Research Needed for Those with IDD/MI Dual Diagnosis!!!!

We need more research in the following areas to advance the treatment of those with IDD/MI dual diagnosis.

1. The best methods of restraint and seclusion 

2. The best methods for de-escalating a crisis before, during, and after the crisis 

3. How to introduce body cameras to the psychiatric system 

4. What exactly is trauma-informed care, and examples of trauma-informed care

5. The effectiveness of barcode medication equipment to protect service recipients from medication errors

6. How ID cards or wristbands resolve major safety concerns, and how to encourage service recipients to wear their ID cards or wristbands 

7. How statewide bed registries and trackers reduce the amount of time a service recipient spends in crisis centers 

8. How many dual diagnosis inpatient beds are needed, and what do hospitals need to do to establish dual diagnostic capability 

9. How to circumvent the Medicaid IMD exclusion and why we need to do so

10. What medical clearance protocols are followed, and how can we ensure compliance 

11. Civil commitment, involuntary medication, forensic commitment, and guardianship standards around the world and country 

12. Ideal coercion-free healthcare for mentally ill service recipients, including the Trieste, Italy model

13. The benefits of having a separate State Hospital for those with dual diagnosis (I.e., a neuropsychiatric center) 

14. Forensic care of those with dual diagnosis and violent criminal charges, and what treatment models are effective for this subpopulation

15. Alternatives to group homes and supportive apartments (I.e., intentional community)

16. The PASRR (Pre-Admission Screening and Resident Review) process and nursing homes for those with dual diagnosis, and why we need specialized units in nursing homes for those with dual diagnosis 

17. The effectiveness of boot camp military-style programs for adults and youth with emotional behavioral disabilities and Autism 

18. How aversive behavioral interventions are abused, such as aversive shock for severe self-harm and aggression

19. How unfairly played group games impact recovery and treatment retention, if at all

20. Why does mechanical restraint go down when chemical restraint goes up 

SafeWards

SafeWards model

SafeWards is a nursing care model on psychiatric units, designed to reduce restraints, seclusions, and other containment strategies. 

SafeWards consists of 10 interventions described below:

1. Clear mutual expectations: guidelines for both service recipients and staff, which are not meant to feel like a child’s rules
2. Soft words: therapeutic limit setting designed with respect and negotiation in mind
3. Talk down: diffusion using words, not hands
4. Positive words: staff understand why difficult behavior occurs, and staff discuss positive things about each service recipient in shift reports to combat bad feelings about certain service recipients
5. Bad news mitigation: identifying service recipients who may have received bad news and allowing them to “vent” using active listening approaches
6. Know each other: staff and service recipients provide written information on themselves to use for conversation starters, kept in a binder in the unit for staff and service recipients to view.
7. Mutual help meeting: structured community meetings designed to help each other out with 5 sections, including thanks, news, suggestions, requests, and offers
8. Calm down methods: Before giving PRN medication, encourage the use of traditional coping strategies 
9. Reassurance: after an “incident”  (self-harm, aggression, restraint, seclusion, transfer to a more restrictive setting, etc.) in the unit, all service recipients are talked with to allow them to process the event 
10. Discharge messages: upon discharge, each service recipient writes a special card to be hung in a special place on the unit, about what they liked and disliked on the unit, the staff, and things that happened on the unit (without breaking confidentiality), to show to new service recipients to decrease hopelessness

The more we prioritize these interventions, the less conflict will be present, and as such, less upset, restraint, seclusion, and other containment strategies will be needed. 

Please take a moment and comment to let me know you were here and what you thought of my blog. 

Fairness During Group Games Treatment Facilities

 Fairness 

When playing group games in mental health and developmental disabilities treatment programs, the games are often improper or unfair. 

This is not as big an issue at the State Hospitals for adults, but it is more of an issue at day programs and private short-term care hospitals for adults. For children and adolescents, fairness is a vicious problem across the continuum of care.  

First off, staff should never be allowed to compete against or alongside service recipients, and staff vs. service recipient tournaments should be prohibited. It can be a safety issue when playing physical games, such as kickball, as a bad kick or throw from staff could cause injury to the service recipient. When staff participate in cognitive games, it can imbalance the ability level of each team due to cognitive deficits as a result of developmental disorders, mental illness, or the medications used to treat them.  

Staff should give everyone an equal opportunity to win. For instance, staff should not help one service recipient find a number on a bingo board and not provide the same assistance to others who ask for it. 

Teams should be divided equally by the number of players and ability levels, and never based on clinical criteria such as commitment status, diagnosis, or level of functioning. When this happens, it perpetuates stigma throughout the system of care that individuals with more severe diagnoses are not capable of winning a game, especially when medication impacts their participation. 

