Dataset Information

Seclusion in an enriched environment versus seclusion as usual: A quasi-experimental study using mixed methods

ABSTRACT:

Background

For patients, seclusion during psychiatric treatment is often a traumatic experience. To prevent such experiences, adjustments in the design of seclusion rooms have been recommended.

Methods

As there have been no empirical studies on the matter, we used a quasi-experimental design to compare the experiences in seclusion of two groups of patients: 26 who had been secluded in a room designed according to the principles of healing environment, a so called ‘Enriched Environment Seclusion room’ (EES), and 27 who had been secluded in a regular seclusion (RS) room. The enrichment included audio-visual facilities, a fixed toilet, a couch and a self-service system to adjust light, colour, blinds and temperature according to the patient’s preferences. Insight into their experiences was obtained using the Patient View-of-Seclusion Questionnaire, which comprises nine statements on seclusion, supplemented with open-ended questions.

Results

The responses regarding seclusion experiences between the two groups did not differ significantly (U = 280.00, p = .21, r = -.17). Although those who had been secluded in the specially designed room had greatly appreciated the opportunities for distraction, and those who had been secluded in a regular seclusion room expressed the need for more distracting activities during seclusion, both groups described seclusion as a dreadful experience. If seclusion cannot be avoided, patients recommend facilities for distraction (such as those provided in an enriched environment seclusion room) to be available.

Conclusion

Whatever the physical environment and facilities of a seclusion room, we may thus conclude that seclusion is a burdensome experience.

SUBMITTER: van der Venne C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8584674 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Interdisciplinary geriatric consultation teams (IGCT) are regularly requested to provide comprehensive geriatric assessments in older inpatients. Our primary aim was to evaluate whether medication reviews increased the number of IGCT-provided drug-related recommendations. Secondary aims were to reduce the number of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs), and to identify the acceptance rate of and determinants for the number of recommendations. METHODS:A before-after study was performed in older inpatients not admitted to acute geriatric wards. The before cohort received usual care (UC); the after cohort was subjected to the intervention (I), consisting of a systematic medication review, based on but not limited to the RASP (Rationalization of Home Medication by an Adjusted STOPP in Older Patients) list. The primary outcome measure was the number of IGCT-provided drug-related recommendations. Age, sex, Charlson Comorbidity Index, creatinine clearance and serum creatinine were ascertained upon enrolment. Following variables were determined on admission and at discharge: number of drugs and number as well as type of RASP-identified PIMs. Acceptance by ward-based physicians was also determined. Poisson regression was performed to identify determinants for the primary outcome measure. RESULTS:Fifty-nine participants were enrolled (nUC?=?29; nI?=?30). The intervention increased the number of drug-related recommendations from a median of 0 (IQR: 0-1) to 8 (IQR: 6.75-10) (p?<?0.001). The median number of accepted recommendations differed significantly as well (UC vs. I: 0.0 (0.0-0.5) vs. 3.0 (0.0-5.3); p?<?0.001). In the intervention cohort, patients were discharged with fewer drugs compared to admission (UC vs. I: 108.5%, IQR: 100.0-135.8% vs. 92%, IQR: 80.5-103.5%; p?=?0.002). More RASP PIMs were discontinued in the intervention cohort, with a mean difference of 1.49 RASP PIMs (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.70, 2.23; p?<?0.001). Regression analysis identified two determinants: allocation to the intervention cohort with an incidence rate ratio (IRR) of 14.1 (95% CI: 8.30, 23.8) and the number of preadmission drugs with an IRR of 1.06 (95% CI: 1.03, 1.09). CONCLUSIONS:A structured medication review as part of usual IGCT care may contribute to an increased detection of drug-related problems and help to further reduce polypharmacy in older inpatients, not admitted to acute geriatric care wards. TRIAL REGISTRATION:NCT02165618 , retrospectively registered June 17, 2014.

Project description:BackgroundAustralia is one of many nations struggling with the challenges of delivering quality primary health care (PHC) to increasing numbers of refugees. The OPTIMISE project represents a collaboration between 12 organisations to generate a model of integrated refugee PHC suitable for uptake throughout Australia. This paper describes the methodology of one component; an outreach practice facilitation intervention, directed towards improving the quality of PHC received by refugees in Australian general practices.MethodsOur mixed methods study will use a cluster stepped wedge randomised controlled trial design set in 3 urban regions of high refugee resettlement in Australia. The intervention was build upon regional partnerships of policy advisors, clinicians, academics and health service managers. Following a regional needs assessment, the partnerships reached consensus on four core areas for intervention in general practice (GP): recording of refugee status; using interpreters; conducting comprehensive health assessments; and referring to refugee specialised services. Refugee health staff trained in outreach practice facilitation techniques will work with GP clinics to modify practice routines relating to the four core areas. 36 general practice clinics with no prior involvement in a refugee health focused practice facilitation will be randomly allocated into early and late intervention groups. The primary outcome will be changes in number of claims for Medical Benefit Service reimbursed comprehensive health assessments among patients identified as being from a refugee background. Changes in practice performance for this and 3 secondary outcomes will be evaluated using multilevel mixed effects models. Baseline data collection will comprise (i) pre-intervention provider survey; (ii) two surveys documenting each practices' structure and approaches to delivery of care to refugees. De-identified medical record data will be collected at baseline, at the end of the intervention and 6 and 12 months following completion.DiscussionOPTIMISE will test whether a regionally oriented practice facilitation initiative can improve the quality of PHC delivered to refugees. Findings have the potential to influence policy and practice in broader primary care settings.Trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12618001970235 , 05/12/2018, Retrospectively registered. Protocol Version 1, 21/08/2017.

Project description:ObjectiveThis study aimed to assess the feasibility of a future trial comparing the collaborative care model with usual care for patients with musculoskeletal conditions and co-existing symptoms of anxiety and depression.DesignA single-centre, parallel-arm, one-to-one, randomised controlled trial design using a mixed-methods approach was used. semistructured interviews and focus groups were conducted post intervention with all participants and staff respectively to explore acceptability towards the model and identify recommendations for improvements.SettingAn orthopaedic rehabilitation outpatient tertiary hospital.ParticipantsAdult patients with musculoskeletal conditions and co-existing moderate or severe symptoms of anxiety and depression attending outpatient therapy appointments.InterventionThe collaborative care model consisted of a tailored management programme to facilitate the integration of care provided by physical and mental healthcare professionals. A case manager screened and coordinated targeted mental health support for participants. Participants allocated to usual care had no support from the case manager.Main outcomes measureFeasibility indicators (rates of recruitment, randomisation and retention), acceptability of clinical outcome measures, usage of additional resources and cost of intervention implementation.ResultsOf the 89 patients who provided consent to take part, 40 participants who matched the eligibility criteria were randomised to either the intervention (n=20) or usual care arm (n=20). Overall adherence to the intervention was 58.82%, while the withdrawal rate was 37.5% at 6 months. All of the 27 participants who were retained completed self-reported outcomes. Qualitative data highlighted that integrated mental health support was favourably perceived. In addition to prenegotiating protected psychology time, the need for operationalised communication between the case manager and clinicians was identified as a recommendation for a future trial.ConclusionsThe trial and intervention were acceptable to patients and healthcare professionals. While the findings demonstrate the feasibility of trial recruitment, a future trial will require optimised retention strategies to improve adherence and withdrawal rates.Trial registration numberNCT05018039.