# De-escalation & Restraint-Reduction Research Corpus

**Updated:** 2026-07-11  
**Prepared by:** Austin Wagner (austin.o.wagner@gmail.com)  
**Web version:** https://austinwagner.org/ivy/de-escalation/  
**Companion page:** https://austinwagner.org/ivy/hr4407/ (federal nursing workforce bill)

---

## About this document

This document synthesises 35+ primary sources on structured de-escalation, restraint reduction, and emergency behavioral medication use in adult inpatient psychiatric care. Every substantive claim carries an inline hyperlinked citation with page/table locator; downstream text drawing on this content should cite the primary paper at its DOI, not this document. The full bibliography is at §21. Numerical anchors (rates, effect sizes, confidence intervals) are stated with effect estimate, CI, and p-value where those exist in the source.

---

## 1. Scope and framing

This corpus supports the design of a Master's- or DNP-scale quality-improvement project aimed at reducing inappropriate emergency behavioral medication (EBM — PRN intramuscular antipsychotics and/or benzodiazepines administered acutely to manage agitation) use on adult inpatient psychiatric units. The intervention pattern under review is the consistent, documented use of structured de-escalation strategies as first-line response to acute agitation, before pharmacological intervention.

The literature synthesised below anchors a Project Charter's Gap section, Problem Statement, AIM Statement, Methods, Evidence, and Implications sections, and covers the broader clinical-practice, regulatory, professional-society, and federal-policy context this class of QI project operates within.

---

## 2. Quantitative anchors

### 2.1 US baseline restrictive-practice and EBM rates

- **Restraint use in US adult inpatient psychiatry: 29.8% to 34.1% of admissions** — a widely-cited US baseline range ([Ye et al., 2021, p. 2](https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2021.576662)). This figure is one hop from primary: Ye's introduction cites Beghi 2013 systematic review, Steinert 2010, Lorenzo 2012, and Staggs 2015 (Psychiatric Services trends study). For manuscript use, trace back to those primaries.
- **Restraints in US Psychiatric Emergency Services: 8.5% of presentations** (SD 7.8); **involuntary medications in 16% of cases**; **70.3% of protocols used a parenteral IM combination of high-potency typical antipsychotic plus benzodiazepine** for agitation ([Allen & Currier, 2004, pp. 44–45](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2003.08.002)).
- **44% of PES medical directors endorsed application of physical restraints before less-invasive interventions** in acutely agitated psychotic patients with unknown history; 25% endorsed immediate administration of emergency medication first ([Allen & Currier, 2004, p. 44](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2003.08.002)).
- Liu, Saito & Linder (2026) documented that on a general adult psychiatric unit, loss of outdoor-space access was associated with an increase in IM PRN medication of 1.57 orders/day (95% CI [0.81, 2.33]) and seclusion/restraint by 0.63 orders/day (95% CI [0.35, 0.91]) ([Liu et al., 2026, p. 1](https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2025.1731925)). A 2026 US empirical measurement of PRN medication as an outcome. Retrospective cohort / natural experiment, not an RCT — the causal claim depends on the plausibility of the outdoor-access manipulation as exogenous.

### 2.2 International restrictive-practice rate variation

- International restraint-rate variation across systematic reviews: **0.4% to 66% of admissions**. German multicentre study reported 10.4% mechanical restraint across 10 sites ([Chieze et al., 2019, p. 2](https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00491)).
- UK psychiatric hospital **violence incidence rate >32%** per Bowers 2011 (cited in Spencer et al., 2018).
- Finnish high-security forensic baseline: **30% of patient-days with seclusion/restraint/observation** pre-intervention ([Putkonen et al., 2013](https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.201200393)).

### 2.3 Achievable magnitudes from the intervention literature

- **Celofiga et al. (2022) Slovenia cluster RCT** (Table 3, p. 6): aggressive incidents IRR 0.268 (95% CI 0.221–0.342, p<0.001) — 73% reduction; severe aggression IRR 0.142 — 86% reduction; all-restraint episodes IRR 0.537 (95% CI 0.450–0.640) — 46% reduction; restraint due to aggression IRR 0.304 (95% CI 0.238–0.386) — reduced to ~30% of control rate. The "30% of control" figure applies to the aggression-restraint subgroup, not all restraints. EBM not measured directly. Trial NCT05166278.
- **Bowers et al. (2015) Safewards UK cluster RCT** (31 wards, 15 hospitals; Table 2, p. 1417): conflict rate ratio 0.850 (95% CI 0.763–0.943, p=0.001) — 15% reduction; containment rate ratio 0.768 (95% CI 0.655–0.901, p=0.004) — 26.4% reduction. Safewards defines containment as including coerced medication as one of 8 measured events, so this is a published RCT proxy for EBM. Trial ISRCTN38001825.
- **Putkonen et al. (2013) Finnish forensic cluster RCT** (88-bed high-security): S/R time IRR 0.85 intervention vs 1.09 control; no increase in violence; pharmacology unchanged.
- **Duxbury et al. (2019) REsTRAIN Yourself UK 7+7 controlled-before-after**: average 22% restraint reduction (up to 60% best); restraint events per 1000 bed-days 9.38 → 6.62 ([Duxbury et al., 2019, p. 846](https://doi.org/10.1111/inm.12577)).
- **Smith et al. (2005) Pennsylvania state hospital system** (9 hospitals): 93% seclusion reduction, 66% restraint reduction; mean seclusion duration 11.6 → 1.3 hours.
- **Donat (2003) single public psychiatric hospital**: 75% S/R reduction over 39 months via individualised behavioural plans + administrative case review + leadership prioritisation.
- **LeBel et al. (2004) Massachusetts state child/adolescent**: child 84.03 → 22.78 episodes/1000 patient-days (72.9%), adolescent 47.4%, mixed 59% — no regulatory change.

