Evidence Hub

Non-pharmacological de-escalation techniques used to manage acute severe behavioural disturbance in children and adolescents presenting to emergency departments: secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial

Klein K, Selman C, Kochar A, Shellshear D, Borland ML, George S, Jani S, Tham D et al.

Archives of disease in childhood, 2026

348 participants

Abstract

Objective: To describe the frequency and nature of non-pharmacological de-escalation methods used for children and adolescents presenting to emergency departments (EDs) with acute severe behavioural disturbance (ASBD).

Design: Secondary analysis of a randomised, controlled, open-label, multicentre trial of oral olanzapine versus oral diazepam for the management of ASBD.

Setting: Nine EDs in Australia between October 2021 and November 2023.

Participants: Children aged 9-17 years, for whom information on non-pharmacological de-escalation attempts was recorded, who ultimately required oral sedative medication to manage their ASBD.

Main outcome measures: The frequency and nature of the use of non-pharmacological de-escalation methods for children and adolescents presenting to EDs in a state of ASBD.

Results: There were 348 participants enrolled in the randomised controlled trial. This study reports on the 337 of 348 participants (97%) for whom information was recorded regarding non-pharmacological de-escalation attempts during the trial period. Verbal de-escalation was the most commonly attempted technique (96%) followed by active listening (75%). The frequency and nature of de-escalation techniques used were similar across the nine participating sites.

Conclusions: A variety of non-pharmacological de-escalation strategies are used among patients who require oral sedative medication. There is a need for studies to investigate whether there are optimal first-line de-escalation…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 348 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free