It is fitting that unfair games can contribute to resentment and deep-seated anger towards the entire field of psychiatry, which can cause other problems, such as high restraint and seclusion rates (for children, adolescents, and adults) and low treatment retention rates (especially for adults), among many problems that could potentially result from these feelings. 

First off, we need to assess the root cause of the problems associated with fairness. Then we have to fool around with solutions that might resolve the problems. After that, we need to create regulations that support those solutions.  

The State and the federal government need to design financial incentives for having fair games in treatment facilities. We need to research how unfair games impact the treatment of different types of service recipients.  A lot of service recipients will not make complaints about this because they think it is “too trivial” a complaint. Service recipients should have the right to fair games. It is just not therapeutic to have unfair games in the mental health and developmental disabilities treatment programs.

Please take a moment to comment to let me know what you were here and what you thought of my blog. 

9 Reasons Why We Need Facility-Based Residential Programs

 We need facility-based residential  programs for individuals with dual diagnosis because: 

1. Those with dual diagnosis with severe challenging behavior are not usually welcome in group homes. 

2. When residents display challenging behavior, staff often call 911, and the police are often summoned and bring the resident to the hospital. In a facility, staff from other units may be called to help deal with the crisis. 

3. Facilities offer more stimulation for service recipients who thrive on activity and “noise” 

4. Facilities have the infrastructure to use mechanical restraints, personal control techniques, and hands-on behavior management techniques. Group homes are very hesitant to use these strategies and only use them after 911 has been called. Facilities avoid calling 911. 

5. Facilities reduce the waitlist for residential services since there are more beds in facilities than in group homes. 

6. Facility-based programs allow families to have choices for residential care. 

7. A facility offers more structure than a group home, and some people need structure only for the support found in a facility-based program. Daily schedules and activities are a hallmark of programming in a facility, and group homes are less structured. 

8. Some people need more skills training than is available in a group home. A facility offers more opportunities for skills training in a controlled environment. 

9. Group homes do not work for everyone!!! 

We need more campus programs and dormitory-style large buildings with locked units to serve the most difficult service recipients with dual diagnoses. 

Note that I don’t use the term “institution” to describe these programs, as that term is very reminiscent of the 1980s, when there were "real" institutions. 

Please take a moment and comment to let me know you were here and what you thought of my blog.

My Deluxe Holiday Post

 Happy holidays, readers!

This is my deluxe holiday post.

 

The December holidays are an extremely difficult time of year for a variety of people for many reasons. I asked the participants of a group therapy session, “What is the most stressful part of the holiday season?” For privacy reasons, I do not share their names, but these are their responses:

• Loneliness

• Missing family, family far away

• Memories of loss, death, and trauma 

• Worrying about the finances with the gifts

• Planning and budgeting

• Overwhelming feelings

• Cooking and expectations of good meals 

• Family conflicts 

• Seasonal Affective Disorder 

• Lose sight of the religious aspects of the holidays.

• Commercialism

• Weight gain

Remember, not everyone is going to have the “fairy tale” holiday season. Make it your version of ideal, and be flexible in your definition of a good holiday.

Feel free to seek professional help or therapy to make this time of year easier and more festive, if you feel you need it.

Please take a moment and comment to let me know you were here and what you thought of my blog.

Continuing Care Residential Facility

 I believe we need a non-institutional residential facility designed similarly to a continuing care retirement community with various levels of care that individuals may move through as their needs change; yet, continue to remain with the same treatment team, recommendations, diagnostic assessment, and a familiar environment for those with Autism and/or mental illness and challenging behavior. This type of facility should be run by a nonprofit provider agency or hospital network, not the State, to prevent it from becoming an “institution”. 

Levels of care at this type of facility should include: 

• Forensic Care Units: designed similarly to a therapeutic correctional facility for those with criminal charges
• Intensive Care Units: designed similarly to a forensic facility but with more of a focus on rapid tranquilization using antipsychotic medications and behavior modification, for those with extremely chronic, dangerous behaviors and who fail or get "kicked out" of less restrictive programs
• Inpatient and/or Dormitory Units: service recipients live in a large building with locked and unlocked units 
• Campus Residences: individuals live on a large piece of land in cottages or small dormitories 
• Supervised Apartments: service recipients live in individual apartments with 24-hour staff in a large disability-only apartment complex

This type of facility will increase continuity of care, as the same treatment providers will possibly follow service recipients throughout their time at the facility. It is intended for long-term, lifelong placement, and the individual will receive "Active Treatment." It should not be restricted to those with an IQ under 70, and higher-functioning and lower-functioning service recipients will be admitted to different sections of the facility to allow for appropriate treatment. 

