Duxbury Joy, Haines-Delmont Alina, Baker John, Baker Peter, Bourlet Gary, Craig Elaine, Ridley James, Whyte Rachel, Morrison Beth, Thomson Michaela, Tsang Anthony, Lantta Tella
Institute of Health, University of Cumbria, Lancaster, UK.
School of Nursing and Public Health, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK.
Health Soc Care Deliv Res. 2025 May;13(14):1-64. doi: 10.3310/PGAS1755.
There is some evidence to support approaches to reduce restrictive practices in settings for people with a learning disability who may also have a diagnosis of autism or mental health problems. However, there is a significant knowledge gap in how and why such approaches work and in what contexts.
This study aimed to understand how, why, for whom, and under what circumstances approaches used by healthcare staff to prevent and reduce the use of restrictive practices on adults with learning disability or autism work (or do not work).
The review followed a realist approach. This approach was chosen to understand the mechanisms by which approaches to prevent and reduce the use of restrictive practices work. The review adhered to current Realist and Meta Narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards quality and publication standards.
Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts (ProQuest), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (EBSCO), MEDLINE (Ovid), PsycInfo (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid) and Web of Science Core Collection and stakeholder consultations.
Four main steps were followed: (1) locating existing theories, (2) searching for evidence, (3) extracting and organising data and (4) synthesising the evidence and drawing conclusions. In Steps 1 and 4, the views of stakeholders (academics, key experts, practitioners, people with lived experiences, carers) supplemented systematic searches in electronic databases, supporting the interpretation of results and making recommendations.
A total of 53 articles were included, after screening 14,383 articles. In line with realist methods, eight context-mechanism-outcome configurations and an overarching programme theory were used to explain the why and how of preventing and reducing the use of restrictive practices for people with a learning disability. Restrictive practices commonly occur when people with a learning disability, who display behaviour that can harm or who experience communication difficulties, are detained in environments that are unsuitable for their needs, including mental health hospitals. Furthermore, they happen when staff are inadequately trained, lack person-centred values, struggle to regulate their emotions and display limited communication skills. Restrictive practices happen where there is a lack of adequate staffing, a negative organisational culture, and where they are accepted as the 'norm'. Drawing on these findings, we set out recommendations to include positive risk-taking, greater involvement for families and carers, and targeted training for staff. Organisations need to recognise overuse of restrictive practices and using coproduction and leadership within the organisation to implement change.
Many of the papers reviewed were not directly related to people with learning disability, therefore there is a clear need for greater research in this area. Primary research from focus groups has been used to highlight issues and compliment the limited evidence base. While it is recognised that commissioning individualised community approaches is a possible way to reduce the use of restrictive practices, this was beyond the scope of this review.
This review shows that solutions for reducing restrictive practices exist, but that targeted frameworks are lacking and resources to support the implementation of evidence-based strategies in this population and related settings are compromised. More research is needed on how approaches shown to be effective in other settings such as mental health could be tailored for people with learning disability. Furthermore, more research regarding carers' roles is warranted.
This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019158432.
This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR129524) and is published in full in ; Vol. 13, No. 14. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.
有证据支持在可能同时患有自闭症或心理健康问题的学习障碍患者的护理环境中减少限制性措施的方法。然而,对于这些方法如何起作用、为何起作用以及在何种情况下起作用,存在重大的知识空白。
本研究旨在了解医护人员为预防和减少对患有学习障碍或自闭症的成年人使用限制性措施所采用的方法如何、为何、针对何人以及在何种情况下起作用(或不起作用)。
本综述采用现实主义方法。选择这种方法是为了理解预防和减少使用限制性措施的方法的作用机制。该综述遵循当前的现实主义和元叙事证据综合:不断发展的标准质量和出版标准。
应用社会科学索引和摘要(ProQuest)、护理及相关健康文献累积索引(EBSCO)、医学索引数据库(Ovid)、心理学文摘数据库(Ovid)、医学与健康领域数据库(Ovid)以及科学引文索引核心合集,并进行了利益相关者咨询。
遵循四个主要步骤:(1)查找现有理论,(2)搜索证据,(3)提取和整理数据,(4)综合证据并得出结论。在步骤1和4中,利益相关者(学者、关键专家、从业者、有亲身经历的人、护理人员)的观点补充了在电子数据库中的系统搜索,支持对结果的解释并提出建议。
在筛选了14383篇文章后,共纳入53篇文章。根据现实主义方法,使用了八种情境 - 机制 - 结果配置和一个总体项目理论来解释预防和减少对学习障碍患者使用限制性措施的原因和方式。当患有学习障碍且表现出可能造成伤害的行为或存在沟通困难的人被安置在不适合其需求的环境中,包括精神卫生医院时,通常会出现限制性措施。此外,当工作人员培训不足、缺乏以人为本的价值观、难以调节情绪且沟通技能有限时,也会出现这种情况。在人员配备不足、组织文化消极且限制性措施被视为“常态”的地方,也会发生限制性措施。基于这些发现,我们提出了一些建议,包括积极冒险、让家庭和护理人员更多地参与以及对工作人员进行针对性培训。组织需要认识到对限制性措施的过度使用,并利用共同生产和组织内的领导力来实施变革。
许多被审查的论文与学习障碍患者没有直接关系,因此该领域显然需要更多的研究。来自焦点小组的初步研究被用于突出问题并补充有限的证据基础。虽然认识到委托实施个性化的社区方法是减少使用限制性措施的一种可能途径,但这超出了本综述的范围。
本综述表明存在减少限制性措施的解决方案,但缺乏针对性的框架,并且在该人群及相关环境中支持实施循证策略的资源也很有限。需要更多关于如何将在其他环境(如精神卫生领域)中已证明有效的方法调整适用于学习障碍患者的研究。此外,关于护理人员角色的更多研究也很有必要。
本研究已注册为PROSPERO CRD42019158432。
本奖项由国家卫生与保健研究机构(NIHR)卫生与社会保健交付研究计划资助(NIHR奖项编号:NIHR129524),并全文发表于《第13卷,第14期》。有关更多奖项信息,请参阅NIHR资金与奖项网站。