Objective: Involuntary treatment in mental health care is a sensitive but rarely studied issue. This study was part of the European Evaluation of Coercion in Psychiatry and Harmonization of Best Clinical Practice (EUNOMIA) project. It assessed and compared the use of coercive measures in psychiatric inpatient facilities in ten European countries. Methods: The sample included 2,030 involuntarily admitted patients. Data were obtained on coercive measures (physical restraint, seclusion, and forced medication). Results: In total, 1,462 coercive measures were used with 770 patients (38%). The percentage of patients receiving coercive measures in each country varied between 21% and 59%. The most frequent reason for prescribing coercive measures was patient aggression against others. In eight of the countries, the most frequent measure used was forced medication, and in two of the countries mechanical restraint was the most frequent measure used. Seclusion was rarely administered and was reported in only six countries. A diagnosis of schizophrenia and more severe symptoms were associated with a higher probability of receiving coercive measures. Conclusions: Coercive measures were used in a substantial group of involuntarily admitted patients across Europe. Their use appeared to depend on diagnosis and the severity of illness, but use was also heavily influenced by the individual country. Variation across countries may reflect differences in societal attitudes and clinical traditions. (Psychiatric Services 61: 1012-1017, 2010)

/pdf/use-of-coercive-measures-during-involuntary-hospitalization-8l9ad5nhoy.pdf

Use of Coercive Measures During Involuntary Hospitalization: Findings From Ten European Countries

Evaluation of seclusion and restraint reduction programs in mental health: a systematic review

Objective:Several factors have been shown to be involved in decisions to use seclusion and restraint in psychiatric inpatient settings. This study examined whether staff perceptions of factors related to the care team and violence on the ward predicted use of seclusion and restraint in psychiatric wards. Methods:A total of 309 staff members (nurses, rehabilitation instructors, and nurse's aides) providing care to patients with serious mental disorders were recruited from eight university psychiatric hospitals and general-hospital psychiatric units in the province of Quebec. Factors assessed included sociodemographic characteristics, psychological distress, staff perceptions of aggression and of interaction between members of the psychiatric team (team climate), and organizational factors. Results:Bivariate analyses showed that certain aspects of the team climate, staff perceptions of aggression, and organizational factors were associated with greater use of seclusion and restraint. The final multivariate ...

https://ps.psychiatryonline.org/doi/pdf/10.1176/ps.62.5.pss6205_0484

Staff Perceptions and Organizational Factors as Predictors of Seclusion and Restraint on Psychiatric Wards

There is a lack of evidence to underpin decisions on what constitutes the most effective and least restrictive form of coercive intervention when responding to violent behavior. Therefore we compared ratings of effectiveness and subjective distress by 125 inpatients across four types of coercive interventions. Effectiveness was assessed through ratings of patient behavior immediately after exposure to a coercive measure and 24 h later. Subjective distress was examined using the Coercion Experience Scale at debriefing. Regression analyses were performed to compare these outcome variables across the four types of coercive interventions. Using univariate statistics, no significant differences in effectiveness and subjective distress were found between the groups, except that patients who were involuntarily medicated experienced significant less isolation during the measure than patients who underwent combined measures. However, when controlling for the effect of demographic and clinical characteristics, significant differences on subjective distress between the groups emerged: involuntary medication was experienced as the least distressing overall and least humiliating, caused less physical adverse effects and less sense of isolation. Combined coercive interventions, regardless of the type, caused significantly more physical adverse effects and feelings of isolation than individual interventions. In the absence of information on individual patient preferences, involuntary medication may be more justified than seclusion and mechanical restraint as a coercive intervention. Use of multiple interventions requires significant justification given their association with significant distress.

https://repub.eur.nl/pub/84898/REPUB_84898_OA.pdf

Evaluation of behavioral changes and subjective distress after exposure to coercive inpatient interventions

Seclusion with or without restraint is a measure used to manage patients with challenging behaviours. Although controversial, the intervention remains poorly documented, especially in Canadian psychiatric hospitals. The purpose of this study is to assess the prevalence of the measure and identify any correlated demographic characteristics and psychiatric disorders. Episodes of seclusion with or without restraint were extracted from a computerized, hospital-based system introduced specifically to track such interventions. Of 2721 patients hospitalized during that time, 23.2% (n = 632) were secluded with or without restraint, and 17.5% (n = 476) were secluded with restraint. Younger age, schizophrenia or other psychosis, bipolar and personality disorder, and longer stay in hospital are predictors of an episode of seclusion with or without restraint. Younger age, bipolar and personality disorders and a longer stay in hospital are predictors of an episode of seclusion with restraint. For patients who spent longer in seclusion and under restraint, there is a positive association with longer stay in hospital. In this inpatient psychiatric facility, seclusion with or without restraint thus appears to be common. More research is warranted to better identify the principal factors associated with seclusion and restraint and help reduce resort to these measures.

Prevalence and correlates of seclusion with or without restraint in a Canadian psychiatric hospital: a 2‐year retrospective audit

Seclusion with or without restraint is a measure for managing aggressive or agitated clients and promoting site security, particularly in an emergency psychiatric setting. The decision to control a potentially dangerous person's behaviour by removal or seclusion seems ethically justifiable in such a setting. However, although the decisions on these restrictive measures are based on rational needs, they are also influenced by the healthcare team's perceptions of the client and by the characteristics of the team and the environment. The purpose of this paper is to set out and categorize the factors in play in aggression- and agitation-management situations as perceived by the healthcare teams, particularly the nurses. The first part of the paper deals briefly with the settings in which control measures are applied in a province in eastern Canada and the effect of such measures on patients and healthcare teams. The second part identifies the factors involved in the management of agitation and aggression behaviour. The final part discusses the current spin-offs from this knowledge as well as promising paths for further research on the factors involved. The ultimate objective is to reduce recourse to coercive measures and enhance professional practices.

E. Ahern

Papers

Factors influencing decisions on seclusion and restraint