The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has updated its Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, including with new information specifically addressed to individuals in the European Economic Area. As described in the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, this website utilizes cookies, including for the purpose of offering an optimal online experience and services tailored to your preferences.

Please read the entire Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. By closing this message, browsing this website, continuing the navigation, or otherwise continuing to use the APA's websites, you confirm that you understand and accept the terms of the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, including the utilization of cookies.

×
No Access

Restraint and seclusion: a review of the literature

Published Online:https://doi.org/10.1176/ajp.151.11.1584

OBJECTIVE: The author reviewed the literature published since 1972 concerning restraint and seclusion. METHOD: The review began with a computerized literature search. Further sources were located through citations from articles identified in the original search. RESULTS: The author synthesized the contents of the articles reviewed using the categories of indications and contraindications; rates of seclusion and restraint as well as demographic, clinical, and environmental factors that affect these rates; effects on patients and staff; implementation; and training. CONCLUSIONS: The literature on restraint and seclusion supports the following. 1) Seclusion and restraint are basically efficacious in preventing injury and reducing agitation. 2) It is nearly impossible to operate a program for severely symptomatic individuals without some form of seclusion or physical or mechanical restraint. 3) Restraint and seclusion have deleterious physical and psychological effects on patients and staff, and the psychiatric consumer/survivor movement has emphasized these effects. 4) Demographic and clinical factors have limited influence on rates of restraint and seclusion. 5) Local nonclinical factors, such as cultural biases, staff role perceptions, and the attitude of the hospital administration, have a greater influence on rates of restraint and seclusion. 6) Training in prediction and prevention of violence, in self-defense, and in implementation of restraint and/or seclusion is valuable in reducing rates and untoward effects. 7) Studies comparing well-defined training programs have potential usefulness.

Access content

To read the fulltext, please use one of the options below to sign in or purchase access.