To assess levels of restrictive practice in approved centres in Ireland following the introduction of revised rules and codes of practice and the implementation by the Mental Health Commission (MHC)) as regulator of a near real-time reporting mechanism.

We examined data reported to the MHC via its computerised system from 65 approved centres during a two-year period from 2024 to 2025.

The data indicate an accelerated decline in restrictive practice in approved centres in Ireland.

Restrictive practice (Restraint and Seclusion) has been declining in approved centres in Ireland. This progress accelerated following the implementation of revised, human rights-based Rules governing the use seclusion and a Code of Practice on the use of physical restraint which were developed by the MHC after consultation with stakeholders and came into effect on 1 January 2023. Many factors contributed to this progress including steps taken by the regulator and by approved centres to enhance this welcome trend.

Efforts to reduce restrictive practices (RPs) in mental health care are growing internationally. Yet, inconsistent definitions and perspectives often challenge the consistent implementation and evaluation of reduction strategies. This study explored which scenarios different mental health stakeholders classify as RPs, examined the contextual factors influencing these classifications and compared classification patterns across clinicians, researchers, service users and family caregivers.

An international cross-sectional survey was conducted using a multilingual online questionnaire hosted on the Qualtrics platform. A total of 851 stakeholders participated, including clinicians (n = 517), service users (n = 80), family caregivers (n = 89) and researchers (n = 165). Participants were presented with 44 potential RP case scenarios and asked to rate whether each scenario should be classified as an RP using a four-point Likert scale (Definitely yes, Probably yes, Probably no, Definitely no). The scenarios were organized into 22 paired comparisons, each sharing the same core context but differing in specific details. Paired comparisons were analyzed one pair at a time, allowing us to identify classification patterns between the scenarios and isolate the effects of particular contextual factors using ordered logistic regression. Interaction analyses were then conducted to assess how classification patterns varied across stakeholder groups.

Substantial discrepancies exist both within and between stakeholder groups regarding whether a given action should be considered an RP or not. Physically visible actions were often identified as RPs across all groups, while less visible forms often went unrecognized. Contextual differences, such as the healthcare professional’s intention, duration of the action, methods used, presence or absence of consent, door-locking status, and the severity of anticipated harm to be prevented influenced whether a given action was classified as an RP. Service users classified more scenarios as RPs than other groups; however, their decisions were more context-sensitive, shifting notably even with minor changes in scenario details. Among the 22 paired scenarios compared, 13 (59.09%) showed significant differences (p < 0.01) within at least one stakeholder group and eight demonstrated differences between groups.

Mental health stakeholders’ interpretations of RPs were often shaped not only by the inherent coercive nature of actions but also by the context in which they occurred and the professional role of the assessors. This underscores the need for harmonized definitions and classification frameworks for RPs, co-designed with diverse stakeholders. Addressing less visible forms of RPs in policy and clinical practice is also essential.

Nasogastric tube (NGT) feeding against a patient's consent is an intervention that clinicians working in specialist mental health in-patient units may need to implement from time to time. Little research has explored clinician, patient and carer perspectives on good practice.

To use qualitative data from people with lived experience (PWLE), parents/carers and clinicians, to identify components of best practice when this intervention is required.

PWLE and parents/carers were recruited via BEAT UK's eating disorder charity. Clinicians were recruited via a post on The British Eating Disorders Society's research page. Semi-structured interviews were administered, transcribed and thematically analysed.

Thirty-six interviews took place and overlapping themes were identified. Participants spoke in relation to three themes: first, the significance of individualised care; second, the importance of communication; third, the impact of staff relationships. Sub-themes were identified and explored.

Good care evolved around positive staff relationships and individualised care planning rather than standard processes. The centrality of trust as an important mediator of outcome was identified, and this should be acknowledged in any service that delivers this intervention.

Nasogastric tube feeding under physical restraint is an intervention that clinicians working in specialist mental health in-patient units may need to implement.

To examine the impact of this intervention on people with lived experience, carers and staff.

People with lived experience and parents and/or carers were recruited via UK eating disorder charity Beat. Clinicians were recruited via the British Eating Disorders Society's research forum. Qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted and transcribed, and the results were thematically analysed.

Thirty-six participants took part, and overlapping themes were identified. All participants spoke in relation to four themes: (a) the short-term impact on the patient; (b) the impact on those around the patient; (c) the long-term impact; and (d) the positive impact. Subthemes were identified and explored.

This lifesaving intervention can also negatively affect patients, parents and carers, peers and staff. Further research is needed to understand how interactions and environmental modifications can mitigate the negative impacts.

To identify the clinical characteristics of patients receiving nasogastric tube (NGT) feeding under physical restraint. Clinicians participated via professional networks and subsequent telephone contact. In addition to completing a survey, participants were invited to submit up to ten case studies.

