The management of violent patients in psychiatric settings often necessitates the use of chemical restraints, which are pharmacological agents administered to mitigate aggressive or agitated behaviors. The effectiveness of these strategies is a subject of ongoing research, with various studies highlighting the complexities and implications of their use. Chemical restraints, typically involving the administration of psychotropic medications, are employed to quickly calm patients exhibiting severe agitation or violent behaviors. This practice is often viewed as a necessary intervention to ensure the safety of both patients and staff in acute settings (Chongtham et al., 2022; Muir‐Cochrane, 2020).
The choice of specific medications for chemical restraint can significantly influence the outcomes of such interventions. A systematic review by Muir-Cochrane et al. emphasizes the need for standardized protocols regarding drug selection, dosages, and administration methods to optimize the management of acute agitation and aggression (Muir‐Cochrane et al., 2019). The review indicates that while medications like haloperidol and lorazepam have been traditionally used, newer agents such as ketamine have emerged as viable alternatives, potentially offering quicker onset of sedation without prolonging emergency response times (Burnett et al., 2015). Furthermore, the combination of chemical and mechanical restraints has been reported to be clinically justified in certain scenarios, suggesting that a multifaceted approach may enhance the effectiveness of managing violent behaviors (Bilanakis et al., 2011).
Despite the potential benefits of chemical restraints, their application raises ethical concerns and may lead to adverse effects. Research indicates that the experience of restraint, whether physical or chemical, can be traumatizing for patients and may exacerbate feelings of coercion and mistrust towards healthcare providers (Muir‐Cochrane & Oster, 2021; Chieze et al., 2019). A qualitative synthesis of service user experiences reveals that while some individuals perceive chemical restraint as a necessary intervention during crises, others report feelings of loss of autonomy and increased distress associated with its use (Muir‐Cochrane & Oster, 2021). This dichotomy underscores the importance of balancing the immediate need for safety with the long-term therapeutic relationship between patients and healthcare providers.
The administration of chemical restraints is often accompanied by physical restraints, particularly in emergency settings where patient safety is paramount. Studies have shown that the concurrent use of both methods can be effective in managing acute agitation, although it also raises concerns regarding the potential for over-restriction and the psychological impact on patients (Bilanakis et al., 2011; Jayaprakash, 2023). The integration of non-pharmacological interventions, such as de-escalation techniques and environmental modifications, is recommended as a first-line approach before resorting to chemical restraints (Fernández-Costa et al., 2020). Such strategies not only aim to reduce the incidence of violent behaviors but also promote a more therapeutic environment that respects patient dignity.
In emergency medical services (EMS), the use of chemical restraints has been shown to effectively reduce agitation in patients, thereby facilitating safer transport and care (Weiss et al., 2012). The choice of agents, such as midazolam or ketamine, has been supported by evidence indicating their efficacy in quickly calming patients without significantly delaying emergency response times (Burnett et al., 2015; Weiss et al., 2012). However, the potential for adverse effects, including respiratory depression and hypoxia, necessitates careful monitoring and assessment during and after administration (Deitch et al., 2014). This highlights the critical need for training and protocols that ensure the safe use of chemical restraints in high-stress situations.
The ethical implications of chemical restraint practices are further complicated by the legal and institutional frameworks governing their use. In many jurisdictions, the administration of chemical restraints without patient consent raises significant ethical dilemmas, particularly in light of the emphasis on patient rights and autonomy in mental health care (Muir‐Cochrane et al., 2019; Radisic & Kolla, 2019). The growing movement towards reducing restrictive practices in psychiatric settings calls for a reevaluation of how chemical restraints are utilized, advocating for more humane and patient-centered approaches (Muir‐Cochrane et al., 2019; Fernández-Costa et al., 2020). The implementation of behavioral emergency response teams (BERT) has been proposed as a strategy to enhance staff collaboration and improve patient outcomes by prioritizing de-escalation and minimizing the need for coercive measures (Zicko et al., 2017).