### 2.4 US national-scope volume + harm data

- **1.7 million ED visits per year** in US involve agitated psychiatric patients ([Allen & Currier 2004, in Garriga et al., 2016](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2003.08.002)).
- **900,000 annual visits** to US psychiatric emergency services involve agitation (Piechniczek-Buczek 2006, in Garriga et al., 2016).
- **142 restraint-related deaths over one decade in the US**, ~40% unintentional asphyxiation — originally Weiss (1998) Hartford Courant investigation, subsequently cited across Knox & Holloman 2012, Du 2017, and other reviews. This figure has become near-folklore in the restraint-reduction literature; for academic manuscript use, trace back to the primary Hartford Courant reporting rather than the summary citations. It was the trigger for the 1998 Joint Commission Sentinel Event Alert #8 and the 1999 CMS Conditions of Participation restraint standard.
- **PTSD incidence 25–47%** among psychiatric inpatients post-restraint across included studies ([Chieze et al., 2019, abstract p. 1; upper bound from Impact of Event Scale-Revised at probable-PTSD threshold, p. 14](https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00491)). The 25–47% range reflects between-study heterogeneity, not a confidence interval on a single estimate.
- **OSHA workplace-violence in healthcare: ~$151 billion annually, ~$250K per incident** (cited in JAPNA 2025 QI paper).

### 2.5 UK reference volume

- **67,864 physical assaults per year against NHS staff, 67% in mental health settings** (NHS Protect 2015, in Spencer et al., 2018).
- **POMH-UK 2017 audit of 2,172 rapid-tranquillisation episodes** across 58 UK specialist mental health Trusts: only 4% NICE-compliant drug combination (IM promethazine + IM antipsychotic); 42% no post-RT physical monitoring; ~20% no monitoring at all. Reported in Patel et al. 2018 BAP-NAPICU consensus (originally POMH-UK Topic 16b Supplementary Audit; report available via Royal College of Psychiatrists).
- Leeds and York Partnerships NHS Trust 2012: 5,153 critical incidents/year; ~20% involved restraint; ~2,200 person-hours/year on aggression ([Du et al., 2017](https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009922.pub2)).

### 2.6 Gap-statement template

> Adult inpatient psychiatric units in the United States currently administer intramuscular emergency behavioral medication in approximately [X]% of patient days, with structured de-escalation documented in [Y]% of cases prior to medication. The literature establishes that structured de-escalation interventions can achieve 22–73% reductions in restraint, coerced medication, and aggressive events ([Bowers et al., 2015; Celofiga et al., 2022; Duxbury et al., 2019; Putkonen et al., 2013](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2015.05.001)). The gap between current practice and the achievable benchmark is the implementation deficit this project addresses.

The project lead fills in [X] and [Y] with unit-specific baseline data extracted from the electronic health record over an 8–12 week pre-intervention window.

---

## 3. Problem Statement (drafted with citations)

A common draft framing: *"Adult inpatient psychiatric units lack consistent implementation of structured de-escalation strategies as a first-line response to acute agitation, resulting in the increased use of emergency behavioral medications."*

Strengthened with citations:

> Adult inpatient psychiatric units lack consistent implementation of structured de-escalation strategies as a first-line response to acute agitation, resulting in increased use of emergency behavioral medications and other restrictive interventions ([Baker et al., 2021; National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 2015](https://doi.org/10.3310/hsdr09050)). Structured de-escalation is recommended as a first-line response by major UK and international clinical practice guidelines ([Garriga et al., 2016; National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 2015; Patel et al., 2018; Richmond et al., 2012](https://doi.org/10.3109/15622975.2015.1132007)) and is endorsed as a sustained-reduction direction by the American Psychiatric Nurses Association (APNA, 2018). The implementation deficit persists despite the recommendation: the 2017 UK POMH audit of 2,172 rapid-tranquillisation episodes found only 4% NICE-compliant practice with 42% lacking required post-event physical monitoring ([Patel et al., 2018](https://doi.org/10.1177/0269881118776738)), and a 2024 NIHR feasibility trial noted that "All National Health Service staff are trained in de-escalation but there is little to no evidence supporting training's effectiveness" ([Price et al., 2024, p. viii](https://doi.org/10.3310/FGGW6874)).

Citation hooks: Baker 2021 (variability); NICE NG10 (first-line authority); Garriga 2016 + Patel 2018 + Richmond 2012 (international/UK consensus); APNA 2018 (US professional-society); Patel 2018 (POMH audit gap); Price 2024 EDITION (recent training-gap framing).

---

## 4. AIM Statement (SMART draft)

> **AIM:** By [project end + 8 weeks], reduce the rate of intramuscular emergency behavioral medication administration on [unit name] by 30% from baseline, by implementing a structured de-escalation protocol as the first-line response to acute agitation, with documented de-escalation attempt required prior to PRN intramuscular medication in 100% of agitation events.

- **30% reduction target** is conservative vs published evidence (Celofiga 73%, Safewards 26.4% containment, Duxbury 22% average / 60% best) and realistic for a single-unit master's-scale intervention.
- **100% documented de-escalation attempt** is the process measure; 100% is the right ambition for a process measure tied to the intervention.
- **8-week post-intervention measurement window** matches the EDITION trial's pre/embed/post 8-8-8 phase structure ([Price et al., 2024, p. viii](https://doi.org/10.3310/FGGW6874)).

---

## 5. Gap-identification methods

Standard master's-project 5-method gap-identification framework:

1. **Literature review** — this document is the deliverable.
2. **Stakeholder interviews** — unit nursing staff, charge nurse, medical director, patients (if appropriate).
3. **Chart audit / baseline data extraction** — extract current rates of EBM administration, de-escalation documentation, and restraint/seclusion from the unit's EHR over an 8–12 week pre-intervention window.
4. **Walk-around observation** — unit milieu, current de-escalation practices, physical environment.
5. **Comparison to evidence-based benchmarks** — §2 anchors.

First two are pre-charter; latter three are typical first deliverables after charter approval.

---

## 6. Systematic reviews and evidence synthesis

### Gaynes et al. (2016/2017) — AHRQ Comparative Effectiveness Review #180

A directly-relevant US systematic review. AHRQ CER of de-escalation strategies in psychiatric care. Strength of evidence **"low" for risk-assessment-instrument effectiveness** and **"insufficient" for everything else including de-escalation strategies specifically**. "Insufficient" does not mean interventions don't work — it means too few high-quality trials in this population. The Gaynes finding establishes both the need for the Charter (AHRQ has officially named this an evidence gap) and the realistic expectations for a single-unit master's project (preliminary feasibility evidence, not definitive efficacy).

