Purpose (1) This article is an update of the January 19, 2000, Volume 7, Number 2 article of the synthesis of research findings on the use of restraint and seclusion with patients in psychiatric and acute care settings. Conclusions (2) The little that is known about restraint/seclusion use with these populations is inconsistent. Attitudes and perceptions of patients, family, and staff differ. However, all patients had very negative feelings about both, whether they were restrained/secluded or observed by others who were not restrained. The reasons for restraint/seclusion use vary with no accurate use rate for either. What precipitates the use of restraint/seclusion also varies, but professionals claim they are necessary to prevent/treat violent or unruly behavior. Some believe seclusion/restraint is effective, but there is no empirical evidence to support this belief. Many less restrictive alternatives have been tested with varying outcomes. Several educational programs to help staff learn about different ways to handle violent/confused patients have been successful. Implications (3) Until more is known about restraint/seclusion use from prospective controlled research, the goal to use least restrictive methods must be pursued. More staff educational programs must be offered and the evaluation of alternatives to restraint/seclusion pursued. When seclusion/restraint is necessary, it should be used less arbitrarily, less frequently, and with less trauma. As the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO) and the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) have prescribed, “Seclusion and restraint must be a last resort, emergency response to a crisis situation that presents imminent risk of harm to the patient, staff, or others” (p. 25) [99A].

Purpose (1) This article synthesizes research findings on the use of restraint and seclusion with patients in psychiatric and acute care settings. Conclusions (2) The little that is known about restraint/seclusion use with these populations is inconsistent. Attitudes and perceptions of patients, family, and staff differ. However, all patients had very negative feelings about both, whether they were restrained/secluded or observed by others who were not restrained. The reasons for restraint/seclusion use vary with no accurate use rate for either. What precipitates the use of restraint/seclusion also varies but professionals claim they are necessary to prevent/treat violent or unruly behavior. Some believe seclusion/restraint is effective but there is no empirical evidence to support this belief. Many less restrictive alternatives have been tested with varying outcomes. Several educational programs to help staff learn about different ways to handle violent/confused patients have been successful. Implications (3) Until more is known about restraint/seclusion use from prospective controlled research, the goal to use least restrictive methods must be pursued. More staff educational programs must be offered and the evaluation of alternatives to restraint/seclusion pursued. When seclusion/restraint is necessary it should be used less arbitrarily, less frequently, and with less trauma.

No abstract