Skip to main content
Full access
Open Forum
Published Online: 31 October 2014

Seclusion and Restraint as Measures of the Quality of Hospital Care: Any Exceptions?

Abstract

The Joint Commission has recently included seclusion and restraint as quality-of-care indicators for hospital-based inpatient psychiatric services. Their inclusion is the result of abuse of these practices, wide variation across hospitals, and cultural influences, including the consumer and recovery movements. Over the next few years, these indicators will increasingly influence treatment modalities available to hospitalized patients. This Open Forum provides a brief history of changing attitudes toward use of seclusion and restraint. It describes three clinical scenarios that highlight appropriate and humane use of seclusion and restraint and that illustrate the clinical complexities associated with their use. Potential unforeseen consequences of the reduction or elimination of seclusion and restraint are described.
In 2008 the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations developed a set of core performance measures for hospital-based inpatient psychiatric services (HBIPS). For psychiatry, the HBIPS core measures consist of seven standards that address aspects of inpatient services; two of the seven standards measure the time of physical restraint (HBIPS-2) and seclusion use (HBIPS-3) (1). These data are now published as part of an Inpatient Patient Quality Review program. Their publication is intended to permit consumers to compare psychiatric facilities and to encourage hospitals to improve the care they provide.
It is expected that these measures will be linked to Medicare payments as part of hospital value-based purchasing (HVBP). Hospitals that report higher use of seclusion and restraint will be viewed as providing a lower quality of care and will be penalized by decreased Medicare reimbursement (2).

History

Reduction and elimination of the use of seclusion and restraints is hardly a new issue. The beginnings of modern psychiatry are often represented by Pinel and Tuke’s liberation of psychiatric patients from their shackles at the end of the 18th century. However, chains were soon replaced by other means of restraint, such as the straitjacket and the seclusion room. Every advancement was eventually rejected as coercive and unacceptable.
The current movement regarding the morbidity associated with restraints is attributed to the 1998 Pulitzer Prize–winning investigative five-part series published by the Hartford Courant (3). It was alleged that between 1988 and 1998, 142 deaths occurred from these practices. As a result of the Hartford Courant series, the U.S. General Accounting Office initiated an investigation that resulted in an Interim Final Rule issued in 1999 by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) that imposed requirements on the use of seclusion and restraints.
In the field of psychiatry, guidelines for the use of seclusion and restraint were changing. In 1994, a review by Fisher (4) concluded that seclusion and restraint could prevent injury and reduce agitation, but it also noted their traumatic impact on patients and staff. In a review from 2000, Busch and Shore (5) concluded that seclusion and restraint are no longer seen as a therapeutic modality. They cited studies that demonstrated considerable practice variation across hospitals, after the analysis controlled for socioeconomic and clinical characteristics, and they concluded that milieu-related variables, such as location, staffing, and staff philosophy, were more important than patient characteristics in determining rates of seclusion and restraint.
Concurrent to these developments in psychiatric research was the growing impact of the consumer and recovery movements. The consumer movement has been especially successful in gaining representation by patient advocates in public agencies and hospitals (6). The recovery-oriented model has had an equally large impact on psychiatric care (7). In this model, seclusion and restraint are viewed as antithetical to recovery in their disregard for the autonomy of the patient and as a failure to empower the patient to take responsibility for his or her illness and treatment. Some recovery-oriented professionals have called for the elimination of seclusion and restraints, describing elimination as “life and death issue” that is part of the transformed system of care associated with the recovery movement (8) and referring to current CMS rules that permit last-resort use of these practices as “regulatory scotoma” (9) because the rules seem to turn away from progress toward their elimination. Other recovery-oriented professionals acknowledge the need for seclusion and restraint when a patient is “unable to make his or her own decisions and poses a serious and imminent risk” (10).

Protests against elimination of seclusion and restraint

The clinical reality of eliminating seclusion and restraint has been described by Lieberman (11) as an idealistic but “fatuous” goal and a case of “polemics replacing sound clinical judgment.” A reduction in use of these practices could require an increase in overmedication to manage aggressive behavior or a disruption to the entire inpatient milieu in the service of a single patient. More important is the possibility that hospitals could find ways of refusing to admit patients who are likely to require seclusion and restraint by transferring the problem elsewhere, sending patients to public hospitals or to jails and prisons (12).
A more moderate approach has been proposed: to focus less on the elimination of seclusion and restraint and to acknowledge their occasional necessity and to develop “methods for humane, respectful, recovery-oriented involuntary interventions” (13). There is evidence to suggest that patients could experience seclusion or restraint as beneficial (14). Modified use of seclusion or restraint in which a staff member is present 100% of the time to comfort and explain the reason for its use and to explain what the patient needs to accomplish in order to be released may represent a more humane, recovery-oriented use of these treatment modalities.