### Baker et al. (2021) — COMPARE systematic mapping review

NIHR-funded review; PROSPERO CRD42018086985. Screened **18,451 records** and included **150 non-pharmacological interventions across 175 records (1999–2019)**. Critically: **only 11 interventions specifically targeted PRN medication reduction, and 0 targeted rapid tranquillisation**. The "no winner" conclusion — no single intervention has emerged as clearly superior — supports the Problem Statement's "variability of practice" framing ([Baker et al., 2021, pp. iv–v](https://doi.org/10.3310/hsdr09050)).

### Chieze et al. (2019) — patient-harm systematic review

PRISMA-compliant systematic review (Frontiers in Psychiatry). A frequently-cited finding: PTSD incidence after restraint/seclusion ranges 25% to 47% across included studies ([Chieze et al., 2019, abstract p. 1](https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00491)); upper bound from IES-R at probable-PTSD threshold (p. 14). The 25–47% range reflects between-study heterogeneity, not a confidence interval on a single estimate. Also documented: physical injuries, re-traumatisation for patients with prior trauma history, quality-of-life decrement. Supports the "why this matters" framing on the harm side.

### Butterworth, Wood & Rowe (2022) — patient + staff experience thematic synthesis

BJPsych Open review + thematic synthesis of 21 qualitative papers (PROSPERO CRD42020176859). Four patient themes (psychological effects, communication, loss of human rights, making changes) + four staff themes. Experiences of restrictive practices "overwhelmingly negative" across both groups. Cites the 25–47% PTSD figure from Chieze. Names "lack of post-restraint support" as a problem — informs the Charter's inclusion of post-event debriefing.

### Price et al. (2015) — de-escalation training systematic review

Manchester team (incl. same Owen Price who later led EDITION 2024). 20-database systematic review. Training improves cognitive/affective/simulated-skills outcomes; clinical-and-organisational outcome evidence base is weak with conflicting results. A key implementation-fidelity citation for **training alone is insufficient**.

### Heckemann et al. (2015) — general-hospital aggression-management training

Narrative review of 9 studies (2 weak / 6 moderate / 1 strong). All 9 reported post-training improvement in confidence, attitude, skills, knowledge — but **no significant change in incidence of patient aggression**. Authors recommend organisational-level intervention. A relevant single-cite Charter rationale for going multi-component beyond training.

---

## 7. Randomised controlled trials — the causal evidence base

### Bowers et al. (2015) — Safewards UK cluster RCT

Cluster RCT across 31 acute psychiatric wards in 15 UK NHS hospitals. Safewards is a 10-intervention conflict-and-containment-reduction package ("clear mutual expectations," "soft words," "talk down," "positive words," "bad news mitigation," "know each other," "mutual help meeting," "calm down methods," "reassurance," "discharge messages"). Primary results (Table 2, p. 1417): conflict rate ratio 0.850 (95% CI 0.763–0.943, p=0.001) — 15% reduction; containment rate ratio 0.768 (95% CI 0.655–0.901, p=0.004) — 26.4% reduction. Safewards defines containment as including coerced medication as one of 8 measured containment events → a published RCT proxy for EBM. Trial ISRCTN38001825.

### Putkonen et al. (2013) — Six Core Strategies forensic cluster RCT (Finland)

The first cluster RCT of the Six Core Strategies framework. 88-bed Finnish high-security forensic ward, men with schizophrenia. S/R time-per-patient-day: IRR 0.85 intervention vs 1.09 control. Reduction with no increase in violence and pharmacology unchanged across arms — isolating structural effect from medication. Also noted: staff-training injuries increased in intervention arm (a surprise finding the authors flag). Causal evidence that structured restraint-reduction can work without compromising safety, in a forensic setting.

### Celofiga et al. (2022) — Slovenia cluster RCT

Recent cluster RCT causal evidence. Conducted across all 6 Slovenian psychiatric hospitals (3 per arm). Primary outcomes (Table 3, p. 6): aggressive incidents IRR 0.268 (95% CI 0.221–0.342, p<0.001) — 73% reduction; severe aggression IRR 0.142 — 86% reduction; all-restraint episodes IRR 0.537 (95% CI 0.450–0.640) — 46% reduction; restraint due to aggression IRR 0.304 (95% CI 0.238–0.386) — reduced to ~30% of control rate. The commonly-quoted "30% of control" figure applies to the aggression-restraint subgroup, not to all restraints. EBM not measured directly. Trial NCT05166278.

### Ye et al. (2021) — CRSCE-based de-escalation cluster RCT (China)

1,920-bed provincial psychiatric hospital in Guangdong, 12 wards enrolled (6 experimental + 6 control). Five-module CRSCE protocol (Communication, Response, Solution-focused, Care, Environment); 24h training (17h lecture + 7h practice) in 1 month. PR of inpatients ~0.83% → ~0.67% patient-days (F=5.374, p=0.043); PR of patients admitted within 24h ~10.5% → ~5.6% (F=12.065, p=0.006); nurse injuries from PR 15 → 4 (χ²=4.184, p=0.041). Ye's intro cites US restraint rates of 29.8–34.1% (p. 2), tracing to Beghi 2013, Steinert 2010, Lorenzo 2012, Staggs 2015. Trial ChiCTR1900022211.

### Price et al. (2024) — EDITION feasibility trial (UK NIHR HTA)

488-page HTA monograph. 10 UK wards across 2 NHS trusts (acute + PICU + forensic). Multi-component intervention (de-escalation training + reflective practice + debriefing + collaborative prescribing + environment + sensory modulation + support planning); 24-week pre/embed/post 8-8-8 phase structure. Primary-outcome completion 68% overall (76% post). Uncontrolled feasibility design — effect estimates carry non-causal caveats. A recent UK trial and a published precedent for a multi-component intervention on a master's-project scale. Trial ISRCTN12826685.

### Duxbury et al. (2019) — REsTRAIN Yourself (7+7 controlled-before-after)

Quantitative companion to the Duxbury 2019 qualitative arm. UK adaptation of Six Core Strategies; 7 intervention + 7 control wards. **Restraint events per 1000 bed-days 9.38 → 6.62** intervention arm; average **22% restraint reduction** (up to **60% on some wards**). Implementation fidelity drove between-ward variation. A UK analogue to a QI restraint-reduction initiative.

### Fletcher et al. (2019) — Safewards Victoria staff perspectives

Statewide Australian replication; staff thematic-analysis (Frontiers in Psychiatry, OA). Supersedes the earlier "Hamilton 2016 Victoria" reference (year in some literature reviews is wrong). Documents that whole-system replication of Safewards produces mixed results across wards, with staff perceptions varying by implementation quality.

