). In our institution, physical restraint for violent behavior generally took place in conjunction with chemical restraint in the context of a “behavioral emergency team activation,” including nursing staff, psychiatry provider staff, and security.
Additional covariates extracted from the electronic medical record included age in years (18–19, 20–39, 40–59, 60–79, and 80–100), sex (male or female), self-reported ethnicity (Hispanic or non-Hispanic), height (in inches), time of arrival (12:00 a.m.–3:59 a.m., 4:00 a.m.–7:59 a.m., 8:00 a.m.–11:59 a.m., 12:00 p.m.–3:59 p.m., 4:00 p.m.–7:59 p.m., and 8:00 p.m.–11:59 p.m.), urine drug screen results (THC, cocaine, opiates, and amphetamine), and elevated peak blood alcohol concentration during the encounter (≥80 mg/dl). Bipolar or psychotic disorder diagnosis was identified through provider diagnosis codes linked to the encounter. Bipolar disorders were identified by using codes 296.0, 296.1, 296.4–296.8 from ICD-9 and F30–F31 from ICD-10. Psychotic disorders were identified by using codes 295, 297–298 from ICD-9 and F20, F22–F25, and F28–F29 from ICD-10 on the basis of expert review and previous literature (24, 25).
Statistical Analysis
We constructed two separate logistic regression models to evaluate the association between race and the primary outcomes: use of physical restraint and use of chemical restraint. In both models, we accounted for correlation in the response due to repeated ED visits by using a generalized estimating equation with an exchangeable working correlation matrix. We adjusted for potential confounders—age, sex, ethnicity, height, arrival time, urine drug screen results, peak alcohol concentration, and diagnosis—selected on the basis of previous literature and expert opinion. We assessed continuous variables for nonlinear functional relationships with the outcome and discretized age into 20-year categories and blood alcohol content as elevated (≥80 mg/dL) or not on the basis of the legal cutoff for intoxication. We evaluated models for multicollinearity by variance inflation factors, with all acceptable at <2. We performed the primary analysis with complete cases only. The primary covariate of interest, race, was self-reported within the electronic health record and, in some instances, could appear as “unreported” if the patient had elected not to answer. In those instances, we treated “unreported” as its own category. Odds ratios (ORs) for the race variable were calculated through exponentiation of logistic model coefficients and were reported with their 95% robust confidence intervals (CIs).
In addressing the potential effects of missing data among other variables, we imputed missing data by using the Multivariate Imputation by Chained Equations (MICE) package, version 3.13.0, in R. We used predictive mean matching to calculate a set of donor values for each missing value. Predictions were made on the basis of all other available nonmissing values for each observation, and five imputations were performed for each missing value. Linear regression was used to predict continuous variables, and logistic regression was used to predict categorical variables. For modeling purposes, pooled estimates were reported from the five imputed data sets.
We assessed whether race was a predictor of restraint by using the quasi-likelihood information criterion (QIC) goodness-of-fit statistic, and we assumed that smaller QIC values indicated better model fit. All data management and statistical analyses were conducted using R, version 3.6.0.
Results
Sample
From January 1, 2014, to September 18, 2020, 12,977 unique emergency psychiatric encounters were identified. The median age of the cohort was 37.0 years (interquartile range [IQR] 27.0–52.0), and a majority of encounters involved male patients (N=7,159, 55.2%). A total of 6,287 (48.4%) encounters involved Black patients, 5,263 (40.6%) involved White patients, 4,383 (33.8%) encounters resulted in a psychotic disorder diagnosis, and 2,045 (15.8%) resulted in a bipolar disorder diagnosis (Table 1). A psychotic disorder diagnosis was recorded in 43.2% (N=2,719) of cases involving Black patients and 22.3% (N=1,174) of cases involving White patients. (A table showing patient characteristics stratified by race is available in an online supplement.) Complete demographic and clinical characteristics of the sample are presented in Table 1.
