Perceptions of supported and unsupported prone-restraint positions

WHAT IS KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT?: Although the use of prone restraint should be avoided, it may remain a last resort emergency intervention for violent behaviour in psychiatric settings. However, when used as a last resort, concerns remain about the ability of staff to maintain the dignity, welfare and safety of the patient and minimize the potential adverse outcomes associated with restraint. This study builds on existing research regarding the risks of prone restraint by focusing on the psychological perceptions of individuals held in this position. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS TO EXISTING KNOWLEDGE?: Individuals, who were asked to rate the psychological impact of two different prone-restraint positions (Supported and Unsupported Prone Positions) reported that the Supported Prone Position was more comfortable, less anxiety inducing and less limiting to breathing. Although no individual found prone restraint a positive experience, it shows that individuals found the psychological impact of the Supported Prone Position was less than the Unsupported Prone Position. WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE?: Mental health professionals have a clear responsibility to maintain the dignity, safety and wellbeing of individuals subject to prone restraint as a short-term emergency procedure for the management of violent behaviour. Reducing both the physiological and psychological impact of prone restraint will help to reduce any adverse impact on individuals subject to such interventions. The findings will help influence current practice and promote the removal of the USPP as a specific prone-restraint intervention.

Aim Restraint-related deaths are multi-factorial with prone restraint remaining a concern due to the physiological and psychological risks. This study builds on evidence presented by (Barnett et al. Medicine, Science and the Law (2012b): 1) that the Supported Prone Position (SPP) reduces physiological risks, by examining if the SPP also reduces the psychological impact of prone restraint. Methods Twenty participants ran to near maximal exertion before being held in two prone-restraint positions: SPP and Unsupported Prone Position (USPP). Perceptions of comfort, anxiety and breathing limitation were measured using Visual Analogue Scales. Results Results showed that (1) comfort was 23% greater in the SPP; (2) anxiety was 55% less in the SPP; and (3) perception of breathing limitation was 32% less in the SPP when compared with the USPP. Negative perceptions expressed for the USPP included feeling trapped, vulnerable and concern over heart rate. Discussion In addition to reducing physiological risks, this study shows that the SPP reduced the psychological impact of prone restraint compared to USPP. Implications for Practice Settings where prone restraint cannot be avoided should remove the USPP as an emergency procedure in favour of the SPP as a way of maintaining safety and reducing the psychological impact of prone restraint.