Involuntary Medication, Seclusion, and Restraint in German Psychiatric Hospitals after the Adoption of Legislation in 2013

The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) is a major milestone in safeguarding the rights of persons with disabilities. However, the General Comment on Article 12 of the CRPD threatens to undermine critical rights for persons with mental disabilities, including the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health, access to justice, the right to liberty, and the right to life. Stigma and discrimination might also increase. Much hinges on the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities' view that all persons have legal capacity at all times irrespective of mental status, and hence involuntary admission and treatment, substitute decision-making, and diversion from the criminal justice system are deemed indefensible. The General Comment requires urgent consideration with the full participation of practitioners and a broad range of user and family groups.

To compare the clinical management of typical scenarios by using three case vignettes in a substantial number of European countries. Three case vignettes and an associated questionnaire, filled in and finalised by at least two experts from each country. Legislation and clinical practice varies widely across the 16 included countries. No specific pattern emerged. Certain practices (intravenous medication, mechanical restraint, net beds and forensic transfers, respectively) only exist in few countries. Legislation for involuntary medication is most restrictive in the Netherlands. There is little harmonisation and a lack of consistent standards within and across European countries regarding treatment and management of violent patients.

To investigate the incidence of coercive measures in standard psychiatric care in different psychiatric hospitals. We developed a common documentation of mechanical restraint, seclusion, and medication by coercion, and introduced it in 10 participating hospitals. We developed software able to process the data and to calculate four key indicators for routine clinical use. 9.5% of 36,690 cases treated in 2004 were exposed to coercive measures with the highest percentage among patients with organic psychiatric disorders (ICD-10 F0) (28.0%). Coercive measures were applied a mean 5.4 times per case and lasted a mean 9.7 h each. The incidence and duration of coercive measures varied highly between different diagnostic groups and different hospitals. Use of detailed guidelines for seclusion and restraint was associated with a lower incidence of coercive measures. Data interpretation should consider numerous confounding factors such as case mix and hospital characteristics. Suggestions on how to cope with ethical and technical problems in the processing of large multi-site data sets in routine clinical use are made.