| Physical restraint | Chemical restraint | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall (N=12,977) | No (N=12,016) | Yes (N=961) | No (N=10,930) | Yes (N=2,047) | ||||||
| Characteristic | Median | IQR | Median | IQR | Median | IQR | Median | IQR | Median | IQR |
| Age (years) | 37.0 | 27.0–52.0 | 38.0 | 27.0–52.0 | 32.0 | 26.0–44.0 | 38.0 | 27.0–52.0 | 35.0 | 27.0–49.0 |
| Height (inches)a | 67.0 | 64.0–70.0 | 67.0 | 64.0–70.0 | 67.0 | 64.5–70.5 | 67.0 | 64.0–70.0 | 67.0 | 64.0–71.0 |
| N | %b | N | %b | N | %b | N | %b | N | %b | |
| Sex | ||||||||||
| Female | 5,816 | 44.8 | 5,430 | 45.2 | 386 | 40.2 | 5,013 | 45.9 | 803 | 39.2 |
| Male | 7,159 | 55.2 | 6,585 | 54.8 | 574 | 59.7 | 5,916 | 54.1 | 1,243 | 60.7 |
| Missing | 2 | <.01 | 1 | <.01 | 1 | 0.1 | 1 | <.01 | 1 | <.01 |
| Race | ||||||||||
| Asian | 234 | 1.8 | 221 | 1.8 | 13 | 1.4 | 202 | 1.8 | 32 | 1.6 |
| Black | 6,287 | 48.4 | 5,739 | 47.8 | 548 | 57.0 | 5,151 | 47.1 | 1,136 | 55.5 |
| White | 5,263 | 40.6 | 4,979 | 41.4 | 284 | 29.6 | 4,616 | 42.3 | 647 | 31.6 |
| Multiracial | 682 | 5.3 | 609 | 5.1 | 73 | 7.6 | 542 | 5.0 | 140 | 6.8 |
| Other | 326 | 2.5 | 302 | 2.5 | 24 | 2.5 | 278 | 2.5 | 48 | 2.3 |
| Unreported | 178 | 1.4 | 159 | 1.3 | 19 | 2.0 | 135 | 1.2 | 43 | 2.1 |
| Missing | 7 | 0.1 | 7 | 0.1 | 0 | — | 6 | 0.1 | 1 | 0.0 |
| Ethnicity | ||||||||||
| Hispanic | 566 | 4.4 | 531 | 4.4 | 35 | 3.6 | 499 | 4.6 | 67 | 3.3 |
| Non-Hispanic | 12,137 | 93.5 | 11,234 | 93.5 | 903 | 94.0 | 10,207 | 93.4 | 1,930 | 94.3 |
| Unreported | 266 | 2.0 | 243 | 2.0 | 23 | 2.4 | 217 | 2.0 | 49 | 2.4 |
| Missing | 8 | <0.1 | 8 | <0.1 | 0 | — | 7 | <0.1 | 1 | <0.1 |
| Shift | ||||||||||
| 12:00 a.m.–3:59 a.m. | 1,620 | 12.5 | 1,503 | 12.5 | 117 | 12.2 | 1,357 | 12.4 | 263 | 12.8 |
| 4:00 a.m.–7:59 a.m. | 782 | 6.0 | 708 | 5.9 | 74 | 7.7 | 643 | 5.9 | 139 | 6.8 |
| 8:00 a.m.–11:59 a.m. | 1,640 | 12.6 | 1,491 | 12.4 | 149 | 15.5 | 1,367 | 12.5 | 273 | 13.3 |
| 12:00 p.m.–3:59 p.m. | 2,881 | 22.2 | 2,638 | 22.0 | 243 | 25.3 | 2,371 | 21.7 | 510 | 24.9 |
| 4:00 p.m.–7:59 p.m. | 3,143 | 24.2 | 2,933 | 24.4 | 210 | 21.9 | 2,689 | 24.6 | 454 | 22.2 |
| 8:00 p.m.–11:59 p.m. | 2,911 | 22.4 | 2,743 | 22.8 | 168 | 17.5 | 2,503 | 22.9 | 408 | 19.9 |
| Diagnosis | ||||||||||
| Bipolar disorder | 2,045 | 15.8 | 1,801 | 15.0 | 244 | 25.4 | 1,562 | 14.3 | 483 | 23.6 |
| Psychotic disorder | 4,383 | 33.8 | 3,877 | 32.3 | 506 | 52.7 | 3,275 | 30.0 | 1,108 | 54.1 |
| Missing | 225 | 1.7 | 216 | 1.8 | 9 | 0.9 | 211 | 1.9 | 14 | 0.7 |
| Laboratory testsc | ||||||||||
| Amphetamined | 320 | 3.8 | 303 | 3.9 | 17 | 3.0 | 273 | 3.9 | 47 | 3.3 |
| THCe | 2,239 | 26.8 | 1,996 | 25.7 | 243 | 42.6 | 1,725 | 24.9 | 514 | 35.9 |
| Cocainef | 1,646 | 19.7 | 1,548 | 19.9 | 98 | 17.1 | 1,389 | 20.1 | 257 | 17.9 |
| Opiateg | 552 | 6.6 | 519 | 6.7 | 33 | 5.8 | 463 | 6.7 | 89 | 6.2 |
| Peak ethanol level ≥80 mg/dlh | 1,063 | 13.1 | 1,006 | 13.3 | 57 | 10.1 | 900 | 13.4 | 163 | 11.6 |
a
Height was missing from 2,019 (15.6%) encounters.