---

## 8. US baseline and recent QI precedents

### Allen & Currier (2004) — AAEP Psychiatric Emergency Services survey

1999 AAEP survey of n=51 US academic PES (91% response). Pre-Project-BETA US institutional-baseline anchor. Key findings in §2.1: 8.5% PES restraint rate, 16% involuntary meds, 70.3% IM benzo+typical-neuroleptic "cocktail" as dominant pharmacologic strategy, 44% of medical directors endorsed restraints before less-invasive interventions.

### Moran Jimenez et al. (2025) JAPNA — seclusion + workplace violence on a psych ED unit

Southeast US public state hospital QI project (Journal of the American Psychiatric Nurses Association). **Pre-intervention seclusion rate 5.57 per 1000 patient care hours** vs CMS IPFQR state average 0.26 and national average 0.35 — ~16x national. OSHA workplace-violence cost figures (~$151B annually, ~$250K/incident). Closest 2025-vintage publication template for the QI manuscript a comparable QI project could produce.

### Liu, Saito & Linder (2026) — Healing spaces natural experiment

Northwell/Zucker Hillside Hospital retrospective cohort on effect of outdoor spaces on PRN, S/R, constant observation. Loss of outdoor-space access on general adult unit: **IM PRN +1.57 orders/day** (95% CI [0.81, 2.33]), S/R +0.63 orders/day (95% CI [0.35, 0.91]), constant observation -0.40 orders/day (95% CI [0.17, 0.63]). Most-directly Charter-relevant 2026 paper because **PRN medication is its primary outcome** and PRN-orders-per-day is directly transferable to the project lead's measurement plan.

---

## 9. Patient experience of coercion

### Wong et al. (2020) — JAMA Network Open qualitative

25-patient qualitative study of ED restraint experience. **80% of restrained patients felt coerced**. Verbatim patient quotes:

> "treated like an animal"; "prison"; "like a dog on a leash"

The 80%-coerced figure and verbatim quotes humanise the "why EBM-reduction matters" argument in the Charter introduction.

### Butterworth, Wood & Rowe (2022) — dual patient + staff experience

See §6. Key patient themes: psychological effects (fear, anger, powerlessness), communication (feeling unheard, feeling infantilised), loss of human rights (physical and dignity violations), and making changes (patients wanting to help improve practice). Explicitly frames patient experience as an intervention design input.

---

## 10. Clinical guidelines and consensus statements

### NICE NG10 (2015) — UK clinical practice guideline

UK CPG for short-term management of violence and aggression. 63 pages, 7 sections covering inpatient psych + ED + community + children. An operational definition the QI project outcome variable depends on:

> "p.r.n. medication can be used as part of a de-escalation strategy but p.r.n. medication used alone is not de-escalation."

PRN IM medication administered without prior structured de-escalation does not meet the NICE definition and counts as a gap event in the Charter's measurement plan. Pairs with CMS §482.13(e) as Charter's cross-jurisdictional definitional authority.

### Patel et al. (2018) — Joint BAP-NAPICU consensus guidelines

Current UK pharmacological + de-escalation algorithm; British Association for Psychopharmacology + National Association of Psychiatric Intensive Care and Low Secure Units. **Table 2 enumerates 15 de-escalation components with evidence grades** (10 effective III;C + 5 may-be-effective IV;D). Seven fundamental principles. Every pharmacological RT recommendation documented with category/strength grades. POMH-UK 2017 audit (§2.5) is embedded as primary evidence of implementation deficit.

### Garriga et al. (2016) — WFSBP expert consensus

World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry Delphi consensus; 24 authors, 13 countries. Methodology: 52 → 33 → 22 endorsed statements at ≥80% threshold. Verbal de-escalation as mandatory first-line (Statements 4–5), restraint as last resort (Statement 6), oral preferred over IM (Statement 15), IV avoided (Statement 21). 9 validated assessment instruments; 4-category aetiology table.

### APNA (2018) Position Statement

US psychiatric-nursing professional-society. Adopted 2000, revised 2007, 2014, 2018. Supports "sustained commitment to the reduction and ultimate elimination of seclusion and restraint." Cites NASMHPD Six Core Strategies. Three-mechanism reduction framework: (1) maintaining presence + noticing early changes; (2) assessing + intervening early with less-restrictive measures; (3) changing unit culture toward structure, calmness, negotiation, collaboration.

### APNA (2022) Standards of Practice

Operational companion to 2018 Position. **3 Standards of Professional Performance** (leadership, staff training, performance improvement) + **6 Standards of Care** (admission, treatment planning, initiation, monitoring, release, documentation). Uses CMS §482.13 definitions verbatim. Most-current US-psychiatric-nursing practice expectations for any S/R reduction QI project.

### NASMHPD / Huckshorn (2006) — Six Core Strategies primary source

SAMHSA-registry-listed framework's primary source. Six strategies: (1) Leadership toward organisational change; (2) Use of data to inform practice; (3) Workforce development; (4) Use of specific prevention tools; (5) Consumer roles; (6) Rigorous debriefing techniques. Includes Planning Tool template + Example Debriefing Procedures. Foundational for Duxbury 2019 REsTRAIN Yourself + Putkonen 2013 forensic RCT descendants.

---

## 11. Cochrane evidence gaps

### Du et al. (2017) — de-escalation for psychosis-induced aggression (empty review)

**0 RCTs found from 345 citations screened**. Confirms Gaynes 2016; provides NICE 2015 definitional anchor; proposes exactly the cluster-RCT design that Celofiga 2022 and Ye 2021 went on to execute. An empty Cochrane is often more actionable than a review with weak findings — establishes an evidence gap with Cochrane authority.

### Spencer et al. (2018) — de-escalation for non-psychosis aggression

Companion to Du 2017. **1 included RCT**: Deudon 2009, n=306 dementia/nursing-home, VERY LOW GRADE. Combined Cochrane finding: as of 2018, essentially zero high-quality RCTs of de-escalation in any adult aggression population. "High-quality research urgently needed" with Cochrane authority.

---

## 12. Project BETA framework (2012 AAEP consensus)

Project BETA (Best practices in Evaluation and Treatment of Agitation) framework was developed by the American Association for Emergency Psychiatry in 2012 as a five-workgroup consensus.