Funding streams may come from the State developmental disabilities agency (possibly as an Intermediate Care Facility for Intellectual Disabilities [ICF/ID]), mental health agency (possibly through its own funds as Medicaid will not fund a psychiatric facility larger than 16 beds), Medicaid (possibly as an Intermediate Care Facility for Intellectual Disabilities [ICF/ID] or Skilled Nursing Facility [SNF]), and more. 

This will be ideal for those who do not succeed in group homes because of their behavior. However, we do not want to make this a prerequisite for admission to a continuing care facility like this. We do not want to wait until someone fails before considering them for a facility like this. 

When the individual receives treatment aimed at reducing challenging behaviors, their challenging behaviors may decrease, and they may move to a lower level of care within the facility. Yet, when there is a crisis or escalation of challenging behavior, they can easily move to a higher level of care without going to the hospital and without police intervention. 

This type of facility will also be ideal for those with primary mental illness (standalone or with a developmental disability) who are discharge resistant or who face significant barriers to discharge due to chronic higher-acuity behaviors, as an alternative to a State institution. Oftentimes, psychiatric hospitals and units only stabilize medications (not provide behavior modification). They only provide acute care, and these individuals have chronic behavioral problems. A facility like this could help supplement the care given in a psychiatric hospital or unit when a State Hospital is not appropriate, including for forensic service recipients. It is widely known that short-term psychiatric hospitalization only causes more disruptions in the lives of those with Autism or severe mental health challenges, and it is also known that short-term psychiatric hospitalization may reinforce the challenging behaviors that led to it. As of yet, there are no better alternatives. 

This type of continuing care facility is an alternative to resolve all these problems.

My Official Views on the Use, Misuse, and Abuse of Restraints and Seclusion

Just posting this because there seems to be confusion about my views on restraints and seclusion. I am opposed to restraints and seclusion when it is not needed. However, when there is a clear and imminent danger to the service recipient or others, I highly support restraints and seclusion as a lifesaving measure, just like CPR for cardiac arrest. The commonality between CPR and restraints is that they are only used when necessary and all else fails, and are avoided when safe to do so 

While restraint and seclusion are not ideal, they cannot be eliminated. However, they can be reduced by changing the culture in our facilities. When done appropriately, safely, and correctly, they can be lifesaving interventions. 

For instance, if someone is banging their head and staff cannot stop them from doing so, they could go blind from detaching their retinas or suffer seizures or death from the neurological consequences of the behavior. 

We need more trauma-informed care and safe and therapeutic crisis intervention. 

Some service recipients find restraints and seclusion soothing. We need to teach these individuals other coping mechanisms that are more adaptive in the community that meet the same needs that restraints and seclusion are meeting. 

We need to track and trend antecedents to these adverse events on a weekly, monthly, quarterly, and annual basis. 

In my experience, nurses will restrain or seclude individuals they dislike more than those they like. Also, service recipients who “cause trouble” will be restrained or secluded for excessive periods.  Nurses and staff sometimes purposefully escalate a crisis, so they have an excuse to use restraints and/or seclusion. This is unacceptable, inappropriate, and should be considered abuse. 

Nurses should not be allowed to combine seclusion and restraints by locking the door to a room where someone is restrained and having staff watch them via a surveillance camera. This is unsafe, inappropriate, and potentially frightening for the restrained individual. 

Until we wholeheartedly adopt the philosophies of psychiatric rehab, trauma-informed care, and person-centered treatment, we will continue to rely on restraints and seclusions. We need to try a different approach to crisis intervention, one that we are not used to. This is the only path to reducing and eliminating restraints and seclusion. 

Restraints do not teach anyone new skills, and they are little more than a punishment for bad behavior. 

Restraints and seclusion are traumatizing, both emotionally and physically. Service recipients can sustain serious physical injuries when restraints are used improperly, sometimes worse than the behavior that prompted restraints. 

Nurses need to take the time to listen to service recipients about their thoughts and feelings regarding the incident. Restraints are especially harmful when the service recipients do not know why restraints or seclusion were used, and what to do next time to avoid a similar situation. 

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), The Joint Commission, CARF, and other accrediting bodies need to weigh in on the abuse and misuse of restraints and seclusion. 

We need crisis teams comprised of peer specialists, nurses, psychologists, psychiatrists, therapists, and therapeutic security officers to help de-escalate crises, hopefully without restraints or seclusion. More peer support specialists are needed at a higher or equivalent ratio to the direct care staff. 

In conclusion, restraints and seclusion should be a last resort intervention in a dangerous crisis. They should be thought of as a “treatment failure” rather than a “treatment intervention”; however, when needed, they should be available. It’s a tricky balance. 

Please take a moment to comment to let me know you were here and what you thought of my blog. 

