In the evolving landscape of psychiatric care, the challenge of minimizing coercive practices such as seclusion and restraint remains at the forefront of clinical and ethical discussions. A recent comprehensive study conducted at a Swiss university psychiatric hospital sheds critical new light on the prevalence of these interventions and the intricate risk factors associated with their use, particularly within open-door inpatient settings. This innovative retrospective analysis, spanning three years, offers an unparalleled window into how patient demographics, clinical diagnoses, and hospitalization circumstances converge to influence the likelihood of experiencing coercion.
The research, analyzing data from 1,764 patients admitted between 2017 and 2019, reveals that nearly one in six individuals—16.6%—underwent at least one coercive measure during their psychiatric stay. Predominantly, these measures involved seclusion rather than physical restraint, underscoring a subtle but significant tendency in managing behavioral crises. This prevalence rate situates the findings as a crucial benchmark for mental health facilities striving to balance patient safety with respect for personal autonomy in environments that otherwise promote openness and freedom.
A paramount revelation from the study lies in the multifaceted nature of risk factors predisposing patients to coercion. The analysis deployed sophisticated multivariable Poisson regression models to parse out the influence of various demographic and clinical variables on incidence rates. Among these, male gender emerged as a statistically significant contributor, increasing the risk for coercion by over 30%. This gender disparity echoes longstanding observations in psychiatric literature, perhaps reflective of underlying patterns in behavioral expression or societal responses to aggression.
Age demonstrated an inversely proportional relationship with coercive experiences, with younger patients facing higher risks. This finding prompts critical reflection on developmental and psychosocial aspects that may render younger individuals more vulnerable to interventions perceived as restrictive or punitive. Furthermore, social factors proved equally influential; individuals who were single or divorced bore disproportionately elevated risks, hinting at the protective role that social support and interpersonal relationships might play in mitigating crisis escalation.
Clinical diagnosis proved to be a decisive determinant in coercion likelihood. The study pinpointed diagnoses of organic disorders as the most potent risk factor, amplifying the incidence rate by an extraordinary magnitude. Similarly, those diagnosed with psychotic or bipolar disorders exhibited markedly higher susceptibility to coercive measures. These diagnoses often involve severe symptomatology, including agitation and disorganized behavior, which clinicians may find challenging to manage without resorting to containment techniques.
Another layer of complexity is added by socio-economic indicators. Patients receiving disability benefits showed nearly double the risk of coercion compared to those who were not, suggesting an interplay between functional impairment, chronicity of illness, and behavioral control measures. Additionally, a history of frequent psychiatric hospitalizations incrementally elevated the risk, underscoring the cumulative effects of repeated inpatient episodes and potentially chronic behavioral dysregulation.
Intriguingly, behavioral assessments at admission wielded significant predictive power. The Health of the Nation Outcome Scales (HoNOS), specifically item 1 which measures overactive, aggressive, or agitated behavior, was closely correlated with the likelihood of coercion. This insight offers a compelling avenue for early risk stratification, enabling clinicians to identify individuals at elevated risk swiftly and tailor interventions that might avert the need for coercive methods.
Equally noteworthy is the study’s identification of referral origin as a protective factor against coercion. Patients admitted via the emergency department (ED) demonstrated a substantially lower incidence of coercive measures. This counterintuitive finding may reflect differences in clinical pathways, early intervention efficacy, or variations in patient acuity at admission points, warranting further exploration into procedural and systemic factors that influence outcomes.
The implications of these findings reverberate across clinical practice and mental health policy. They advocate for the integration of nuanced risk assessments into routine care, emphasizing not just diagnosis but also socio-demographic indicators and behavioral evaluations. By doing so, psychiatric services can design targeted coercion reduction programs that prioritize early identification and alternative de-escalation strategies, potentially decreasing the reliance on seclusion and restraint.
Moreover, the study encourages a deeper investigation into institutional and cultural dynamics that shape the use of coercive measures. The stark association between aggressive behavior and coercion underscores a clinical tension that must be navigated with sensitivity to ethical standards and human rights considerations. Mental health institutions operate within broader sociocultural frameworks that influence attitudes toward containment practices, staff training, and resource allocation.
Future research directions may focus on prospective studies and intervention trials that test tailored de-escalation protocols informed by risk factor profiles illuminated by this retrospective analysis. The potential for predictive modeling based on HoNOS scores and other clinical indicators offers promising pathways for personalized psychiatry, enhancing patient safety while safeguarding dignity.
In sum, this study furnishes a vital evidence base to inform strategies aimed at reducing coercion in psychiatric settings without compromising safety. It positions open-door wards not merely as physical spaces of reduced restriction but also as contexts where informed clinical judgment, supported by robust data, can facilitate humane and effective management of behavioral crises. As mental health care continues to evolve, embracing such research-driven insights will be indispensable in shaping compassionate, patient-centered systems for the future.
Subject of Research: The prevalence and risk factors associated with seclusion and restraint in open-door inpatient psychiatric settings.
Article Title: Prevalence and risk factors for seclusion and restraint: results of a retrospective analysis.
Article References:
Wullschleger, A., Chieze, M., Courvoisier, D. et al. Prevalence and risk factors for seclusion and restraint: results of a retrospective analysis. BMC Psychiatry 25, 576 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-025-07025-6
Image Credits: AI Generated