Three cases

We present three clinical examples and discuss the issues regarding seclusion and restraint that they raise. In the first example, a suicidal patient with diagnoses of anorexia nervosa and borderline personality disorder was restrained for 12 days because of repeated successful efforts to pull out a nasogastric tube, thus increasing the risk of esophageal puncture with each forced replacement of the tube. In the second example, a man with schizophrenia repeatedly swallowed small objects. Seclusion for several days was required because he was able to escape the surveillance of a constant companion and find small objects to swallow, which required three emergency gastroscopies. The third example is of a woman admitted for treatment of mania. On her first night in the hospital, she sat in the center lounge shouting and singing. When staff intervened by using relaxation techniques in the comfort room and offering PRN medications, she harangued them about being a “prisoner” in the hospital. At a community meeting after this event, fellow patients charged staff with negligence for avoiding seclusion and allowing one patient to humiliate herself and disrupt the milieu.
The first two examples highlight recognizable clinical scenarios in which the use of restraint and seclusion was required to prevent serious self-injury after less restrictive means failed. The suicidal woman with anorexia required restraints until we were able to establish a therapeutic relationship with her, which decreased her suicidal behavior. The patient who swallowed objects stopped this behavior after a medication change, but we remained unclear regarding its motivation and what alternatives to seclusion might have been considered. With the patient with mania, by not using seclusion we observed a balance between the competing interests of the patient’s autonomy and that of other patients in a therapeutic milieu. Other examples of a patient disturbing the milieu include excessive intrusiveness with other patients or their visitors, frightening behavior, and sexual advances or exposure.
Among the three patients, an absence of insight and the preemptory nature of the behavior rendered efforts at discussion and negotiation unsuccessful. In the first two cases, using seclusion or restraint provided a situation in which efforts to establish a therapeutic relationship with the patient were able to continue and were partially successful. As the threat of decreased Medicare reimbursement for failure to eliminate seclusion and restraint becomes more imminent, it is likely that facilities will search for alternative treatment situations. For example, because of inadequate facilities, a psychiatric hospital could refuse to accept patients with anorexia who might require forced feeding or patients with a history of violence.
The case of the suicidal woman with anorexia offers a suggestion for future investigation. The hospital ethics committee conducted an expedited review, and hospital officials consulted by telephone with the state department of mental health. Both procedures affirmed the need for use of restraint. A formalized consultation service that assists hospitals in the management of extreme circumstances might result in hospitals’ greater willingness to continue treating challenging patients. Whether use of seclusion or restraint under these conditions would still be considered a negative HBIPS indicator might also be reviewed.

Conclusions

Elimination of seclusion and restraint could lead hospitals to refuse admission to certain patients and to greater use of PRN medications, an increase in negative therapeutic outcomes for other hospitalized patients, and staff demoralization and injury. A mechanism should exist to preserve the humane use of seclusion and restraint, reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Otherwise, we are concerned that elimination may result in poorer quality of care—the opposite of its intended effect.

Acknowledgments and disclosures

The authors report no competing interests.

References

1.
Specifications Manual for Joint Commission National Quality Measures (v2014A). Oakbrook Terrace, Ill, The Joint Commission, 2013. Available at manual.jointcommission.org/releases/TJC2014A/MIF0117.html. Accessed Dec 23, 2013
2.
QualityNet: Hospital Value-Based Purchasing Overview. Baltimore, Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Available at www.qualitynet.org/dcs/ContentServer?c=Page&pagename=QnetPublic%2FPage%2FQnetBasic&cid=1228772039937. Accessed Dec 23, 2013
3.
Weiss E: Deadly restraint: a nationwide pattern of death. Hartford (Conn) Courant, p A1, Oct 11, 1998
4.
Fisher WA: Restraint and seclusion: a review of the literature. American Journal of Psychiatry 151:1584–1591, 1994
5.
Busch AB, Shore MF: Seclusion and restraint: a review of recent literature. Harvard Review of Psychiatry 8:261–270, 2000
6.
Tomes N: The patient as a policy factor: a historical case study of the consumer/survivor movement in mental health. Health Affairs 25:720–729, 2006
7.
Barber ME: Recovery as the new medical model for psychiatry. Psychiatric Services 63:277–279, 2012
8.
Curie CG: SAMHSA’s commitment to eliminating the use of seclusion and restraint. Psychiatric Services 56:1139–1140, 2005
9.
LeBel J: Regulatory change: a pathway to eliminating seclusion and restraint or “regulatory scotoma”? Psychiatric Services 59:194–196, 2008
10.
Davidson L: Use of coercion in recovery-oriented care: staying vigilant. Psychiatric Services 63:834, 2012
11.
Lieberman J: Elimination of seclusion and restraint: a reasonable goal?[letter] Psychiatric Services 57:576, 2006
12.
Sharfstein SS: Commentary: reducing restraint and seclusion: a view from the trenches. Psychiatric Services 59:197–198, 2008
13.
Geller JL: Patient-centered, recovery-oriented psychiatric care and treatment are not always voluntary. Psychiatric Services 63:493–495, 2012
14.
Larue C, Dumais A, Boyer R, et al: The experience of seclusion and restraint in psychiatric settings: perspectives of patients. Issues in Mental Health Nursing 34:317–324, 2013

Information & Authors

Information

Published In

Go to Psychiatric Services
Go to Psychiatric Services

Cover: Woman Sitting on Couch Looking at Picture, by Alice Barber Stephens. Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division, DLC/PP-1933:0012.

Psychiatric Services
Pages: 1373 - 1375
PubMed: 25124498

History

Published ahead of print: 31 October 2014
Published online: 1 November 2014
Published in print: November 01, 2014

Authors

Details

Michael H. Sacks, M.D.
Dr. Sacks is with the Department of Psychiatry, New York–Presbyterian Hospital, New York City. Dr. Walton is with the Department of Psychiatry, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York University, New York City. Send correspondence to Dr. Walton (e-mail: [email protected]).
Michael F. Walton, M.D.
Dr. Sacks is with the Department of Psychiatry, New York–Presbyterian Hospital, New York City. Dr. Walton is with the Department of Psychiatry, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York University, New York City. Send correspondence to Dr. Walton (e-mail: [email protected]).

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.

Format
Citation style
Style
Copy to clipboard

View Options

View options

PDF/EPUB

View PDF/EPUB

Get Access

Login 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 login
Purchase Options

Purchase this article to access the full text.

PPV Articles - Psychiatric Services

PPV Articles - Psychiatric Services

Not a subscriber?

Subscribe Now / Learn More

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.).

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share article link

Share