The Moderate Security Unit at New Jersey's New Lisbon Developmental Center

II am posting this in light of Ombudsman Paul Aronsohn's 2024 report, which was released in July 2025 and highlights the need to reassess the use of the Moderate Security Unit at the New Lisbon Developmental Center for individuals with developmental disabilities and criminal charges. A variation of this post, which I authored as an opinion piece, was published in the lBurlington County Times several years ago. 

We need to change NJAC 10:42B and the resulting Division of Developmental Disabilities Division Circular #16 to  allow females and those with a severe IDD/MI psychiatric diagnosis  to be admitted to the Moderate Security Unit  at New Lisbon Developmental Center  

 I believe the Moderate Security Unit at New Lisbon Developmental Center (MSU) needs several modifications admissions criteria to meet current demands.  The MSU is a secure-care unit for developmentally disabled men who would not be safe in prison or jail, due to their disabilities.

The admissions criteria should be expanded to females and those with a severe psychiatric disorder, including those found Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity, because:

• Psychiatric facilities, such as the Trenton Psychiatric Hospital and Ann Klein Forensic Center, are not necessarily the appropriate setting, since individuals may get victimized and do not receive specialized developmental treatment.

• Placing individuals who have committed a criminal at in a regular Development Center poses a risk for lower-functioning individuals, who are more vulnerable.,

• Most reasonable people would agree that individuals with developmental disabilities do not belong in traditional correctional facilities (i.e., jails and prisons) for a variety of safety reasons (especially abuse by corrections officers and other inmates)

There will need to be several changes to the physical plant, staffing patterns, and programs to make the MSU suitable for females and those with a severe psychiatric disorder:

• Female staff are needed.

•  Hiring uniformed medical security officers, similar to Ann Klein Forensic Center, could help maintain control of the unit (research shows that a police-like uniform deters negative behavior and makes people feel safer)

• Toilets in each bedroom

•  Steel doors instead of bars (to prevent ligature)

• Males and females are admitted to separate sides of the unit.

• Surveillance cameras need to be installed to prevent abuse, neglect, and exploitation.

•  Seclusion (residents would be locked in their rooms alone for set times during the day, at night, during short-staffed times, during crisis situations, etc., and when the resident is displaying aggressive behavior and failing to calm down)

• Chemical restraints should continue to be emphasized over mechanical restraints in emergency crisis situations.

• Therapeutic programming should be modified to provide treatment aimed at reducing the likelihood of a re-offense for a variety of criminal offenses, not just sexual and arson crimes.

  
  

  Please take a moment to comment to let me know you were here and what you thought of my blog.

  
  

  
  

Sensory-Friendly Transportation

 I believe we need to provide those with Autism with the option of using sensory-friendly public transportation when they cannot tolerate a bus or train for sensory reasons. This would allow them to access small group rides in a car, minibus, or minivan rather than a traditional public bus or train. This is not medical transportation, and it could be used to get to work, family, and community activities, not just medical appointments. 

I believe we need to expand upon the idea of using Uber as a transportation provider, which will help to provide special transportation services for those with Autism so that no one with Autism has to arrive at their destination in sensory overload (which a bus or train could produce).

In New Jersey, I suggest that NJ Transit Access Link expand its criteria to include those with Autism who cannot tolerate a bus or train for sensory reasons.

The New Jersey Division of Developmental Disabilities (NJ DDD), ModivCare, LogistiCare, and Medicaid need to collaborate to create this type of transportation.

While many group homes have transportation through house vans, this is simply not enough to get everyone to their desired destinations. There are not enough vans and staff drivers to get everyone where they need to be at the right time. Some individuals are forced to use public transport, which again should not be the only option.

NJ DDD needs to consider providing individuals receiving transportation services out-of-state rides, so they can see far away friends and family. 

NJ-supported employment programs need to provide sensory-friendly transportation so individuals can get to work, even when they cannot tolerate a bus or train.

While some people with Autism do just fine on a bus or train, we need other options for those who have difficulty with traditional public transportation.

Please take a moment and comment to let me know you were here and what you thought of my blog.

Wheelchairs are Not Restraint Chairs on Wheels

Sometimes, traditional wheelchairs are used as restraint chairs on wheels to move uncooperative service recipients from place to place. This can be deadly. 

In my experience, I was physically held in a wheelchair to be moved from unit to unit when I refused the transfer. From the struggle that occurred during the incident, I ended up on the floor underneath the wheelchair in a position where my diaphragm could not easily expand and breathing was difficult. This can cause positional asphyxia and people can die this way. 

I also witnessed staff strap a child into a wheelchair with restraints and move them to the Quiet Room. As a result of the struggle that ensued, the child ended up in an upside-down position with the restraints wrapped around the child’s neck. This can cause strangulation. 

Rather than using makeshift restraints (I.e. Traditional wheelchairs), we need to purchase “real” restraint chairs with wheels and use safe and appropriate ways of moving uncooperative service recipients from place to place.