Use of restraint in residential care settings for children and young people

An international movement promoting the reduced use of physical restraint and other coercive practices has brought into focus the ways in which those who are responsible for the care of children and young people respond to problematic behaviour. The topic generates emotive discussion, with proponents advancing the argument that the use of coercive measures enhances the quality of care and protects young people from harm, and civil libertarians who argue that restraint is never an appropriate way of managing behaviour. Despite such debates there is an absence of good research and scholarly activity on restraint practices, leading to uncertainty about the immediate and long-term effects of particular practices on both staff and young people. Consequently, it has been difficult for agencies to develop clear, consistent, and definitive policies. Drawing on international perspectives, the aim of this article is to discuss issues relevant to the practice of restraint in residential care facilities for children and young people in Australia, highlighting a number of issues that require resolution prior to the development of practice guidelines.

Hypothalamic paraventricular nucleus neurons regulate medullary catecholamine cell responses to restraint stress

Both physical and psychological stressors recruit catecholamine cells (CA) located in the ventrolateral medulla (VLM) and the nucleus of the solitary tract (NTS). In the case of physical stressors, this effect is initiated by signals that first access the central nervous system at or below the level of the medulla. For psychological stressors, however, CA cell recruitment depends on higher structures within the neuraxis. Indeed, we have recently provided evidence of a pivotal role for the medial amygdala (MeA) in this regard, although such a role must involve a relay, as MeA neurons do not project directly to the medulla. However, some of the MeA neurons that respond to psychological stress have been found to project to the hypothalamic paraventricular nucleus (PVN), a structure that provides significant input to the medulla. To determine whether the PVN might regulate medullary CA cell responses to psychological stress, animals were prepared with unilateral injections of the neurotoxin ibotenic acid into the PVN (Experiment 1), or with unilateral injections of the retrograde tracer wheat germ agglutinin-gold (WGA-Au) into the CA cell columns of the VLM or NTS (Experiment 2). Seven days later, animals were subjected to a psychological stressor (restraint; 15 minutes), and their brains were subsequently processed for Fos plus appropriate cytoplasmic markers (Experiment 1), or Fos plus WGA-Au (Experiment 2). PVN lesions significantly suppressed the stress-related induction of Fos in both VLM and NTS CA cells, whereas tracer deposits in the VLM or NTS retrogradely labeled substantial numbers of PVN cells that were also Fos-positive after stress. Considered in concert with previous results, these data suggest that the activation of medullary CA cells in response to psychological stress may involve a critical input from the PVN.

Stressor categorization : acute physical and psychological stressors elicit distinctive recruitment patterns in the amygdala and in medullary noradrenergic cell groups

It has been hypothesized that the brain categorizes stressors and utilizes neural response pathways that vary in accordance with the assigned category. If this is true, stressors should elicit patterns of neuronal activation within the brain that are category-specific. Data from previous immediate–early gene expression mapping studies have hinted that this is the case, but interstudy differences in methodology render conclusions tenuous. In the present study, immunolabelling for the expression of c-fos was used as a marker of neuronal activity elicited in the rat brain by haemorrhage, immune challenge, noise, restraint and forced swim. All stressors elicited c-fos expression in 25–30% of hypothalamic paraventricular nucleus corticotrophin-releasing-factor cells, suggesting that these stimuli were of comparable strength, at least with regard to their ability to activate the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal axis. In the amygdala, haemorrhage and immune challenge both elicited c-fos expression in a large number of neurons in the central nucleus of the amygdala, whereas noise, restraint and forced swim primarily elicited recruitment of cells within the medial nucleus of the amygdala. In the medulla, all stressors recruited similar numbers of noradrenergic (A1 and A2) and adrenergic (C1 and C2) cells. However, haemorrhage and immune challenge elicited c-fos expression in subpopulations of A1 and A2 noradrenergic cells that were significantly more rostral than those recruited by noise, restraint or forced swim. The present data support the suggestion that the brain recognizes at least two major categories of stressor, which we have referred to as ‘physical’ and ‘psychological’. Moreover, the present data suggest that the neural activation footprint that is left in the brain by stressors can be used to determine the category to which they have been assigned by the brain.