Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-lvwk9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-18T07:18:16.635Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Audit: Medical Seclusion Reviews at Derbyshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2023

Esther Okoro*
Affiliation:
Derbyshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, Derby, United Kingdom
Jane Adepoju
Affiliation:
Derbyshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, Derby, United Kingdom
Abbas Ramji
Affiliation:
Derbyshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, Derby, United Kingdom
*
*Corresponding author.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Aims

Seclusion is a psychiatric treatment that is used as a “last resort” in light of deteriorating mental state. It involves the supervised confinement and isolation of a patient, away from other patients, in an area where the patient is not allowed to leave due to possible risk they pose to themselves and others in order to manage severe agitation and chaotic behaviour. The Trust policy defines a procedure for seclusion which encourages decision making in line with the Mental Health Code of Practice 2015 (MHCoP 2015) and encourages the clinicians to adhere to the policy, making decisions and care which should be duly documented following an assessment of ongoing concern, mental state, assessment of physical health, medication review, risk assessment in a timely fashion as stipulated in the policy.

Methods

This was a retrospective review of patients based on incidence reports completed at the commencement of seclusion on the Derbyshire Healthcare Trust between May and November 2022 . The electronic records were reviewed, and data analysed via Microsoft Excel, against trust standards:

  • Timing of seclusion review: 1hour and 4hourly medical review

  • Independent Multidisciplinary Team meeting within 12hours on seclusion

  • Documentation of seclusion

  • Review of ongoing concerns

  • Mental state examination

  • Physical health review

  • Medication review

  • Risk assessment

  • Review of need for seclusion

  • Intervention

Results

107 incidences of seclusion that took place involving 61 patients were reviewed.

34% of patients were reviewed within the 1hour, 41% reviewed 4hourly and 47% had an internal MDT.

57% of medical reviews were documented with 50% clearly stating ongoing concerns, 47% carrying out a mental state examination and 42% had physical health reviews done. 44% had medication review done, 44% had risk assessment, 58% reviewed the need for seclusion and 52% had an intervention recorded.

Conclusion

The audit showed poor adherence to the Trust guidelines both in terms of the frequency of the review and the vital aspects of the review as included in the seclusion review template. There seemed to be poor use of the seclusion template among medics, which is meant to serve as a prompt for the expected standards, hence more awareness is to be created.

The areas of improvement also identified include the education and training of staff about the stipulation of the policy and clear documentation, with emphasis on the frequency as well as the quality of the reviews done.

Type
Audit
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NC
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. This does not need to be placed under each abstract, just each page is fine.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Royal College of Psychiatrists

Footnotes

Abstracts were reviewed by the RCPsych Academic Faculty rather than by the standard BJPsych Open peer review process and should not be quoted as peer-reviewed by BJPsych Open in any subsequent publication.

Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.