b
Denotes column percentages.
c
Amphetamine screen was not obtained in 4,619 (35.6%) encounters; THC screen was not obtained in 4,626 (35.6%) encounters; cocaine screen was not obtained in 4,616 (35.6%) encounters; opiate screen was not obtained in 4,618 (35.6%) encounters; blood alcohol level was not obtained in 4,839 (37.3%) encounters.
d
Total N=8,358; physical restraint: no, N=7,787; yes, N=571; chemical restraint: no, N=6,925; yes, N=1,433.
e
Total N=8,351; physical restraint: no, N=7,780; yes, N=571; chemical restraint: no, N=6,919; yes, N=1,432.
f
Total N=8,361; physical restraint: no, N=7,788; yes, N=573; chemical restraint: no, N=6,926; yes, N=1,435.
g
Total N=8,359; physical restraint: no, N=7,788; yes, N=571; chemical restraint: no, N=6,926; yes, N=1,433.
h
Total N=8,138; physical restraint: no, N=7,575; yes, N=563; chemical restraint: no, N=6,730; yes, N=1,408.
Outcomes
Over the study period, 961 (7.4%) encounters involved physical restraint, and 2,047 (15.8%) involved chemical restraint. A total of 797 (83%) encounters involving physical restraint also involved chemical restraint. Of the individuals undergoing physical restraint, 574 (60%) were male, 548 (57%) were Black, 284 (30%) were White, and the median age was 32.0 years (IQR 26.0–44.0). Of those who were chemically restrained, 1,243 (61%) were male, 1,136 (56%) were Black, 647 (32%) were White, and the median age was 35 years (IQR 27.0–49.0). Data were missing for sex (N=2, <0.01%), race (N=7, <0.01%), ethnicity (N=8, <0.01%), height (N=2,019, 15.6%, complete urine drug screen results (N=4,626, 35.6%), blood alcohol results (N=4,839, 37.3%), and psychiatric diagnosis (N=225, 1.7%).
Black patients underwent physical restraint during 8.7% of encounters and chemical restraint during 18.1% of encounters, whereas White patients underwent physical restraint during 5.4% of encounters and chemical restraint during 12.3% of encounters (Table 2). Compared with White patients, Black patients (OR=1.67; 95% CI= CI=1.44–1.94), multiracial patients (OR=2.09, 95% CI=1.60–2.75), and patients with unreported race (OR=2.09, 95% CI=1.28–3.42) had higher odds of undergoing physical restraint. (Table 3). Compared with White patients, Black patients (OR=1.57, 95% CI=1.42–1.75), multiracial patients (OR=1.84, 95% CI=1.50–2.26), and patients with unreported race (OR=2.27, 95% CI=1.60–3.23) had higher odds of undergoing chemical restraint (Table 4).