### Richmond et al. (2012) — Verbal De-escalation Workgroup

Foundational paper on "10 Domains of De-escalation." Three-step approach: engage → collaborate → de-escalate. Five-minute consensus target. Called out by every subsequent guideline and by APNA 2018 as operational blueprint.

### Wilson et al. (2012) — Psychopharmacology Workgroup

BETA position that **"medication as restraint should be discouraged"**; etiology-specific algorithm; oral preferred over IM; SGAs preferred over haloperidol. Pharmacological complement to Richmond's verbal-first approach.

### Knox & Holloman (2012) — Seclusion and Restraint Workgroup

CMS-aligned definitions of seclusion / physical restraint / chemical restraint. Frueh 142-patient distress table where **forced medication scored highest distress (58%)**. Pennsylvania State Hospital 11-year 93% seclusion reduction and Donat 75% reduction. Introduces "treatment failure" cultural reframe: a restraint or forced medication event is a treatment failure, not a treatment.

### Roppolo et al. (2020) — Parkland Implementation

Eight-author narrative review + implementation guide (not a controlled study). Parkland ED implementation of Project BETA. Order set with BARS (Behavioural Activity Rating Scale) triage levels; STAMP screening (Staring/Tone/Anxiety/Mumbling/Pacing); LIFE officer role; SPARKS program. Adds ketamine to BETA pharmacology arsenal. Demonstrates operational feasibility.

---

## 13. Documented implementation precedents (state + system level)

### Smith et al. (2005) — Pennsylvania State Hospital System

Foundational US system-level precedent. 9 PA state psychiatric hospitals, multiple decades. **93% seclusion reduction, 66% restraint reduction**; mean seclusion duration 11.6 → 1.3 hours. Subgroup analysis by sex/age/shift/weekend-weekday. Confound: 56% civilly-committed population drop during same window — the paper honestly discusses.

### Donat (2003) — Single public psychiatric hospital, 75% reduction

Foundational single-site precedent. 75% S/R reduction over 39 months via individualised behavioural treatment plans + administrative case review + leadership prioritisation. 70% schizophrenia population. Cumulative reduction trajectory tabulated by month. Earliest US demonstrations that leadership + case review can drive reduction without new drugs or regulations.

### LeBel et al. (2004) — Massachusetts SMHA child/adolescent

22-month state-system change without regulatory or policy modification. Child units 84.03 → 22.78 episodes/1000 patient days (**72.9% reduction**); adolescent units **47.4% reduction**; mixed units **59% reduction**. Cites Hartford Courant Pulitzer reporting of 142 restraint deaths over 10 years, >26% involving children/adolescents. Demonstrates state-system change can happen without regulatory change.

### Duxbury et al. (2019) — REsTRAIN Yourself (qualitative)

Qualitative arm of RY evaluation. 36 staff semi-structured interviews; 8 thematic-analysis themes. Staff perceived improvements across every domain of Six Core Strategies after RY: more positive staff-patient relationships, changed staff attitudes toward coercive practices, service-wide cultural shift toward restraint awareness and reduction. Qualitative complement to the 22%-average / 60%-best quantitative finding.

---

## 14. Implementation fidelity — why training rollouts succeed or fail

Single most important theme cutting across the training literature: **training alone is not enough**. From Price 2015 (20-database systematic review) to Heckemann 2015 (9-study narrative) to Hamilton 2016 (failed Safewards Victoria replication, p=0.76), the consistent finding is:

- Post-training staff confidence, attitude, skill, and knowledge measures reliably improve;
- Ward-level clinical outcomes (aggression incidence, restraint rate, coerced medication use) do not reliably improve;
- Successful implementations invariably pair training with practice-change, reflective, environmental, and cultural components.

Price & Baker (2012) qualitative thematic synthesis names staff characteristics, intervention components, and contextual factors as the three families of factors separating success from failure. Hallett & Dickens (2017) concept analysis of de-escalation names 4 domains (understanding, environmental, communication, relational) that trainings should cover but often don't. Both belong in Charter's Limitations as an honest acknowledgment that training-only has a documented history of failure.

---

## 15. Counter-evidence and cautions — the dissenting record

Not all restraint-reduction efforts have succeeded. Charter's Risk-Management or Limitations section must engage with:

### Khadivi et al. (2004) — Bronx-Lebanon assaults increased

3 acute inpatient units at Bronx-Lebanon Hospital Center; 12-month pre vs post. **Significant S/R reduction plus significant increase in assaults on patients and staff**. Standing cautionary cite any Charter risk-management section must address. Contrasts with Putkonen 2013's "no violence increase" — the difference likely lies in whether reduction is coupled with trained staff and structural intervention (Putkonen) or unilateral reduction-as-mandate (Khadivi).

### Sailas & Wahlbeck (2005) — Current Opinion narrative review

Finnish STAKES review. Council of Europe + CPT recommendations. Standing "more research + cluster-RCTs + safety as outcome measure" call that subsequent RCT literature was responsive to.

### Bowers (2014) — Safewards model paper

Foundational explanatory model for Safewards intervention class. Six domains of originating factors → flashpoints → conflict/containment with five staff-intervention mechanisms. Bowers explicitly acknowledges restraint as a legitimate last resort in extreme situations — a more nuanced view than "eliminate all restraint" positions.

### Liberman (2006) — elimination-as-goal cautionary letter

Letter arguing "elimination" as stated goal risks becoming its own harm when reduction pressure translates into under-treatment of dangerous behaviour. A dissenting voice against the APNA/NASMHPD elimination framing.

---

## 16. Adjacent frameworks the Charter may want to invoke

- **Trauma-Informed Care (SAMHSA, 2014):** theoretical/cultural framing for why restraint-reduction is a trauma-safety issue and not just a QI target. Six principles: safety; trustworthiness and transparency; peer support; collaboration and mutuality; empowerment/voice/choice; cultural/historical/gender issues.
- **Recovery Model (SAMHSA, 2012):** ten guiding principles centred on person-directed care, self-direction, and hope. Positions restraint as antithetical to recovery orientation.
- **Person-Centred Care (McCormack, 2003):** UK nursing framework centred on knowing the person, sympathetic presence, engagement, shared decision-making. Complements trauma-informed frame.
- **Least-Restrictive Alternative doctrine (Lake v. Cameron, 1966):** US constitutional-law backdrop; involuntary commitment must use least-restrictive means.
- **Olmstead v. L.C. (1999):** ADA integration mandate — unnecessary institutionalisation is discrimination — the federal-legal backdrop for why restrictive practices raise legal exposure.

