De‐escalation techniques used, and reasons for seclusion and restraint, in a forensic psychiatric hospital

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.