Consumers' and their supporters' perspectives on barriers and strategies to reducing seclusion and restraint in mental health settings.

Objective This paper examines the perspectives of consumers and their supporters regarding the use of seclusion and restraint in mental health settings. Methods Five focus groups for consumers and five focus groups for supporters were conducted in four Australian cities and in one rural location. The 66 participants were asked about strategies to reduce or eliminate the use of seclusion and restraint in mental health settings.

Erratum to: Consumers and their supporters' perspectives on poor practice and the use of seclusion and restraint in mental health settings: results from Australian focus groups.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1186/s13033-016-0038-x.].

Consumers and Carer perspectives on poor practice and the use of seclusion and restraint in mental health settings: results from Australian focus groups.

Background: Seclusion and restraint are interventions currently permitted for use in mental health services to control or manage a person's behaviour. In Australia, serious concerns about the use of such seclusion and restraint have been raised at least since 1993. Consumers and their supporters have also expressed strong views about the harm of these practices.

Australian and Canadian mental health Acts compared.

Objective: The main objective of this paper is to compare the mental health Acts of the eight Australian jurisdictions and the 13 Canadian jurisdictions on three major issues: involuntary admission criteria, treatment authorization/consent and compulsory treatment in the community, in the light of international trends towards patients' rights.

Method: The legislation was examined against the background of rights instruments such as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Results: It was found that some Canadian involuntary admission criteria require the likelihood of bodily harm whereas all Australian Acts have broad harm and deterioration criteria.