---

## 17. Federal and state regulatory frame

### CMS Conditions of Participation §482.13(e) — Restraint or Seclusion

Federal Hospital Conditions of Participation codified at 42 CFR §482. Key operational rules any US Charter must satisfy:

- Restraint/seclusion may only be imposed to ensure immediate physical safety, when less restrictive interventions have been determined ineffective;
- Ordered by a physician or other licensed practitioner responsible for the patient's care;
- Time-limited orders: 4 hours (adults 18+), 2 hours (children/adolescents 9–17), 1 hour (children under 9);
- Face-to-face evaluation within 1 hour of initiation;
- Continuous monitoring by trained staff;
- Documentation of trial of less-restrictive alternatives before restraint use.

CMS rules are the federal minimum floor; state regulations and Joint Commission accreditation standards can require more. The 1999 CoP was directly triggered by the 1998 Hartford Courant Pulitzer investigation of 142 restraint deaths and Joint Commission Sentinel Event Alert #8 that same year.

### The Joint Commission — PC.03.05 standards

PC.03.05.01 through PC.03.05.19 cover Provision of Care, Treatment, and Services for restraint and seclusion, aligned with CMS CoP. Sentinel Event Alerts #8 (1998, Preventing Restraint Deaths) and #45 (2010, Preventing Violence in the Health Care Setting) provide public-facing rationale layer.

### APNA position + standards (see §10)

APNA 2018 Position Statement + APNA 2022 Standards of Practice are the US-psychiatric-nursing professional-society layer — operational expectations against which Charter's intervention will be evaluated by any master's-project or IRB reviewer.

### SAMHSA Six Core Strategies ([Huckshorn / NASMHPD, 2006](https://www.nasmhpd.org/sites/default/files/Consolidated%20Six%20Core%20Strategies%20Document.pdf))

SAMHSA-registry-listed evidence-based framework (§10). Any US Charter proposing restraint reduction should either name Six Core Strategies as its framework or explicitly justify choosing a different one.

### Selected state-regulatory context

- **California LPS Act (Welfare & Institutions Code §5000 et seq.):** governs involuntary treatment holds (5150, 5250) and by extension the QI project's patient population. Includes least-restrictive-treatment requirements.
- **Massachusetts 104 CMR 28.05:** state Department of Mental Health regulations on restraint and seclusion; more restrictive than CMS federal floor.
- **Pennsylvania OMHSAS:** Office of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services standards; framework under which Smith et al. (2005) reported 93%-seclusion / 66%-restraint reduction.

---

## 18. The economic case

- **LeBel & Goldstein (2005) MA DMH direct-cost analysis:** single restraint episode direct-cost estimate for state psychiatric hospitals.
- **Flood et al. (2008) UK 5-ward costing companion to Safewards:** per-ward cost of conflict and containment.
- **NHS Protect (2015) UK staff-assault figures:** 67,864 assaults per year, 67% mental health.
- **OSHA 3148 guideline + General Duty Clause exposure:** US workplace-violence-prevention guideline. Employer liability under General Duty Clause for preventable workplace violence.
- **BLS SOII:** healthcare-violence injury rates. Healthcare and social assistance workers experience workplace-violence injury at ~5x the rate of other private-sector industries.
- **JAPNA 2025:** workplace-violence total US cost ~$151B annually, ~$250K per incident.

These let the Charter's business case establish that restraint reduction is clinically, ethically, and fiscally justified.

---

## 19. Concept definitions

### Restrictive practices — CMS-aligned

- **Physical restraint:** any manual method, physical/mechanical device, material, or equipment that immobilises or reduces the ability of a patient to move his or her arms, legs, body, or head freely (CMS, 2020, §482.13(e)).
- **Seclusion:** involuntary confinement of a patient alone in a room or area from which the patient is physically prevented from leaving. May only be used for management of violent or self-destructive behaviour (CMS, 2020, §482.13(e)).
- **Chemical restraint / EBM:** a drug/medication used as a restriction to manage the patient's behavior or restrict freedom of movement, not a standard treatment or dosage for the patient's condition. Also "emergency behavioral medication" in QI literature (CMS, 2020; Knox & Holloman, 2012).

### De-escalation — NICE-aligned

> "the use of techniques (including verbal and non-verbal communication skills) aimed at defusing anger and averting aggression"

with corollary "p.r.n. medication used alone is not de-escalation" (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 2015).

### Validated outcome-measurement instruments

- **SOAS-R** — Staff Observation Aggression Scale-Revised.
- **BVC** — Brøset Violence Checklist. 6-item nurse-rated 24-hour aggression risk predictor.
- **BARS** — Behavioural Activity Rating Scale. 7-point observer scale asleep→combative; Project BETA / Parkland.
- **PANSS-EC** — Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale-Excited Component. 5-item clinician-rated agitation.
- **OAS / MOAS** — Overt Aggression Scale and Modified Overt Aggression Scale.
- **MPCS-5** — Modified Perceived Coercion Scale (5-item).
- **PCC** — Patient-Staff Conflict Checklist. Used in EDITION ([Price 2024](https://doi.org/10.3310/FGGW6874)) and Safewards.

---

## 20. Implications for the Charter (evidence-based)

1. **The intervention should be multi-component, not training-only.** EDITION, Safewards, REsTRAIN Yourself all decompose into multiple practice-change components beyond training. Training-only has a documented history of failed implementation.
2. **Use a documented pre/embed/post phase structure.** EDITION's 8-week pre / 8-week embedding / 8-week post is a realistic master's-project cadence.
3. **The Patient-Staff Conflict Checklist is a candidate outcome instrument.** Used by EDITION; pairs with a unit-level run chart of EBM rate per 1,000 patient-days.
4. **Distinguish PO vs IM PRN.** Liu (2026) demonstrates the IM PRN signal is most-clinically-meaningful; oral PRN may move in confounded directions.
5. **Include post-event debriefing.** Butterworth 2022 names "lack of post-restraint support" as a problem for both patients and staff.
6. **Expect implementation barriers around resourcing.** Duxbury 2019 notes even successful UK restraint-reduction initiatives identify resource constraints as the cap on further reduction.
7. **Consider a policy-context / sustainability paragraph on federal nursing workforce infrastructure.** See the companion page on H.R. 4407 at https://austinwagner.org/ivy/hr4407/ for the current federal-policy backdrop.

---

## 21. Full APA 7 bibliography

Allen, M. H., & Currier, G. W. (2004). Use of restraints and pharmacotherapy in academic psychiatric emergency services. *General Hospital Psychiatry, 26*(1), 42–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2003.08.002

American Psychiatric Nurses Association. (2018). *APNA position statement on the use of seclusion and restraint*. https://www.apna.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/APNASeclusionRestraintPositionPaperRev2018.pdf

American Psychiatric Nurses Association. (2022). *APNA standards of practice on the use of seclusion and restraint*. https://www.apna.org/resources/seclusion-restraint-standards-of-practice/

Baker, J., Berzins, K., Canvin, K., Benson, I., Kellar, I., Wright, J., Rodriguez Lopez, R., Duxbury, J., Kendall, T., & Stewart, D. (2021). Non-pharmacological interventions to reduce restrictive practices in adult mental health inpatient settings: The COMPARE systematic mapping review. *Health and Social Care Delivery Research, 9*(5). https://doi.org/10.3310/hsdr09050

Bowers, L. (2014). Safewards: A new model of conflict and containment on psychiatric wards. *Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, 21*(6), 499–508. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpm.12129

Bowers, L., James, K., Quirk, A., Simpson, A., SUGAR, Stewart, D., & Hodsoll, J. (2015). Reducing conflict and containment rates on acute psychiatric wards: The Safewards cluster randomised controlled trial. *International Journal of Nursing Studies, 52*(9), 1412–1422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2015.05.001

Butterworth, H., Wood, L., & Rowe, S. (2022). Patients' and staff members' experiences of restrictive practices in acute mental health in-patient settings: Systematic review and thematic synthesis. *BJPsych Open, 8*(6), e178. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjo.2022.574

Celofiga, A., Kores Plesnicar, B., Koprivsek, J., Moskon, M., Benkovic, D., & Gregoric Kumperscak, H. (2022). Effectiveness of de-escalation in reducing aggression and coercion in acute psychiatric units: A cluster randomized study. *Frontiers in Psychiatry, 13*, 856153. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2022.856153

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. (2020). *State operations manual, Appendix A — Survey protocol, regulations and interpretive guidelines for hospitals*. https://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Guidance/Manuals/downloads/som107ap_a_hospitals.pdf

Chieze, M., Hurst, S., Kaiser, S., & Sentissi, O. (2019). Effects of seclusion and restraint in adult psychiatry: A systematic review. *Frontiers in Psychiatry, 10*, 491. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00491

Donat, D. C. (2003). An analysis of successful efforts to reduce the use of seclusion and restraint at a public psychiatric hospital. *Psychiatric Services, 54*(8), 1119–1123. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.54.8.1119

Du, M., Wang, X., Yin, S., Shu, W., Hao, R., Zhao, S., Rao, H., Yeung, W.-L., Jayaram, M. B., & Xia, J. (2017). De-escalation techniques for psychosis-induced aggression or agitation. *Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews*, (4), CD009922. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009922.pub2

Duxbury, J., Baker, J., Downe, S., Jones, F., Greenwood, P., Thygesen, H., McKeown, M., Price, O., Scholes, A., Thomson, G., & Whittington, R. (2019). Minimising the use of physical restraint in acute mental health services: The outcome of a restraint reduction programme (REsTRAIN YOURSELF). *International Journal of Nursing Studies, 95*, 40–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2019.03.016

Duxbury, J., Thomson, G., Scholes, A., Jones, F., Baker, J., Downe, S., Greenwood, P., Price, O., Whittington, R., & McKeown, M. (2019). Staff experiences and understandings of the REsTRAIN Yourself initiative to minimize the use of physical restraint on mental health wards. *International Journal of Mental Health Nursing, 28*(4), 845–856. https://doi.org/10.1111/inm.12577

Fletcher, J., Buchanan-Hagen, S., Brophy, L., Kinner, S. A., & Hamilton, B. (2019). Consumer perspectives of Safewards impact in acute inpatient mental health wards in Victoria, Australia. *Frontiers in Psychiatry, 10*, 461. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00462

Garriga, M., Pacchiarotti, I., Kasper, S., Zeller, S. L., Allen, M. H., Vázquez, G., Baldaçara, L., San, L., McAllister-Williams, R. H., Fountoulakis, K. N., Courtet, P., Naber, D., Chan, E. W., Fagiolini, A., Möller, H. J., Grunze, H., Llorca, P. M., Jaffe, R. L., Yatham, L. N., … Vieta, E. (2016). Assessment and management of agitation in psychiatry: Expert consensus. *World Journal of Biological Psychiatry, 17*(2), 86–128. https://doi.org/10.3109/15622975.2015.1132007

Gaynes, B. N., Brown, C. L., Lux, L. J., Sheitman, B., Van Dorn, R. A., Edlund, M. J., & Viswanathan, M. (2017). Preventing and de-escalating aggressive behavior among adult psychiatric patients: A systematic review of the evidence. *Psychiatric Services, 68*(8), 819–831. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.201600314

Heckemann, B., Zeller, A., Hahn, S., Dassen, T., Schols, J. M. G. A., & Halfens, R. J. G. (2015). The effect of aggression management training programmes for nursing staff and students working in an acute hospital setting: A narrative review. *Nurse Education Today, 35*(1), 212–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2014.08.003

Huckshorn, K. A. (2006). *Six core strategies for reducing seclusion and restraint use*. National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors. https://www.nasmhpd.org/sites/default/files/Consolidated%20Six%20Core%20Strategies%20Document.pdf

The Joint Commission. (1998). *Sentinel event alert issue 8 — Preventing restraint deaths*. https://www.jointcommission.org/-/media/tjc/documents/resources/patient-safety-topics/sentinel-event/sea_8.pdf

The Joint Commission. (2024). *Provision of care, treatment, and services (PC.03.05.01 through PC.03.05.19) — restraint and seclusion*. https://www.jointcommission.org/standards/standard-faqs/critical-access-hospital/provision-of-care-treatment-and-services-pc/

