A comparison of seclusion rates between intellectual disability and non-intellectual disability services: the effect of gender and diagnosis

Abstract

Introduction: The use of seclusion as a means of managing the extreme behaviours forensic patients in secure settings is a controversial yet often common practice, despite there being little evidence that seclusion as a practice has any significant therapeutic value for the patient. The aim of this study was to explore the use of seclusion and whether this differs as a function of gender and diagnosis across secure services. Method: This study collated data from 11 medium and low secure hospitals that admit male and female patients, with some services providing services for patients with intellectual disability (with or without co-morbid disorders), and others for patients with mental illness and/or personality disorder only. Results: Both gender and diagnosis were associated with differential seclusion rates. Seclusions were three times longer for patients in the non-ID compared to the ID service. Male seclusions (for any diagnosis) were around twice as long as those in female services. Female ID patients spent significantly less time in seclusion compared to other groups. Female ID was associated with two to three times the number of seclusion events per patient compared to other groups. No statistically significant association between the type of service and the reason for a patient being secluded. Conclusions: A range of organisational factors that determine the use and duration of seclusion are cited and merit further exploration. High rates of psychiatric co-morbidity and the complexity of patients admitted to services may also mediate risk and use of seclusion. The study supports the use of early intervention techniques and the adoption of positive behaviour support.

Keywords:

• Seclusion
• intellectual disability
• secure services

Acknowledgements

Our thanks go to the various services across Partnerships in Care who agreed for the data collection for this study, and to Professor Conor Duggan for his comments on the paper.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.