Author:
Gavrilovic Haustein Natalija,Freudiger Maurice,Hunziker Anna,Hepp Urs,Jellestad Lena,von Känel Roland,Stulz Niklaus
Abstract
Abstract
Background
Coercive measures continue to be an important topic in psychiatry. However, there is no proof of the effectiveness of the use of coercive measures, especially with suicidal people. For many years, attempts have been made to replace such measures with alternative noncoercive intervention options. This paper aims to clarify the situation of coercive measures, more precisely seclusions, in a general psychiatric hospital in Switzerland. It focuses on compulsory measures in patients with suicidal tendencies.
Method
In this single-centre retrospective cohort study, we used routinely collected medical data and performed qualitative analyses of medical histories to examine whether alternative measures to seclusion had been offered and/or provided to patients who had been secluded solely because of suicidality. Patients were aged 18–65 years and had received inpatient treatment at one of five adult acute care units at a general psychiatric hospital in Switzerland between September 2016 and December 2019.
Results
There were 5,935 inpatient treatment cases during the study period. Suicidality was rated as “acute” or “very high” at least once during the hospitalization in 219 (3.7%) cases. Of these, 60 were excluded from further analyses as they involved seclusion, but suicidality was not the exclusive indication for this measure. Coercive seclusion was imposed exclusively due to suicidality in 53 (33.3%) of the remaining 159 cases, whereas 106 (66.7%) cases were not secluded. The rates of seclusion among suicidal patients varied considerably between the hospital wards (13.0% to 55.3%). Suicidal patients with non-Swiss residence status and/or lacking language skills were particularly prone to be secluded. Additionally, alternative interventions were offered and provided significantly more frequently in the nonsecluded patients.
Conclusions
To avoid seclusion due to suicidal tendencies, it is necessary to have a general attitude of avoiding coercive measures at all costs. It is also important for qualified staff to be able to deal with challenging sociodemographic characteristics of patients such as foreign-language, which may require translators and intercultural interpreters.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Psychiatry and Mental health
Reference33 articles.
1. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie, Psychosomatik und Nervenheilkunde e.V. (DGPPN). Achtung der Selbstbestimmung und Anwendung von Zwang bei der Behandlung psychisch erkrankter Menschen: Eine ethische Stellungnahme der DGPPN. Nervenarzt. 2014;85:1419–31.
2. Steinert T. Ethische Überlegungen bei der Anwendung von Zwangsmassnahmen. In: Juckel G, Hoffmann K, editors. Ethische Entscheidungssituationen in Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie. Lengerich: Pabst Science Publishers; 2016. p. 123–42.
3. Prinsen EJD, Van Delden JJM. Can we justify eliminating coercive measures in psychiatry? J Med Ethics. 2009;35:69–73.
4. Schweizerische Akademie der Medizinischen Wissenschaften (SAMW). Zwangsmassnahmen in der Medizin. Basel: Gremper; 2018.
5. Raboch J, Kalisová L, Nawka A, Kitzlerová E, Onchev G, Karastergiou A, et al. Use of coercive measures during involuntary hospitalization: findings from ten European countries. Psychiatr Serv. 2010;61:1012–7.