2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Aims to Reduce Coercive Measures in Forensic Inpatient Treatment: A 9-Year Observational Study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Protecting the human rights is particularly important within the forensic context because patients in forensic psychiatry are not admitted voluntarily and so the treatment itself is of a coercive nature. Coercive measures ( i.e., actions against the will of the patient such as forced medication, seclusion or restraint) form an additional incision of personal rights. Although the use of coercion within forensic psychiatric institutions remains controversial, little empirical research has been conducted on the use of coercive measures within forensic settings. The study presented here can contribute to close this research gap by informing about rates of coercive measures within the present institution. National and international organizations on the prevention of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment have emphasized the need to keep the incidents of coercive measures to a minimum. Criticisms by such organizations on high rates of seclusion, restraint, and compulsory medication have led to organizational changes within the present institution which is Switzerland’s largest forensic clinic with an average of 124 patients per year. After a first visit of such a committee, e.g., the detailed documentation of coercive measures became obligatory and part of special reports. Changes in the use of coercive measures are presented here. Data on coercive measures was analyzed for years 2010 to 2018. With respect to the most invasive coercive measurement, restraint, a minimum of four patients in 2017 and a maximum of 14 patients in 2010 have been subject to this form of coercive measurement. A minimum of sixteen patients in 2012 and a maximum of 40 patients in 2010 were secluded. Though total number and duration show a trend towards a reduction in severity of coercive measures on average, a few patients are not responsive to deescalating interventions. Preventive mechanisms, documentation standards, and efforts to ensure humane and adequate treatment are discussed under ethical considerations of coercive measures within court mandated treatment.

          Related collections

          Most cited references38

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Incidence of seclusion and restraint in psychiatric hospitals: a literature review and survey of international trends.

          The aim of this study was to identify quantitative data on the use of seclusion and restraint in different countries and on initiatives to reduce these interventions. Combined literature review on initiatives to reduce seclusion and restraint, and epidemiological data on the frequency and means of use in the 21st century in different countries. Unpublished study was detected by contacting authors of conference presentations. Minimum requirements for the inclusion of data were reporting the incidence of coercive measures in complete hospital populations for defined periods and related to defined catchment areas. There are initiatives to gather data and to develop new clinical practice in several countries. However, data on the use of seclusion and restraint are scarcely available so far. Data fulfilling the inclusion criteria could be detected from 12 different countries, covering single or multiple hospitals in most counties and complete national figures for two countries (Norway, Finland). Both mechanical restraint and seclusion are forbidden in some countries for ethical reasons. Available data suggest that there are huge differences in the percentage of patients subject to and the duration of coercive interventions between countries. Databases on the use of seclusion and restraint should be established using comparable key indicators. Comparisons between countries and different practices can help to overcome prejudice and improve clinical practice.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Assessment and management of agitation in psychiatry: Expert consensus.

            Psychomotor agitation is associated with different psychiatric conditions and represents an important issue in psychiatry. Current recommendations on agitation in psychiatry are not univocal. Actually, an improper assessment and management may result in unnecessary coercive or sedative treatments. A thorough and balanced review plus an expert consensus can guide assessment and treatment decisions.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Treatment pressures, leverage, coercion, and compulsion in mental health care

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Front Psychiatry
                Front Psychiatry
                Front. Psychiatry
                Frontiers in Psychiatry
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                1664-0640
                27 May 2020
                2020
                : 11
                : 465
                Affiliations
                [1] 1Department of Forensic Psychiatry, University Hospital of Psychiatry Zurich , Zurich, Switzerland
                [2] 2Department of Psychology, Fern Universität in Hagen , Hagen, Germany
                Author notes

                Edited by: Birgit Angela Völlm, University of Rostock, Germany

                Reviewed by: Andrea Fiorillo, University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, Italy; Marie-Hélène Goulet, Université de Montréal, Canada; Marije E. Keulen-de Vos, Forensic Psychiatric Center (FPC), Netherlands; Jack Tomlin, University of Rostock, Germany

                *Correspondence: Nathalie Brackmann, nathalie.brackmann@ 123456puk.zh.ch

                This article was submitted to Forensic Psychiatry, a section of the journal Frontiers in Psychiatry

                Article
                10.3389/fpsyt.2020.00465
                7267051
                7718181d-348a-43d3-8003-529a19c76f2b
                Copyright © 2020 Lau, Brackmann, Mokros and Habermeyer

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                History
                : 10 October 2019
                : 06 May 2020
                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 4, Equations: 0, References: 39, Pages: 8, Words: 5473
                Categories
                Psychiatry
                Original Research

                Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry
                prevention of torture,forensic psychiatry,seclusion,restraint,schizophrenia

                Comments

                Comment on this article