Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Técnicas de desescalada para la agresión o la agitación inducida por la psicosis

Información

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009922.pub2Copiar DOI
Base de datos:
  1. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Versión publicada:
  1. 03 abril 2017see what's new
Tipo:
  1. Intervention
Etapa:
  1. Review
Grupo Editorial Cochrane:
  1. Grupo Cochrane de Esquizofrenia

Copyright:
  1. Copyright © 2017 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Cifras del artículo

Altmetric:

Citado por:

Citado 0 veces por enlace Crossref Cited-by

Contraer

Autores

  • Maolin Du

    School of Public Health, Inner Mongolia Medical University, Hohhot, China

  • Xuemei Wang

    Correspondencia a: School of Public Health, Inner Mongolia Medical University, Hohhot, China

    [email protected]

  • Shaohua Yin

    School of Public Health, Inner Mongolia Medical University, Hohhot, China

  • Wei Shu

    School of Public Health, Inner Mongolia Medical University, Hohhot, China

  • Ruiqi Hao

    School of Public Health, Inner Mongolia Medical University, Hohhot, China

  • Sai Zhao

    Systematic Review Solutions Ltd, The Ingenuity Centre, The University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK

  • Harish Rao

    Psychiatry, Borough Road and Nunthorpe Medical Group, Middlesbrough, UK

  • Wan‐Ley Yeung

    Bridge House Community Mealth Health Team, Leeds, UK

  • Mahesh B Jayaram

    Department of Psychiatry, Melbourne Neuropsychiatry Centre, Melbourne, Australia

  • Jun Xia

    Systematic Review Solutions Ltd, The Ingenuity Centre, The University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK

Contributions of authors

HR and MJ devised the protocol for the study.

HR and WY reviewed the abstracts of the studies obtained from the search.

MJ reviewed the abstracts of a random sample of the search studies.

MD, SY, WS and HR completed the first draft of this review manuscript.

MD and SZ revised the review manuscript.

XM and JX reviewed and final proofed the manuscript.

Sources of support

Internal sources

  • Leeds PFT, UK.

External sources

  • Inner Mongolia Medical University, Inner Mongolia, China.

    One million projects of Science and Technology. Project code: YKD2013KJBW006

Declarations of interest

All review authors have no known conflicts of interest.

Review authors JX and SZ work for Systematic Review Solutions which is an independent health care research company.

Acknowledgements

The Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Editorial Base in Nottingham produces and maintains standard text for use in the Methods section of their reviews. We have used this text as the basis of what appears here and adapted it as required.

The search terms for the protocol were developed, in collaboration with the review authors, by the Information Specialist of the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group, Samantha Roberts. We would like to thank Mohamed Gomaa and Seyed Mazloomi for peer reviewing this version of the review.

Version history

Published

Title

Stage

Authors

Version

2017 Apr 03

De‐escalation techniques for psychosis‐induced aggression or agitation

Review

Maolin Du, Xuemei Wang, Shaohua Yin, Wei Shu, Ruiqi Hao, Sai Zhao, Harish Rao, Wan‐Ley Yeung, Mahesh B Jayaram, Jun Xia

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009922.pub2

2012 Jul 11

De‐escalation techniques for psychosis‐induced aggression or agitation

Protocol

Harish Rao, Wan‐Ley Yeung, Mahesh B Jayaram

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009922

Differences between protocol and review

We have amended the objective of the review and description of participants to reflect our title more accurately, that is, to investigate effects of de‐escalation techniques in the management of aggression due to psychosis. We have stated the age of participants more clearly.

We have also updated Types of interventions to clarify the description of de‐escalation techniques.

For Types of outcome measures, we added adverse events as a primary outcome and an outcome of interest for the 'Summary of findings' table.

A new team of authors joined the original review authors of the protocol and helped to complete the review.

Keywords

MeSH

PICO

Population
Intervention
Comparison
Outcome

El uso y la enseñanza del modelo PICO están muy extendidos en el ámbito de la atención sanitaria basada en la evidencia para formular preguntas y estrategias de búsqueda y para caracterizar estudios o metanálisis clínicos. PICO son las siglas en inglés de cuatro posibles componentes de una pregunta de investigación: paciente, población o problema; intervención; comparación; desenlace (outcome).

Para saber más sobre el uso del modelo PICO, puede consultar el Manual Cochrane.