| Overall (N=12,977) | Black (N=6,287) | White (N=5.263) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Characteristic | N | % | N | % | N | % |
| Patients receiving physical restraint | 961 | 7.4 | 548 | 8.7 | 284 | 5.4 |
| Patients receiving chemical restraint | 2,047 | 15.8 | 1,136 | 18.1 | 647 | 12.3 |
| Robust | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Characteristic | OR | 95% CI | AOR | 95% CI |
| Asian | 1.03 | 0.58–1.83 | 0.58 | 0.21–1.64 |
| Black | 1.67 | 1.44–1.94 | 1.35 | 1.07–1.72 |
| Multiracial | 2.09 | 1.60–2.75 | 1.84 | 1.20–2.80 |
| Other | 1.39 | 0.90–2.15 | 1.32 | 0.65–2.65 |
| Unreported | 2.09 | 1.28–3.42 | 0.84 | 0.29–2.43 |
a
Reference group: White.
| Robust | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Characteristic | OR | 95% CI | AOR | 95% CI |
| Asian | 1.13 | 0.77–1.66 | 1.10 | 0.66–1.84 |
| Black | 1.57 | 1.42–1.75 | 1.33 | 1.15–1.55 |
| Multiracial | 1.84 | 1.50–2.26 | 2.11 | 1.56–2.84 |
| Other | 1.23 | 0.90–1.69 | 1.52 | 0.94–2.46 |
| Unreported | 2.27 | 1.60–3.23 | 1.30 | 0.64–2.65 |
a
Reference group: White.
After adjusting for potential confounders of age, sex, ethnicity, height, arrival time, urine drug screen results, peak alcohol concentration, and diagnosis, the association between Black race and restraint remained. Black individuals were more likely to be physically restrained than White individuals (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]=1.35, 95% CI=1.07–1.72) (Table 3) and more likely to be chemically restrained than White individuals (AOR=1.33, 95% CI=1.15–1.55) (Table 4). We compared models with and without a race covariate, with QIC scores for both physical restraint (QIC including race=3,097.12; QIC excluding race=3,101.43) and chemical restraint (QIC including race= 6,012.51; QIC excluding race=6,032.44), and both models including race had lower QIC scores.
We used multiple imputation to assess for the potential effect of missingness on our conclusions (see online supplement). In each instance, Black race remained significantly associated with risk of physical restraint (AOR=1.28; 95% CI=1.09–1.52) and chemical restraint (AOR=1.26, 95% CI=1.12–1.41).
Discussion
Using electronic health records for ED psychiatry patient encounters, we examined the association of Black race with use of physical and chemical restraints over a 6-year period. We found that race was a predictor of restraint use, and, after we adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity, height, arrival time, positive urine drug screen results, peak blood alcohol concentration, and diagnosis of a bipolar or psychotic disorder, Black patients were more likely to experience physical or chemical restraint than White patients.
Our findings are consistent with two other recent observational studies demonstrating increased risk of physical restraint with Black patients compared with their White counterparts in the emergency setting (17, 18). However, our sample had a greater proportion of Black patients than these studies (48.4% versus 10%−28.2%), and the rate of physical restraint (7.4%) was relatively high in comparison (1%–1.4%). The high rate of physical restraint in the emergency psychiatric setting is consistent with findings that patients with mental disorders are at increased risk for undergoing physical restraint (17, 18). Our findings align with a smaller observational study evaluating antipsychotic use in a psychiatric emergency setting, where physical restraint occurred in 9% of encounters (26).
Our findings that Black patients are at increased risk for chemical restraint compared with White patients are consistent with the findings of Segal et al. (26). This observational study, conducted 25 years ago, included 442 independent observed evaluations in the psychiatry emergency setting. Clinicians, most of whom were White, prescribed more oral and parenteral antipsychotic medications to Black patients compared with White patients, even after the study controlled for psychotic disorder, disease severity, and physical restraint (26). Recent studies have documented disparities in the prescription of antipsychotics for Black individuals compared with that for White individuals, including greater duration and higher dosing of antipsychotics and increased likelihood of receiving first-generation medication (27–29). To our knowledge and disappointment, our study is the first in 25 years to demonstrate that such disparities have persisted in the adult emergency psychiatric setting. Our findings are also consistent with recent results among a national sample of pediatric patients demonstrating a higher rate of chemical restraint use during mental health visits for Black patients compared with White patients (19).
