Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Three Pathways of Seclusion Reduction Programs to Sustainability: Ten Years Follow Up in Psychiatry

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Psychiatric Quarterly Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

From 2004 onwards, above 50 seclusion reduction programs (SRP) were developed, implemented and evaluated in the Netherlands. However, little is known about their sustainability, as to which extent obtained reduction could be maintained. This study monitored three programs over ten years seeking to identify important factors contributing to this. We reviewed documents of three SRPs that received governmental funding to reduce seclusion. Next, we interviewed key figures from each institute, to investigate the SRP documents and their implementation in practice. We monitored the number of seclusion events and the number of seclusion days with the Argus rating scale over ten years in three separate phases: 2008–2010, 2011–2014 and 2015–2017. As we were interested in sustainability after the governmental funding ended in 2012, our focus was on the last phase. Although in different rate, all mental health institutes showed some decline in seclusion events during and immediately after the SRP. After end of funding one institute showed numbers going up and down. The second showed an increase in number of seclusion days. The third institute displayed a sustained and continuous reduction in use of seclusion, even several years after the received funding. This institute was the only one with an ongoing institutional SRP after the governmental funding. To sustain accomplished seclusion reduction, a continuous effort is needed for institutional awareness of the use of seclusion, even after successful implementation of SRPs. If not, successful SRPs implemented in psychiatry will easily relapse in traditional use of seclusion.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hoekstra T, Lendemeijer HH, Janssen MG, 2004, seclusion: the inside story. J Psychiat Ment Hlt 2004; 11, 276–283.

  2. Kaltiala-Heino R, Tuohimaki C, Korkeila J, Lehtinen V. Reasons for using seclusion and restraint in psychiatric inpatient care. Int J Law Psychiatry. 2003;26:139–49.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Janssen WA, Noorthoorn EO. Vries de WJ, Hutschemaekers GJM, Widdershoven GAM, Lendemeijer HHGM, the use of seclusion in the Netherlands compared to countries in and outside Europe. Int J Law Psychiatry. 2008;31:463–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Donat DC. Encouraging alternatives to seclusion, restraint, and reliance on PRN drugs in a public psychiatric hospital. Psychiatr Serv. 2005;56:1105–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Huckshorn KA. Re-designing state mental health policy to prevent the use of seclusion and restraint. Admin Pol Ment Health. 2006;33:482–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. van der PS S, Dusseldorp E, Keuning FM, Janssen WA, Noorthoorn EO. Impact of the physical environment of psychiatric wards on the use of seclusion. Br J Psychiatry. 2013;202:142–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Hirsch S, Steinert T. Measures to avoid coercion in psychiatry and their efficacy. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2019;116:336–43.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Chieze M, Hurst S, Kaiser S. Sentissi O Effects of seclusion and restraint in adult psychiatry: a systematic review. Front Psychiatry. 2019;10:491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Sullivan AM, Bezmen J, Barron CT, Rivera J, Curley-Casey L, Marino D. Reducing restraints: alternatives to restraints on an inpatient psychiatric service: utilizing safe and effective methods to evaluate and treat the violent patient. Psychiatry Q. 2005;76:51–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Vruwink FJ, Mulder CL, Noorthoorn EO, Uitenbroek D, Nijman HLI. 2012, the effect of a nationwide program to reduce seclusion in the Netherlands. BMC Psychiatry. 2012;12:231–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Abderhalden C, Needham I, Dassen TWN, Halfens RJG, Haug HJ, Fischer JE. Structured risk assessment and violence in acute psychiatric wards: randomized controlled trial. Br J Psychiatry. 2008;193:44–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Boumans CE, Egger JIM, Souren PM, Hutschemaekers GJM. Reduction in the use of seclusion by the methodical work approach. Int J of Ment Health Nurs. 2013;23:161–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. D’Orio BM, Purselle D, Stevens D, Garlow SJ. Reduction of episodes of seclusion and restraint in a psychiatric emergency service. Psychiatr Serv. 2004;55:581–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Fischer WA. Elements of successful restraint and seclusion reduction programs and their application in a large, urban, state psychiatric hospital. J Psychiatr Pract. 2003;9:7–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Georgieva I., Mulder CL, Noorthoorn EO, Reducing seclusion through involuntary medication: a randomized clinical trial. Psychiatry Res 2013; 205, 48–53.

  16. Noorthoorn EO, Janssen WA, Theunissen J, Hesta H, de WJ V, Hutschemaekers GJM, et al. The power of day to day motivational techniques and family participation in reducing seclusion: a comparison of two admission wards with and without a seclusion prevention protocol. Int J Ment Health. 2008;37:81–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Sande van de R, Nijman HLI, Noorthoorn EO, Wierdsma AI, Hellendoorn E, van der Staak C, Mulder CL, Aggression and seclusion on acute psychiatric wards: effect of short-term risk assessment, Br J Psychiatry 2011; 199, 473–478.