Study flow diagram.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 1

Study flow diagram.

Table 2. Outline design for a randomised trial of de‐escalation technique

Methods

Allocation: cluster‐randomised, clearly described, with researched and recorded intra‐class correlation coefficient (ICC) reported.

Blinding: none.

Duration: 2 weeks.

Setting: any psychiatric ward with high rate of aggression.

Participants

Diagnosis: any.

History: people admitted or, or getting admitted to psychiatric ward.

N =*.

Age: adult.

Sex: men or women.

Exclude: those already randomised.

Interventions

1. De‐escalation technique training.

2. Waiting list for training.

The de‐escalation technique training could involve refining of: a. Verbal communication techniques; b. Use of body language; c. Prevention and recognition strategies (risk assessment tools); d. Staff attitudes, knowledge and skills; e. Setting of limits for patients to follow; f. Environmental controls (such as minimising light, noise, conversations and so on) used for the management of aggression ‐ or any combination of these.

Outcomes

Primarily routinely‐recorded binary outcomes.

1. Clinically important changes in global state (short‐term outcomes)

2. Aggression

2.1 Improved to an important extent
2.2 Deterioration: incidence of violence to self or others (harm)
2.3 Changes in aggression as recorded by any other outcomes

2.4 Recurrance of aggression

3. Adverse effects

3.1 Physical adverse effects
3.2 Death, suicide or natural causes
3.3 Psycological adverse effects

4. Service outcomes

4.1 Time in hospital

5. Acceptability

5.1 To staff

5.2 To patients

6. Cost

Notes

* We are unclear of power calculations at this point. It is likely that the sample of people will have to total at least 300 to gain sufficient power to find clear outcomes that are likely to effect clinical practice, but this figure would have to be modified depending on a well‐researched (not imputed) ICC.

Figuras y tablas -
Table 2. Outline design for a randomised trial of de‐escalation technique
Summary of findings for the main comparison. De‐escalation for aggression thought to be due to psychosis versus standard care

Patient or population: people who are aggressive secondary to serious mental illness
Settings: anywhere
Intervention: de‐escalation versus standard care

Outcomes

Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

No of Participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Assumed risk

Corresponding risk

Standard care control

De‐escalation technique

Clinically important changes in global state

We identified no relevant studies.

Aggression ‐ Improved to an important extent

Aggression ‐ deterioration: incidence of violence to self or others

Aggression ‐ changes in aggression as recorded by any other outcomes

Adverse effects ‐

physical adverse effects

Adverse effects ‐ death, suicide or natural causes

Adverse effects ‐ psychological adverse effects

*The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).
CI: Confidence interval;

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.
Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings for the main comparison. De‐escalation for aggression thought to be due to psychosis versus standard care
Table 1. Other relevant Cochrane reviews

Focus of review

Reference

Completed and maintained reviews

'As required' medication regimens for seriously mentally ill people in hospital

Douglas‐Hall 2015

Benzodiazepines for psychosis‐induced aggression or agitation

Gillies 2013

Chlorpromazine for psychosis‐induced aggression or agitation

Ahmed 2010

Clotiapine for acute psychotic illnesses

Berk 2004

Containment strategies for people with serious mental illness

Muralidharan 2006

Droperidol for acute psychosis

Khokhar 2016

Haloperidol for psychosis‐induced aggression or agitation (rapid tranquillisation)

Powney 2012

Haloperidol plus promethazine for psychosis‐induced aggression

Huf 2016

Olanzapine IM or velotab for acutely disturbed/agitated people with suspected serious mental illnesses

Belgamwar 2005

Seclusion and restraint for serious mental illnesses

Sailas 2000

Zuclopenthixol acetate for acute schizophrenia and similar serious mental illnesses

Jayakody 2012

Reviews in the process of being completed

Clozapine for people with schizophrenia and recurrent physical aggression

Toal 2012

De‐escalation techniques for managing aggression

Spencer 2016

Haloperidol for long‐term aggression in psychosis

Khushu 2016

Loxapine inhaler for psychosis‐induced aggression

Vangala 2012

Quetiapine for psychosis‐induced aggression or agitation

Wilkie 2012

Risperidone for psychosis‐induced aggression or agitation

Ahmed 2011

Figuras y tablas -
Table 1. Other relevant Cochrane reviews