In adjusting for height in the analysis, we sought to adjust for physical size as a contributor to perception of risk of violence, and we still found significantly higher rates of physical and chemical restraint for Black patients compared with White patients. More restraint use for Black individuals could reflect contributions from processes of both interpersonal and systemic racism that were not measured in this study. Indeed, a previous meta-analysis has indicated that U.S. physicians have implicit preference for White individuals, although how this preference has directly affected clinical decision making, on a large scale, remains less clear (30). All but one of the studies in the analysis used vignettes instead of live patient encounters, and none of the studies examined the impact of bias on actual physician decision making in the ED (30). Black individuals also are recognized as having less access to outpatient psychiatric appointments, psychotropics (2), and specialty care (3) and, therefore, might present to care with more severe symptoms. Paradoxically, qualitative research describes restraint use itself as a barrier to ED care because patients report experiences of restraint as dehumanizing, leading to poor sense of well-being, distrust, and avoidance of health care (16). Finding ways to humanize patients’ experiences with emergency psychiatric services, especially through decreasing unnecessary restraint use, may improve earlier help-seeking efforts for at-risk patients. There is growing recognition that Black individuals are more likely to access mental health services through law enforcement (31), which might influence clinician perception of dangerousness and heighten patient stress. Further studies should assess patients’ access to mental health services and interactions with restraint use.
There were several limitations of our study. The first category of limitations concerned restraint use. We defined chemical restraint as administration of first- or second-generation (non–long-acting) parenteral antipsychotics available on our formulary. We did not measure nonantipsychotic chemical restraint (e.g., benzodiazepine or barbiturates) use, given their common use for alcohol withdrawal, and we did not measure use of oral antipsychotic or sedative medications, some of which may be used for restraint. Our definition was also based on the assumption that parenteral antipsychotics were used for restraint in a population receiving psychiatric consultation in the ED. Therefore, we may have underrecognized chemical restraint use overall. Our model may also have underrecognized physical restraint, as we counted physical restraint only when an order was present. We could have missed actual restraint use in certain cases, and reason for restraint could have been misclassified. We also were not able to determine the appropriateness of use of physical or chemical restraint, as our electronic medical record did not include an objective measure of appropriateness of physical or chemical restraint use or objective measure of patient agitation or clinical condition.
The second category of limitations concerned confounders. Given the nature of the electronic medical record and the retrospective cohort study design, there may have been factors contributing to outcomes that we were not able to measure or include in our models. However, treating psychotic disorder diagnosis as a confounder in the study provided a conservative estimate for the relationship between Black race and restraint, given that Black patients are more likely to be overdiagnosed with psychotic disorders compared with White patients (32). Although there was a significant degree of missing data, particularly within drug screen, height, and blood alcohol data, the primary association observed between race and restraints was stable across both complete-case and multiple imputed analyses.
The final set of limitations concerned causality and generalizability. The retrospective nature of the study limited the capacity to make direct causal claims. Although we were able to analyze data from a large number of encounters, our single-center design may limit generalizability to other regions or hospital settings. In light of increasing evidence regarding social determinants and health disparities, we believe that our findings are of broad relevance to other health care institutions and systems. Finally, analyses of race-based differences are challenging, considering that race is a social construct. Accordingly, observational databases, including electronic health records, are limited in their ability to document patient race accurately and are, at times, incomplete (33). The increased rate of restraint receipt in the “unreported” race category is consistent with previous literature (18) and likely results from patients who were unable to provide information because of acute distress or illness. Despite these limitations, utilizing self-reported race as documented in the electronic medical record, we found race-based disparities in emergency psychiatric treatment. Our large cohort of patients evaluated in the psychiatric emergency setting extends the literature on the role of Black race in restraint use and suggests important areas for further scholarly inquiry. Our findings suggest areas for improvement in the provision of equitable and accessible psychiatric care.
Conclusions
The finding that Black patients are more likely to undergo physical and chemical restraint in an emergency psychiatry setting adds to a growing body of literature regarding emergency care settings and restraint use and extends these findings to an intersectionally vulnerable group: patients of color receiving psychiatric consultation. Observed differences remain, even after adjusting for relevant confounders. The observational nature of the study limits our ability to make causal claims, but our findings nonetheless suggest ongoing disparities in psychiatric care for Black patients in the prehospital and emergency settings. These data support the need for further work elucidating where the disparities arise in order to improve equity in and access to care.
Footnotes
The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of Duke University or of the U.S. government or any of its agencies. The sponsors had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; or decision to submit the manuscript for publication. ORCiD identifier: 0000-0002-5758-4698.
Dr. Turner has received an author honorarium from McGraw Hill. Dr. Tweedy received honoraria from Moderna and Eli Lilly for guest lectures. The other authors report no financial relationships with commercial interests.
Supplementary Material
File (appi.ps.202100474.ds001.pdf)
- View/Download
- 144.48 KB
References
1.
Fiscella K, Sanders MR: Racial and ethnic disparities in the quality of health care. Annu Rev Public Health 2016; 37:375–394
2.
Cook BL, Trinh NH, Li Z, et al: Trends in racial-ethnic disparities in access to mental health care, 2004–2012. Psychiatr Serv 2017; 68:9–16
3.
Narain K, Xu H, Azocar F, et al: Racial/ethnic disparities in specialty behavioral health care treatment patterns and expenditures among commercially insured patients in managed behavioral health care plans. Health Serv Res 2019; 54:575–585
4.
Lawson WB, Hepler N, Holladay J, et al: Race as a factor in inpatient and outpatient admissions and diagnosis. Hosp Community Psychiatry 1994; 45:72–74
5.
Gara MA, Vega WA, Arndt S, et al: Influence of patient race and ethnicity on clinical assessment in patients with affective disorders. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2012; 69:593–600
6.
Jordan A, Allsop AS, Collins PY: Decriminalising being Black with mental illness. Lancet Psychiatry 2021; 8:8–9
7.
Zhang X, Carabello M, Hill T, et al: Trends of racial/ethnic differences in emergency department care outcomes among adults in the United States from 2005 to 2016. Front Med (Lausanne) 2020; 7:300
8.
Shah AA, Zogg CK, Zafar SN, et al: Analgesic access for acute abdominal pain in the emergency department among racial/ethnic minority patients: a nationwide examination. Med Care 2015; 53:1000–1009
9.
Pezzin LE, Keyl PM, Green GB: Disparities in the emergency department evaluation of chest pain patients. Acad Emerg Med 2007; 14:149–156
10.
Santillanes G, Axeen S, Lam CN, et al: National trends in mental health-related emergency department visits by children and adults, 2009–2015. Am J Emerg Med 2020; 38:2536–2544
11.
Snowden LR, Catalano R, Shumway M: Disproportionate use of psychiatric emergency services by African Americans. Psychiatr Serv 2009; 60:1664–1671
12.
Miner JR, Klein LR, Cole JB, et al: The characteristics and prevalence of agitation in an urban county emergency department. Ann Emerg Med 2018; 72:361–370
13.
Muir-Cochrane E, Grimmer K, Gerace A, et al: Prevalence of the use of chemical restraint in the management of challenging behaviours associated with adult mental health conditions: a meta-synthesis. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs 2020; 27:425–445
14.
Mohr WK, Petti TA, Mohr BD: Adverse effects associated with physical restraint. Can J Psychiatry 2003; 48:330–337
15.
Hays H, Jolliff HA, Casavant MJ: The psychopharmacology of agitation: consensus statement of the American Association for Emergency Psychiatry Project BETA Psychopharmacology Workgroup. West J Emerg Med 2012; 13:536
16.
Wong AH, Ray JM, Rosenberg A, et al:. Experiences of individuals who were physically restrained in the emergency department. JAMA Netw Open. 2020; 3:e1919381
17.
Wong AH, Whitfill T, Ohuabunwa EC, et al:. Association of race/ethnicity and other demographic characteristics with use of physical restraints in the emergency department. JAMA Netw Open. 2021; 4:e2035241
18.
Schnitzer K, Merideth F, Macias-Konstantopoulos W, et al: Disparities in care: the role of race on the utilization of physical restraints in the emergency setting. Acad Emerg Med 2020; 27:943–950
19.