Khadivi, A. N., Patel, R. C., Atkinson, A. R., & Levine, J. M. (2004). Association between seclusion and restraint and patient-related violence. *Psychiatric Services, 55*(11), 1311–1312. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.55.11.1311

Knox, D. K., & Holloman, G. H. (2012). Use and avoidance of seclusion and restraint: Consensus statement of the American Association for Emergency Psychiatry Project BETA Seclusion and Restraint Workgroup. *Western Journal of Emergency Medicine, 13*(1), 35–40. https://doi.org/10.5811/westjem.2011.9.6867

LeBel, J., Stromberg, N., Duckworth, K., Kerzner, J., Goldstein, R., Weeks, M., Harper, G., LaFlair, L., & Sudders, M. (2004). Child and adolescent inpatient restraint reduction: A state initiative to promote strength-based care. *Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 43*(1), 37–45. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004583-200401000-00013

Liberman, R. P. (2006). Elimination of seclusion and restraint: A reasonable goal? *Psychiatric Services, 57*(4), 576. https://doi.org/10.1176/ps.2006.57.4.576

Liu, K., Saito, E., & Linder, H. (2026). Healing spaces: A retrospective cohort study on the effect of outdoor spaces in psychiatric inpatient units on PRN medication use, seclusion/restraints, and constant observation. *Frontiers in Psychiatry, 16*, 1731925. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2025.1731925

Moran Jimenez, J., Jones, A., et al. (2025). Reducing seclusion and workplace violence on an inpatient psychiatric emergency department unit: A quality improvement project. *Journal of the American Psychiatric Nurses Association* [advance online publication].

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. (2015). *Violence and aggression: Short-term management in mental health, health and community settings (NICE guideline NG10)*. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng10

Patel, M. X., Sethi, F. N., Barnes, T. R. E., Dix, R., Dratcu, L., Fox, B., Garriga, M., Haste, J. C., Kahl, K. G., Lingford-Hughes, A., McAllister-Williams, H., O'Brien, A., Parker, C., Paterson, B., Paton, C., Posporelis, S., Taylor, D. M., Vieta, E., Völlm, B., … Woods, L. (2018). Joint BAP NAPICU evidence-based consensus guidelines for the clinical management of acute disturbance: De-escalation and rapid tranquillisation. *Journal of Psychopharmacology, 32*(6), 601–640. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269881118776738

Price, O., Baker, J., Bee, P., & Lovell, K. (2015). Learning and performance outcomes of mental health staff training in de-escalation techniques for the management of violence and aggression. *British Journal of Psychiatry, 206*(6), 447–455. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.114.144576

Price, O., Papastavrou Brooks, C., Johnston, I., McPherson, P., Goodman, H., Grundy, A., Cree, L., Motala, Z., Robinson, J., Doyle, M., Stokes, N., Armitage, C. J., Barley, E., Brooks, H., Callaghan, P., Carter, L.-A., Davies, L. M., Drake, R. J., Lovell, K., & Bee, P. (2024). Development and evaluation of a de-escalation training intervention in adult acute and forensic units: The EDITION systematic review and feasibility trial. *Health Technology Assessment, 28*(3). https://doi.org/10.3310/FGGW6874

Putkonen, A., Kuivalainen, S., Louheranta, O., Repo-Tiihonen, E., Ryynänen, O.-P., Kautiainen, H., & Tiihonen, J. (2013). Cluster-randomized controlled trial of reducing seclusion and restraint in secured care of men with schizophrenia. *Psychiatric Services, 64*(9), 850–855. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.201200393

Richmond, J. S., Berlin, J. S., Fishkind, A. B., Holloman, G. H., Zeller, S. L., Wilson, M. P., Rifai, M. A., & Ng, A. T. (2012). Verbal de-escalation of the agitated patient: Consensus statement of the American Association for Emergency Psychiatry Project BETA De-escalation Workgroup. *Western Journal of Emergency Medicine, 13*(1), 17–25. https://doi.org/10.5811/westjem.2011.9.6864

Roppolo, L. P., Morris, D. W., Khan, F., Downs, R., Metzger, J., Carder, T., Wong, A. H., & Wilson, M. P. (2020). Improving the management of acutely agitated patients in the emergency department through implementation of Project BETA (Best Practices in the Evaluation and Treatment of Agitation). *JACEP Open, 1*(5), 898–907. https://doi.org/10.1002/emp2.12138

Sailas, E., & Wahlbeck, K. (2005). Restraint and seclusion in psychiatric inpatient wards. *Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 18*(5), 555–559. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.yco.0000179497.46182.6f

Smith, G. M., Davis, R. H., Bixler, E. O., Lin, H.-M., Altenor, A., Altenor, R. J., Hardentstine, B. D., & Kopchick, G. A. (2005). Pennsylvania State Hospital System's seclusion and restraint reduction program. *Psychiatric Services, 56*(9), 1115–1122. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.56.9.1115

Spencer, S., Johnson, P., & Smith, I. C. (2018). De-escalation techniques for managing non-psychosis induced aggression in adults. *Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews*, (7), CD012034. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012034.pub2

Wilson, M. P., Pepper, D., Currier, G. W., Holloman, G. H., & Feifel, D. (2012). The psychopharmacology of agitation: Consensus statement of the American Association for Emergency Psychiatry Project BETA Psychopharmacology Workgroup. *Western Journal of Emergency Medicine, 13*(1), 26–34. https://doi.org/10.5811/westjem.2011.9.6866

Wong, A. H., Ray, J. M., Rosenberg, A., Crispino-O'Connell, G., Iennaco, J. D., Bernstein, S. L., Crispino-O'Connell, G., Ling, S., Joseph, T. P., Bonenfant, N. R., Pavlo, A., Lee, K. S., Wang, F., Bryce, P., Bao, H., Wears, R. L., & Bouland, A. (2020). Experiences of individuals who were physically restrained in the emergency department. *JAMA Network Open, 3*(1), e1919381. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.19381

Ye, J., Xia, Z., Wang, C., Liao, Y., Xu, Y., Zhang, Y., Xiao, A., Yu, L., Li, S., & Lin, J. (2021). Effectiveness of CRSCE-based de-escalation training on reducing physical restraint in psychiatric hospitals: A cluster randomized controlled trial. *Frontiers in Psychiatry, 12*, 576662. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2021.576662