Seclusion and restraint were prevented without an increase of violence in wards for men with schizophrenia and violent behavior. A similar reduction may also be feasible under less extreme circumstances.

In Finland, the Mental Health Act determines the legal basis for seclusion and restraint. Restrictive measures are implemented to manage challenging situations and should be used as a last resort in psychiatric inpatient care. In the present study, we examined the reasons for seclusion and restraint, as well as whether any de-escalation techniques were used to help patients calm down. Seclusion and restraint files from a 4-year period (1 June 2009-31 May 2013) were retrospectively investigated and analysed by content analysis. Descriptive statistics were calculated. A total of 144 episodes of seclusion and restraint were included to analyse the reasons for seclusion and restraint, and 113 episodes were analysed to examine unsuccessful de-escalation techniques. The most commonly-used techniques were one-to-one interaction with a patient (n = 74, 65.5% of n = 113) and administration of extra medication (n = 37, 32.7% of n = 113). The reasons for seclusion and restraint were threatening harmful behaviour (n = 51, 35.4% of n = 144), direct harmful behaviour (n = 43, 29.9%), indirect harmful behaviour (n = 42, 29.1%), and other behaviours (n = 8, 5.6%). In general, the same de-escalation techniques were used with most patients. Most episodes of seclusion or restraint were due to threats of violence or direct violence. Individual means of self-regulation and patient guidance on these techniques are needed. Additionally, staff should be educated on a diverse range of de-escalation techniques. Future studies should focus on examining de-escalation techniques for the prevention of seclusion.

No abstract

The aim of this paper was to explore the frequency and provocation of physically violent incidents in a Finnish forensic psychiatric hospital. Three years (2007-2009) of violent incident reports were analysed retrospectively. The data were analysed by content analysis, and statistically by Poisson regression analysis. During the study period a total of 840 incidents of physical violence occurred. Six main categories were found to describe the provocation of violence where three of these categories seemed to be without a specified reason (61%), and three represented a reaction to something (36%). The risk for violent behaviour was highest for the civil patients (RR = 11.96; CI 95% 9.43-15.18; P < 0.001), compared to criminal patients (RR = 1). The civil patients represented 36.7% of the patients, and in 43.6% of the studied patient days, they caused 89.8% of the reported violence incidents. Patients undergoing a forensic mental examination did not frequently behave aggressively (RR = 1.97; CI 95% 0.91-4.28). These results can be used in the reorganization of health-care practices and the allocation of resources.