The survey response rate from in-patient units was 100% and 143 case studies were submitted. An estimated 622 patients received NGT feeding under restraint in England in 2020–2021. The most common diagnosis was anorexia nervosa (68.5–75.7%), with depression, anxiety and autism spectrum disorder the most frequent comorbidities. Patients receiving the intervention ranged from 11 to 60 years in age (mean 19.02 years). There was wide variation in duration of use, from once to daily for 312 weeks (mode 1 week; mean 29.1 weeks, s.d. = 50.8 weeks).

NGT feeding under restraint is not uncommon in England, with variation in implementation. Further research is needed to understand how the high comorbidity and complexity contribute to initiation and termination of the intervention.

Clinicians working in mental health in-patient settings may have to use nasogastric tube feeding under physical restraint to reverse the life-threatening consequences of malnutrition when this is driven by a psychiatric condition such as a restrictive eating disorder.

To understand the decision-making process when nasogastric tube feeding under restraint is initiated in mental health in-patient settings.

People with lived experience of nasogastric tube feeding under restraint and parents/carers were recruited via the website of the UK's eating disorder charity BEAT. Eating disorder clinicians were recruited via an online post by the British Eating Disorders Society. Semi-structured interviews were administered to all participants.

Themes overlapped between the participant groups and were integrated in the final analysis. Two main themes were generated: first, ‘quick decisions’, with the subthemes of ‘medical risk’, ‘impact of not eating’ and ‘limited discussions’; second, ‘slow decisions’, with subthemes of ‘threats’, ‘discussions with patient’, ‘not giving up’ and ‘advanced directives’. Benefits and harms of both quick and slow decisions were identified.

This research offers a new perspective regarding how clinical teams can make best practice decisions regarding initiating nasogastric feeding under restraint. In-patient mental health teams facilitating this clinical intervention should consider discussing it with the patient at the beginning of their admission in anticipation of the need for emergency intervention and in full collaboration with the multidisciplinary team.

Recent guidance has called for the reduction of restrictive practice use owing to growing concerns over the harmful physical and psychological effects for both patients and staff. Despite concerns and efforts, these measures continue to be used regularly to manage challenging behaviour in psychiatric in-patient settings.

To undertake a systematic review of patients’ and staff members’ experiences of restrictive practices in acute psychiatric in-patient settings.

A systematic review and thematic synthesis was conducted using data from 21 qualitative papers identified from a systematic search across three electronic databases (PsycInfo, Embase and MEDLINE) and citation searching. The protocol for the review was pre-registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020176859). The quality of included papers was examined using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP).

Four overarching themes emerged from the experiences of patients: the psychological effects, staff communication, loss of human rights and making changes. Likewise, the analysis of staff data produced four themes: the need for restrictive practices, the psychological impact, decision-making and making changes. Patient and staff experiences of restrictive practices were overwhelmingly negative, and their use carried harmful physical and psychological consequences. Lack of support following restraint events was a problem for both groups.

Future programmes seeking to improve or reduce restrictive practices should consider the provision of staff training covering behaviour management and de-escalation techniques, offering psychological support to both patients and staff, the importance of effective staff–patient communication and the availability of alternatives.

There are growing calls to reduce, and where possible eliminate, the use of seclusion and restraint in mental health settings, but the attitudes and beliefs of consumers, carers and mental health professionals towards these practices are not well understood. The aim of this study was to compare the attitudes of mental health service consumers, carers and mental health professionals towards seclusion and restraint in mental health settings. In particular, it aimed to explore beliefs regarding whether elimination of seclusion and restraint was desirable and possible.

In 2014, an online survey was developed and widely advertised in Australia via the National Mental Health Commission and through mental health networks. The survey adopted a mixed-methods design, including both quantitative and qualitative questions concerning participants’ demographic details, the use of seclusion and restraint in practice and their views on strategies for reducing and eliminating these practices.

In total 1150 survey responses were analysed. A large majority of participants believed that seclusion and restraint practices were likely to cause harm, breach human rights, compromise trust and potentially cause or trigger past trauma. Consumers were more likely than professionals to view these practices as harmful. The vast majority of participants believed that it was both desirable and feasible to eliminate mechanical restraint. Many participants, particularly professionals, believed that seclusion and some forms of restraint were likely to produce some benefits, including increasing consumer safety, increasing the safety of staff and others and setting behavioural boundaries.

There was strong agreement across participant groups that the use of seclusion and restraint is harmful, breaches human rights and compromises the therapeutic relationship and trust between mental health service providers and those who experience these restrictive practices. However, some benefits were also identified, particularly by professionals. Participants had mixed views regarding the feasibility and desirability of eliminating these practices.