Reduction in the use of seclusion in a high secure hospital in the UK: a retrospective analysis

Qurashi, Inti; Johnson, Desmond; Johnson, Ben
January 2007
BMC Psychiatry;2007 Supplement 1, Vol. 7, Special section p1
Academic Journal
Background The main aim of this retrospective analysis is to ascertain whether a comprehensive seclusion reduction program was successful in reducing the use of seclusion within a high secure hospital in the UK. Methods The evaluation was conducted in Ashworth Hospital, UK. For the purposes of this paper the following strategies were identified post-hoc and analyzed as the independent variables namely, progressively lowering the threshold for a multi-disciplinary group review, providing targeted staff training dependent on patient needs and increasing the clinical staff-patient ratio. A multiple regression analysis was applied to monthly seclusion data covering the period from January 2002 - January 2006. As the total hospital census declined during the four-year period the monthly data for total hours of seclusion over the period divided by the inpatient census for that month served as the dependent variable. Results A graphical analysis reveals there has been a 62% reduction in the number of seclusion episodes over the 4 year period. Results from the multiple regression analysis showed that the reduction in the threshold for an internal clinical review had a statistically significant effect (p < 0.05). There were no statistically significant results from the other variables included in the regression analyses although this should not be equated with an absence of clinical significance. Conclusion Our retrospective review confirms that reduction in the use of seclusion can be achieved when it is identified as both a managerial and clinical priority, supplemented by robust performance monitoring and effective peer reviews and case management. The formation of a hospital committee populated by senior clinical managers with the progressive lowering of thresholds to precipitate a formal peer review served as a clear reminder of this priority to all clinical staff. Further analysis of the data, including other variables, are intended to be published.


Related Articles

  • The selection of experts evaluating health projects for the EU Sixth Framework Program. Quaglio, GianLuca; Guardabasso, Vincenzo; Olesen, Ole; Draghia-Akli, Ruxandra // Journal of Public Health (09431853);Oct2011, Vol. 19 Issue 5, p445 

    Aim: The Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development (FP) are the European Union's funding programmes for research in Europe. The study analyses the features of external experts involved in evaluating the research proposals in FP6 (years 2003-2006) in the area of Life...

  • Regulatory bill lets peers decide.  // Ophthalmology Times;3/13/95, Vol. 20 Issue 11, p24 

    Reports on legislative provisions in the United States that would provide for peer review panels that could include individuals with a financial stake in the decisions. Risk assessments to be conducted by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) before issuing any new regulation; Cost-benefit...

  • The check-up. Henderson, Perry M. // Outlook;Summer96, Vol. 64 Issue 2, p33 

    Presents a scenario depicting a peer review between certified public accountants. Suggestions for a good review. INSET: Updated peer review standards..

  • Avoiding Peer Review findings. Part 2. Hoover, Delano C.; Roberts, Glenn A. // Ohio CPA Journal;Feb96, Vol. 55 Issue 1, p42 

    Part II. Discusses several problems encountered during on-site peer reviews. Audit deficiencies; Non-compliance to continuing education policies; Inadequate reference library.

  • What's up with peer review? Stevens, Michael G. // Practical Accountant;Apr98, Vol. 31 Issue 4, p45 

    Discusses the changes in the peer review program in relation to accounting in the United States. Remarks from the Chair of the SEC Practice Section Peer Review Program, Thomas A. McGrath, Jr.; Internet address for information on peer review; Information on the peer review standards. INSET:...

  • Editors, editorial boards, and reviewers: The gatekeepers of knowledge. Crase, Darrell // Physical Educator;Late Winter92, Vol. 49 Issue 1, p28 

    Editorial. Offers peer commentary on peer reviewers and editors. Understanding of peer refereeing; Variances in refereeing practices; Selection and responsibilities of editorial boards and reviewers.

  • Priority areas of peer evaluations. Coughlan, William // Association Management;Nov94, Vol. 46 Issue 11, p75 

    Discusses the importance of a peer evaluation. Categories of operations that merited review.

  • Is peer review overrated? Shatz, David // Monist;Oct1996, Vol. 79 Issue 4, p536 

    Comments on the dependence of academic scholarship on a system of peer review. Publishing of peer review work; Objections to peer review.

  • Another blow against peer review confidentiality. Rose, Joan R. // Medical Economics;11/13/95, Vol. 72 Issue 21, p18 

    Reports on the lessening of peer review confidentiality in California. Controversy in the review of the case of an anesthesiologist with drug problems; Protection of treatment records.


Read the Article


Sorry, but this item is not currently available from your library.

Try another library?
Sign out of this library

Other Topics