Foster AA, Porter JJ, Monuteaux MC, et al: Pharmacologic restraint use during mental health visits in pediatric emergency departments. J Pediatr. 2021; 236:276–283e2
20.
Wong AH, Taylor RA, Ray JM, et al: Physical restraint use in adult patients presenting to a general emergency department. Ann Emerg Med 2019; 73:183–192
21.
Satcher D: Mental Health: Culture, Race, and Ethnicity—A Supplement to Mental Health: A Report of the Surgeon General. Washington, DC, US Department of Health and Human Services, 2001. https://drum.lib.umd.edu/handle/1903/22834
22.
Bailey ZD, Krieger N, Agénor M, et al: Structural racism and health inequities in the USA: evidence and interventions. Lancet 2017; 389:1453–1463
23.
Horvath MM, Winfield S, Evans S, et al: The DEDUCE Guided Query tool: providing simplified access to clinical data for research and quality improvement. J Biomed Inform 2011; 44:266–276
24.
Wang L, Homayra F, Pearce LA, et al: Identifying mental health and substance use disorders using emergency department and hospital records: a population-based retrospective cohort study of diagnostic concordance and disease attribution. BMJ Open 2019; 9:e030530
25.
Taquet M, Luciano S, Geddes JR, et al: Bidirectional associations between COVID-19 and psychiatric disorder: retrospective cohort studies of 62 354 COVID-19 cases in the USA. Lancet Psychiatry 2021; 8:130–140
26.
Segal SP, Bola JR, Watson MA: Race, quality of care, and antipsychotic prescribing practices in psychiatric emergency services. Psychiatr Serv 1996; 47:282–286
27.
Fleck DE, Hendricks WL, DelBello MP, et al: Differential prescription of maintenance antipsychotics to African American and white patients with new-onset bipolar disorder. J Clin Psychiatry 2002; 63:658–664
28.
Kuno E, Rothbard AB: Racial disparities in antipsychotic prescription patterns for patients with schizophrenia. Am J Psychiatry 2002; 159:567–572
29.
Lawson W, Johnston S, Karson C, et al: Racial differences in antipsychotic use: claims database analysis of Medicaid-insured patients with schizophrenia. Ann Clin Psychiatry 2015; 27:242–252
30.
Dehon E, Weiss N, Jones J, et al: A systematic review of the impact of physician implicit racial bias on clinical decision making. Acad Emerg Med 2017; 24:895–904
31.
Swartz MS: The urgency of racial justice and reducing law enforcement involvement in involuntary civil commitment. Psychiatr Serv 2020; 71:1211
32.
Schwartz RC, Blankenship DM: Racial disparities in psychotic disorder diagnosis: a review of empirical literature. World J Psychiatry 2014; 4:133–140
33.
Polubriaginof FCG, Ryan P, Salmasian H, et al: Challenges with quality of race and ethnicity data in observational databases. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2019; 26:730–736
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
History
Received: 9 August 2021
Revision received: 26 September 2021
Accepted: 1 November 2021
Published online: 21 December 2021
Published in print: July 2022
Keywords
Authors
Funding Information
This study was supported by grants from the Duke Global Health Institute, the Duke Hubert Yeargan Center for Global Health, and the Duke Department of Medicine.The authors acknowledge Nora Dennis, M.D., M.S.P.H., Kim G. Johnson, M.D., April L. Toure, M.D., and Krista R. Alexander, M.D., for their 2014 work and advocacy as part of the Duke University Hospital Psychiatry Violence Prevention Team.
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Export Citations
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.
For more information or tips please see 'Downloading to a citation manager' in the Help menu.
View Options
View options
PDF/EPUB
View PDF/EPUBLogin options
Already a subscriber? Access your subscription through your login credentials or your institution for full access to this article.
Personal login Institutional Login Open Athens loginNot a subscriber?
PsychiatryOnline subscription options offer access to the DSM-5-TR® library, books, journals, CME, and patient resources. This all-in-one virtual library provides psychiatrists and mental health professionals with key resources for diagnosis, treatment, research, and professional development.
Need more help? PsychiatryOnline Customer Service may be reached by emailing [email protected] or by calling 800-368-5777 (in the U.S.) or 703-907-7322 (outside the U.S.).