Author:
Wullschleger Alexandre,Vandamme Angelika,Mielau Juliane,Heinz Andreas,Bermpohl Felix,Mahler Lieselotte,Montag Christiane
Abstract
Abstract
Background
Subjective perception of coercion has gained attention as an important outcome. However, little is known about its relation to patients’ appraisal of the justification of coercive measures. The present study aims to analyze the relationship between patients’ appraisal of the justification of coercive measures and their level of perceived coercion.
Methods
This study presents a secondary analysis of the results of a multi-center RCT conducted to evaluate the effects of post-coercion review. Patients who experienced at least one coercive measure during their hospital stay were included in the trial. Participants’ appraisal of the justification of coercive measures was categorized into patient-related and staff-related justifications. Subjective coercion was assessed using the Coercion Experience Scale (CES) and used as dependent variable in a multivariate regression model.
Results
97 participants who completed the CES were included in the analysis. CES scores were significantly associated with the perception of the coercive measure as justified by staff-related factors (B = 0,540, p < 0,001), as well as with higher level of negative symptoms (B = 0,265, p = 0,011), and with mechanical restraint compared to seclusion (B=-0,343, p = 0,017).
Conclusions
Patients’ perceptions of coercive measures as justified by staff-related factors such as arbitrariness or incompetence of staff are related to higher levels of perceived coercion. Multiprofessional efforts must be made to restrict the use of coercive measures and to ensure a transparent and sustainable decision-making process, particularly with patients showing high levels of negative symptoms. Such key elements should be part of all coercion reduction programs.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Psychiatry and Mental health
Reference31 articles.
1. Chieze M, Hurst S, Kaiser S, Sentissi O. Effects of Seclusion and Restraint in Adult Psychiatry: a systematic review. Front Psychiatry. 2019;10:491.
2. Frueh BC, Knapp RG, Cusack KJ, Grubaugh AL, Sauvageot JA, Cousins VC, et al. Patients’ reports of traumatic or harmful experiences within the psychiatric setting. Psychiatr Serv. 2005;56(9):1123–33.
3. Szmukler G. The UN Convention on the Rights of persons with disabilities: ‘Rights, will and preferences’ in relation to mental health disabilities. Int J Law Psychiatry. 2017;54:90–7.
4. Hirsch S, Steinert T. Measures to avoid Coercion in Psychiatry and their efficacy. Deutsches Arzteblatt International. 2019;116(19):336–43.
5. Bechdolf A, Bühling-Schindowski F, Weinmann S, Baumgardt J, Kampmann M, Sauter D et al. DGPPN pilot study on the implementation of the S3 guideline Prevention of coercion: prevention and therapy of aggressive behavior in adults. Nervenarzt. 2021.
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献