Long-term segregation in mental health hospitals: qualitative study of its impact and human rights implications
Background: Long-term segregation (LTS) is used in mental health hospitals in England to manage individuals perceived to pose a sustained risk of harm to others. Increasing evidence indicates that LTS causes significant psychological and physical harm and may breach international human rights standards. The HOPE(S) programme (2022–2025) was introduced nationally to reduce, and ultimately end, the use of LTS for autistic people, individuals with learning disabilities and children and young people. Aims: To explore the experiences of LTS from different perspectives and to examine its impact through a human rights lens. Method: Qualitative data were collected from 73 participants, including people with lived experience of LTS, family members, HOPE(S) practitioners, clinical staff, commissioners and regulators. Reflexive thematic analysis was conducted as part of a wider, mixed-methods evaluation of the HOPE(S) programme. Results: LTS was described by most participants as harmful, dehumanising and lacking in therapeutic value. Four interrelated themes emerged: (a) dehumanisation and erosion of personhood; (b) safeguarding and systemic failure; (c) psychological and relational harm; and (d) loss of hope and systemic inertia. These experiences reflected breaches of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Conclusions: LTS is not a therapeutic intervention and is associated with profound psychological harm and human rights violations. Systemic reform and implementation of rights-based, trauma-informed alternatives, such as the HOPE(S) model, are urgently required to safeguard well-being and dignity in mental healthcare.
Authors
- Kathryn Fradley (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2443-7368)
- Alina Haines-Delmont
Publication Details
- Journal
- e-space (Manchester Metropolitan University)
- Published
- 2026-02-02
- Primary Topic
- Healthcare Decision-Making and Restraints
- Type
- article
- Field-Weighted Citation Impact
- 0.00