AbstractBackgroundRestraint and seclusion were considered a form of treatment but consistently has led to physical and mental injuries to staff and patients. De-escalation has been viewed as a safer option. Understanding which intervention yields decreased injuries, aggression and violence will guide policy and inform practice.ObjectivesTo identify which intervention leads to decreased physical and psychological injury to patients and staff.MethodsThe frequency of physical injuries to patients and staff from aggressive patients; frequency of psychological injuries to patients and staff from violent, aggressive incidents; frequency of violence, agitation and aggression; competence of staff at managing aggression and violence were evaluated.ResultsFourteen studies were included in this review. There are many forms of de-escalation. Studies where techniques were taught to staff, the intervention was effective in decreasing injury in approximately half the studies. De-escalation techniques taught to patients decreased injury in 100% of the studies included in this review.ConclusionConsensus on which intervention works best could not be reached, nor is there overwhelming evidence for a particular type of de-escalation better suited for decreasing aggression and violence. Caution should be exercised when choosing a de-escalation technique for implementation in institutions due to lack of regulating agencies that inform practice and standards. In addition, the literature lacks best practices for de-escalation techniques backed by evidence. Restraint and seclusion should be used as a last resort due to inherent risk associated with the intervention.
A quantitative systematic review of distributive environmental justice literature: a rich history and the need for an enterprising future
