A Retrospective Study of Seclusion in an Emergency Department

Abstract

Objectives

To study the practice of seclusion in an emergency department (ED) and to explore high-risk elements during seclusion.

Methods

The study consisted of two parts: an in-depth analysis on all incidents associated with seclusion in a six-year period (1998–2004) and a two-year (2002–2004) retrospective analysis of secluded patient records to understand the rationale and patient outcome.

Results

Part 1: A total of 9 incident records were collected. Four patients were related to setting fire. Five patients had violence or threat of violence. The median length of stay (LOS) in seclusion at the time of incident was 129 minutes. Although 66.7% of the patients had additional restraint prior to the seclusion, incidents still occurred. Two staff sustained injuries and hospital facilities were damaged in some of the incidents. Six patients were later admitted to psychiatric hospital. Part 2: 141 patient data were collected in the study (M: 89 and F: 52). The average monthly number of patients secluded was about 6. The mean age was 45 years (SD 19) and the mean LOS was 616 minutes (SD 478). There were three incidences (2.1%) during the two-year period. A total of 82 patients (58.2%) were associated with violence or threat of violence and 38 (46.3%) of the group had psychiatric illness; and 50 patients (35.5%) were associated with alcohol or drug intoxication. Ultimately, 56 patients (39.7%) were admitted to psychiatric hospital and 64 patients (45.4%) were treated and discharged from the ED.

Conclusion

Seclusion is a high-risk practice. In our department, the most frequent indication was violence (58.2%), with nearly half of them having history of psychiatric illness. Psychiatric illness had the highest risk for incidents, especially those with violence or threat of violence. The LOS in seclusion was relatively long in the ED and might be one of the risk factors for incidents. Inadequate removal of potentially dangerous belongings from patients before seclusion may end up with catastrophic outcomes. Curiously, ED nurses are not allowed to search patients before seclusion. They are exposed to legal liability in exercising restraint and in searching for potentially dangerous items from patients. It is suggested that clear protocols and quality assurance programs should be instituted to ensure safe seclusion.

Keywords

Hospital emergency service legal liability patient isolation physical restraint violence

References

Cannon

M.E.

, Sprivulis

, McCarthy

Restraint practices in Australasian emergency departments.

Aust N Z J Psychiatry 2001; 35(4): 464–7.

Kapp

M.B.

Physical restraint use in critical care: legal issues.

AACN Clin Issues 1996; 7(4): 579–84.

Emde

, Merkle

Reducing use of restraints in the emergency department: one level III community hospital's experience.

J Emerg Nurs 2002; 28(4): 320–2.

Lee

, Gurney

The legal use of restraints.

J Emerg Nurs 2002; 28(4): 335–7.

Marangos-Frost

, Wells

Psychiatric nurses' thoughts and feelings about restraint use: a decision dilemma.

J Adv Nurs 2000; 31(2): 362–9.

Koo

Y.L.

, Lee

D.W.S.

, Tong

S.L.

A study on current practice of restraining violent patients in emergency department of Hong Kong.

Hong Kong J Emerg Med 1998; 5(1): 11–5.

Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations. Comprehensive Accreditation Manual for Hospitals. Restraint and seclusion standards plus scoring: Standards TX.7.1 - T.X.7.1.3.3. Oakbrook Terrace, IL: JCAHO; 1996: 191–193j.

Evans

, Wood

, Lambert

Patient injury and physical restraint devices: a systematic review.

J Adv Nurs 2003; 41(3): 274–82.

Annas

G.J.

The last resort–the use of physical restraints in medical emergencies.

N Engl J Med 1999; 341(18): 1408–12.

10.

Blank

F.S.

, Keyes

, Maynard

A.M.

, Provost

, Santoro

J.P.

A humane ED seclusion/restraint: legal requirements, a new policy, procedure, “psychiatric advocate” role.

J Emerg Nurs 2004; 30(1): 42–6.

11.

Dyer

Unjustified seclusion of psychiatric patients is breach of human rights.

BMJ 2003; 327(7408): 183.

12.

The Basic Law of Hong Kong: Chapter III, Article 28. Fundamental rights and duties of the residents. [cited 2004 Dec 16]. The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China. Available from: http://www.info.gov.hk/basic_law/flash.html

13.

Hospital Authority medico-legal guidelines. Points to note on the use of restrainers. Hong Kong: Hospital Authority; 1995.

14.

Guedj

M.J.

, Raynaud

, Braitman

, Vanderschooten

The practice of restraint in a psychiatric emergency unit.

Encephale 2004; 30(1): 32–9.

15.

Horsburgh

How, and when, can I restrain a patient?

Postgrad Med J 2004; 80(939): 7–12.

16.

Martin

Restraint use in acute and critical care settings: changing practice.

AACN Clin Issues 2002; 13(2): 294–306.

17.

Savage

, Salib

Seclusion in psychiatry.

Nurs Stand 1999; 13(50): 34–7.

18.

Maccioli

G.A.

, Dorman

, Brown

B.R.

Clinical practice guidelines for the maintenance of patient physical safety in the intensive care unit: use of restraining therapies–American College of Critical Care Medicine Task Force 2001–2002.

Crit Care Med 2003; 31(11): 2665–76.

19.

Hellwig

Alternatives to restraints: what patients and caregivers should know.

Home Healthc Nurse 2000; 18(6): 395–402.

20.

Janelli

L.M.

, Scherer

Y.K.

, Kuhn

M.M.

Acute/critical care nurses' knowledge of physical restraints–implications for staff development.

J Nurs Staff Dev 1994; 10(1): 6–11.

21.

Staten

P.A.

Restraint, seclusion standards raise questions.

Nurs Manage 2001; 32(7): 17.

22.

Wynaden

, Chapman

, McGowan

, McDonough

, Finn

, Hood

Emergency department mental health triage consultancy service: a qualitative evaluation.

Accid Emerg Nurs 2003; 11(3): 158–65.