In conclusion, the most effective chemical restraint strategy for violent patients involves a careful consideration of medication choice, administration protocols, and the integration of non-pharmacological interventions. While chemical restraints can provide immediate relief from agitation and aggression, their use must be balanced with ethical considerations and the potential for adverse effects. Ongoing research and the development of standardized practices are essential to ensure that the use of chemical restraints is both effective and respectful of patient rights.
References:
- Bilanakis, N., Papamichael, G., & Peritogiannis, V. (2011). Chemical restraint in routine clinical practice: a report from a general hospital psychiatric ward in greece. Annals of General Psychiatry, 10(1).
https://doi.org/10.1186/1744-859x-10-4
- Burnett, A., Panchal, D., Peterson, B., Ernest, E., Griffith, K., Frascone, R., … & Engebretsen, K. (2015). The administration of prehospital ketamine for chemical restraint does not prolong on-scene times compared to haloperidol based sedation. Australasian Journal of Paramedicine, 12, 1-7.
https://doi.org/10.33151/ajp.12.1.8
- Chieze, M., Hurst, S., Kaiser, S., & Sentissi, O. (2019). Effects of seclusion and restraint in adult psychiatry: a systematic review. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 10.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00491
- Chongtham, V., Sharma, N., Parashar, K., & Pandey, C. (2022). Determinants and characteristics of the violent incidents in a tertiary-level mental health care center. Journal of Neurosciences in Rural Practice, 13, 483-489.
https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-1750135
- Deitch, K., Rowden, A., Damiron, K., Lares, C., Oqroshidze, N., & Aguilera, E. (2014). Unrecognized hypoxia and respiratory depression in emergency department patients sedated for psychomotor agitation: pilot study. Western Journal of Emergency Medicine, 15(4), 430-437.
https://doi.org/10.5811/westjem.2014.2.19102
- Fernández-Costa, D., Gómez‐Salgado, J., Fagundo-Rivera, J., Martín-Pereira, J., Prieto-Callejero, B., & García-Iglesias, J. (2020). Alternatives to the use of mechanical restraints in the management of agitation or aggressions of psychiatric patients: a scoping review. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 9(9), 2791.
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9092791
- Jayaprakash, C. (2023). Restraints practices on patients of the psychiatric wards in a selected hospital, mangalore. Journal of Health and Allied Sciences Nu, 14(02), 230-234.
https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0043-1769580
- Muir‐Cochrane, E. (2020). A wicked problem: chemical restraint: towards a definition. International Journal of Mental Health Nursing, 29(6), 1272-1274.
https://doi.org/10.1111/inm.12780
- Muir‐Cochrane, E. and Oster, C. (2021). Chemical restraint: a qualitative synthesis review of adult service user and staff experiences in mental health settings. Nursing and Health Sciences, 23(2), 325-336.
https://doi.org/10.1111/nhs.12822
- Muir‐Cochrane, E., Oster, C., & Grimmer, K. (2019). International research into 22 years of use of chemical restraint: an evidence overview. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 26(3), 927-956.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.13232
- Muir‐Cochrane, E., Oster, C., Gerace, A., Dawson, S., Damarell, R., & Grimmer, K. (2019). The effectiveness of chemical restraint in managing acute agitation and aggression: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. International Journal of Mental Health Nursing, 29(2), 110-126.
https://doi.org/10.1111/inm.12654
- Radisic, R. and Kolla, N. (2019). Right to appeal, non-treatment, and violence among forensic and civil inpatients awaiting incapacity appeal decisions in ontario. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 10.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00752
- Weiss, S., Peterson, K., Cheney, P., Froman, P., Ernst, A., & Campbell, M. (2012). The use of chemical restraints reduces agitation in patients transported by emergency medical services. Journal of Emergency Medicine, 43(5), 820-828.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jemermed.2011.02.019
- Zicko, C., Schroeder, L., Byers, C., Taylor, L., & Spence, C. (2017). Behavioral emergency response team: implementation improves patient safety, staff safety, and staff collaboration. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 14(5), 377-384.
https://doi.org/10.1111/wvn.12225