  18. Noorthoorn EO, Voskes Y, Janssen WA, Mulder CL, van de Sande R, Nijman HLI, et al. Seclusion reduction in Dutch mental health care: did hospitals meat goals? Psychiatr Serv. 2016;67:1321–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Mann-Poll PS, Smit A, Noorthoorn EO, Janssen WA, Koekkoek B, Hutschemaekers GJM. Long-term impact of a tailored seclusion reduction program: evidence for change? Psychiatry Q. 2018;89:733–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Janssen WA, Noorthoorn EO, van de Sande R, Nijman H, Smit A, Hoogendoorn A, Voskes Y, Mulder N, Widdershoven G, Zes jaar Argus; Vrijheidsbeperkende interventies in de GGZ in 2012 en ontwikkelingen ten opzichte van voorgaande jaren. 2014; Amersfoort, GGZ Nederland (report in Dutch).

  21. Noorthoorn E, Janssen W, Smit A, Mann P, Sande van der R, Vruwink F, Nijman H, Widdershoven G, Landeweer E, Voskes Y, Abma T, Mulder N, Drie jaar Argus; Rapportage over toegepaste vrijheidsbeperkende maatregelen in 2007-2009. 2012; GGZ Nederland, Amersfoort (report in Dutch).

  22. Verlinde AA, Noorthoorn EO, Snelleman W, van den Berg H. Snelleman-van der Plas M, Lepping P, seclusion and enforced medication in dealing with aggression: a prospective dynamic cohort study. Eur Psychiatry. 2017;39:86–92.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Coburn CE, Russell JL, Kaufman JH, Stein MK. Supporting sustainability: teachers’ advice networks and ambitious instructional reform. 2012. Am. J Educ. 2013;119:137–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Theunissen J, Hesta H, Op weg naar psychiatrische intensieve zorg. (in Dutch: Moving toward intensive mental health care). MGV 2009; 561–570.

  25. Molewijk B, Kleinlugtenbelt D, Pugh S, Widdershoven G. Emotions and clinical ethics support. A moral inquiry into emotions in moral case deliberation. HEC Forum. 2011;23:257–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. de Veen RCA, Vruwink FJ, Voskes Y, Mulder CL, Noorthoorn EO, Het comfortroom-project Mediant. Ervaringen en uitkomsten, MGV, 2009;6, 551–560 (paper in Dutch).

  27. Verlinde AA, Noorthoorn EO, Snelleman W, van den Berg H. Snelleman-van der Plas M, Lepping P, seclusion and enforced medication in dealing with agression: a prospective dynamic cohort study. Eur Psychiatry. 2017;39:86–92.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Janssen WA, van de Sande R, Noorthoorn EO, Nijman HLI, Bowers L, Mulder CL, et al. Methodological issues in monitoring the use of coercive measures. Int J Law Psychiatry. 2011;34:429–38.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Janssen WA, Noorthoorn EO, Nijman HLI, Bowers L, Hoogendoorn AW, Smit A, Widdershoven GAM, 2013. Differences in seclusion rates between admission wards: does patient compilation explain? Psychiatr. Q, 2013;84, 39–52.

  30. Voskes Y, Theunissen J, Widdershoven G, Best practices rondom dwangreductie in de geestelijke gezondheidszorg. Een inventariserend onderzoek naar best practices bij de reductie van dwang. 2011; GGZ Nederland, Amersfoort (report in Dutch) (Best practices toward reduced coercion in mental health care).

  31. Donat DC. An analysis of successful efforts to reduce the use of seclusion and restraint at a public psychiatric hospital. Psychiatr Serv. 2003;54:119–1123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Allan JA, Hanson GD, Schroder NL, O’Mahony AJ, Foster RMP, Sara GE. Six years of national mental health seclusion data: the Australien experience. Australas Psychiatry. 2017;25:277–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Salize HJ, Dressing H. Epidemiology of involuntary placement of mentally ill people across the European Union. Br J Psychiatry. 2004;184:163–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Madan A, Borckardt JJ, Grubaugh AL, Danielson CK, McLeod-Bryant S, Cooney H, et al. Efforts to reduce seclusion and restraint use in a state psychiatric hospital: a ten-year perspective. Psychiatr Serv. 2014;65:1273–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Han SS, Weiss B. Sustainability of teacher implementation of school- based mental health programs. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2004;33:665–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Adolfsen EHK, GGNet blijvend betrokken (report in Dutch), 2012; Warnsveld.

  37. Breault DA. The challenges of scaling-up and sustaining professional development school partnerships. Teach Teach Educ. 2013;36:92–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Behavioural Science Institute, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

    Patricia S. Mann-Poll, Eric O. Noorthoorn & Giel J. M. Hutschemaekers

  2. GGZ Oost Brabant, Boekel, The Netherlands

    Patricia S. Mann-Poll

  3. GGNet, Warnsveld, The Netherlands

    Eric O. Noorthoorn

  4. University of Applied Science, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

    Annet Smit

  5. Pro Persona mental health, Wolfheze, The Netherlands

    Giel J. M. Hutschemaekers

Authors
  1. Patricia S. Mann-Poll
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eric O. Noorthoorn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Annet Smit
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Giel J. M. Hutschemaekers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Patricia S. Mann-Poll.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest/ Competing Interest

none.

Ethics Approval

The authors assert that all procedures contributing to this work comply with the ethical standards of the relevant national and institutional committees on human experimentation and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2008.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mann-Poll, P.S., Noorthoorn, E.O., Smit, A. et al. Three Pathways of Seclusion Reduction Programs to Sustainability: Ten Years Follow Up in Psychiatry. Psychiatr Q 91, 819–834 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11126-020-09738-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11126-020-09738-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation