"Treat me with respect". A systematic review and thematic analysis of psychiatric patients' reported perceptions of the situations associated with the process of coercion

Perspectives on Involuntary Treatment of Anorexia Nervosa

Involuntary treatment of anorexia nervosa is an option in cases in which the patient's life or other people's lives are at risk or, in some countries, to prevent the deterioration of the illness. Involuntary treatment is often regarded as controversial and has been intensely debated, although typically with few references to documented knowledge. This paper provides a research perspective of the topic by examine data in the field of the involuntary treatment of anorexia nervosa to pinpoint present knowledge as well as areas demanding clinical action or research attention. The prevalence of involuntary treatment in general as well as specific measures is described and possible early markers of patients at risk of involuntary treatment are discussed. Studies including patients' perspectives of involuntary treatment show the complexity of this treatment, its initiation, and its consequences. To qualify future discussions, improve current practice, and minimize involuntary treatment in general as well as on an individual level, at least four areas need attention: (i) the present specific symptoms of anorexia nervosa and their imminent consequences, (ii) illness history, (iii) overall psychiatric symptoms and general functioning, and (iv) contextual sphere of the patient. In particular, the last two require attention from both clinicians and researchers. Furthermore, critical evaluation of the attitudes of both patients and health care professionals toward each other and the treatment is recommended.

Reducing coercion in mental healthcare

AIMS

To examine the extent and nature of coercive practices in mental healthcare and to consider the ethical, human rights challenges facing the current clinical practices in this area. We consider the epidemiology of coercion in mental health and appraise the efficacy of attempts to reduce coercion and make specific recommendations for making mental healthcare less coercive and more consensual.

METHODS

We identified references through searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL Plus. Search was limited to articles published from January 1980 to May 2018. Searches were carried out using the terms mental health (admission or detain* or detention or coercion) and treatment (forcible or involuntary or seclusion or restraint). Articles published during this period were further identified through searches in the authors' personal files and Google Scholar. Articles resulting from searches and relevant references cited in those articles were reviewed. Articles and reviews of non-psychiatric population, children under 16 years, and those pertaining exclusively to people with dementia were excluded.

RESULTS

Coercion in its various guises is embedded in mental healthcare. There is very little research in this area and the absence of systematic and routinely collected data is a major barrier to research as well as understanding the nature of coercion and attempts to address this problem. Examples of good practice in this area are limited and there is hardly any evidence pertaining to the generalisability or sustainability of individual programmes. Based on the review, we make specific recommendations to reduce coercive care. Our contention is that this will require more than legislative tinkering and will necessitate a fundamental change in the culture of psychiatry. In particular, we must ensure that clinical practice never compromises people's human rights. It is ethically, clinically and legally necessary to address the problem of coercion and make mental healthcare more consensual.

CONCLUSION

All forms of coercive practices are inconsistent with human rights-based mental healthcare. This is global challenge that requires urgent action.

Seclusion versus mechanical restraint in psychiatry - a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Seclusion and mechanical restraint are coercive interventions used at psychiatric hospitals when patients are at imminent risk of harming themselves and/or others. Although these interventions have been used for decades, it remains unclear whether seclusion or mechanical restraint is superior in terms of efficacy and safety. Therefore, we aimed to systematically review studies comparing the intended and unintended effects of seclusion and mechanical restraint.

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed and Embase was conducted in adherence to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guideline. Quantitative studies comparing the intended and unintended effects of seclusion and mechanical restraint were included.

RESULTS

The search identified 868 unique records. Fourteen of these (3 reporting on randomized controlled trials and 11 reporting on observational studies) met the predefined inclusion criteria. The study methodology including outcome measures varied significantly across studies. The results of the 11 studies using a subjective outcome measure (patient preference/emotions) were in favour of seclusion, while the 3 studies using an objective outcome measure (duration of coercion/need for transition to other coercive measure) favoured mechanical restraint. There was a high risk of residual confounding by indication and/or bias affecting the reported results.

CONCLUSION

Based on the available literature, it cannot be determined whether seclusion is superior to mechanical restraint or vice versa. Further studies using stringent methodology are required to answer this question. A cautious conclusion based on this review is that the availability of both methods seems necessary - as both have their pros and cons.

Construct validity of the Mechanical Restraint - Confounders, Risk, Alliance Score (MR-CRAS): a new risk assessment instrument

Background: A new short-term risk assessment instrument, the Mechanical Restraint - Confounders, Risk, Alliance Score (MR - CRAS) checklist, including three subscales with altogether 18 items, has been developed in close collaboration with forensic mental health nurses, psychiatrists' etc., and shows evidence of being comprehensible, relevant, comprehensive and easy to use for assessing the patient's readiness to be released from mechanical restraint. Aim: The aim of this study was to investigate whether the subscales: confounders, risk and parameters of alliance constituted separate subscales and needed further revisions. Materials and methods: MR - CRAS was field-study tested among nurses, nurse assistants and social and health care assistants in 13 Danish closed forensic mental health inpatient units, and a Mokken analysis of scalability and a Spearman correlation analysis were performed. Results: MR - CRAS was completed by clinicians in 143 episodes of mechanical restraint, representing 88 patients, with a mean duration of 63.25 hours. Most patients were younger men, diagnosed within the schizophrenia spectrum. One-third of the patients had repeated mechanical restraint episodes ranging between 2 and 8 episodes. MR - CRAS and especially the parameters of alliance were perceived as usable for assessment of the patient's readiness to be released from mechanical restraint. The psychometric analyses showed that the three subscales were unidimensional. Conclusions: The study shows evidence of the construct validity of MR - CRAS among clinicians at closed forensic mental health inpatient units. MR - CRAS contributes with a common language and structured, systematic and transparent observations and assessments on an hour by hour basis during mechanical restraint.

Refusing Medication Therapy in Involuntary Inpatient Treatment-A Multiperspective Qualitative Study

Objective: Between June 2012 and February 2013, two decisions by the German Federal Constitutional Court restricted the so-far common practice to use involuntary medication in inpatients who were involuntarily hospitalized. Up to then, involuntary medication was justified by a judge's decision on involuntary hospitalization. It could be applied according to clinical judgment even against the declared will of a patient. Since then, all domestic laws related to involuntary treatment had to be revised. For several months, involuntary medication was allowed only in an emergency. We were interested in the impact of the changed legal framework on the experiences of inpatients, their relatives, and clinical professionals during that time. Methods: Thirty-two interviews were analyzed qualitatively using a grounded theory methodology framework. Results: As a consequence of the restrictions to involuntary medication, special efforts by nursing and medical staff were required concerning de-escalation, ward management, and the promotion of treatment commitment in inpatients who refused medication. Family caregivers were also under strong pressure. They wanted to help and to protect their relatives, but some also welcomed the use of coercion if the patient refused treatment. Most of the interviewed patients had not even noticed that their rights to refuse medication had been strengthened. They complained primarily about the involuntary hospital stay and the associated limitations of their everyday lives. While patients and family members evaluated the refusal of medication from a biographical perspective, the mental health care professionals' focus was on the patients' symptoms, and they understood the situation from a professional perspective. It was obvious that, in any of the four perspectives, the problem of feeling restricted was crucial and that all groups strived to gain back their scope of action. Conclusion: The temporary ban on involuntary medication questioned the hitherto common routines in inpatient treatment, in particular when patients refused to take medication. Each of the different groups did not feel good about the situation, for different reasons, however. As a consequence, it might be indispensable to increase awareness of the different perspectives and to focus the efforts on the establishment of nonviolent treatment structures and practices.

Forensic psychiatric patients' perceptions of situations associated with mechanical restraint: A qualitative interview study

To reduce the use and duration of mechanical restraint in forensic settings and ensure evidence-based patient care, we need more knowledge about patients' subjective experiences and perceptions. The aim was to investigate forensic psychiatric patients' perceptions of situations associated with the use of mechanical restraint and what they perceive as factors impacting the use and duration of mechanical restraint. Twenty participants were interviewed. Four themes were identified through a thematic analysis: 'overt protest reactions', 'silent protest reactions', 'illness-related behaviour', and 'genuinely calm', which together characterize patients' perceptions of their ways of acting and reacting during mechanical restraint episodes. These themes are linked together in two patterns in the process of mechanical restraint: 'pattern of protest' and 'pattern of illness'. Further research is needed to illuminate the associations between patients' perceptions of being subjected to mechanical restraint and ways of acting and reacting through the process of mechanical restraint.

Validation of a short version of the Coercion Experience Scale (CES-18): Psychometric characteristics in a Spanish sample

The Coercion Experience Scale (CES) is a questionnaire that evaluates the subjective experience of coercion during psychiatric hospitalization. This study aimed to assess a short version of the Coercion Experience Scale (CES-18) in a Spanish Sample (N = 114). Two authors independently selected the items, choosing those that could also be applied to the experience of coercion after the use of forced medication. Reliability was estimated using internal consistency coefficients. Internal validity was assessed by means of a factorial analysis based on the method of extraction of main components and using orthogonal rotation VARIMAX. Convergent and discriminatory validity was evaluated by correlation between the total score of the CES-18 with the original CES and a Visual Analogue Scale, The Davidson Trauma Scale and the Client Assessment of Treatment Scale. The CES-18 showed adequate internal consistency (Cronbach α = 0.940). Factor analysis resulted in a two-factor solution (Coercion and Humiliation and Fear) explaining 64.2% of the total variance. The correlation between the original CES and CES-18 was adequate (r = 0.968). The scores suggested good divergent and convergent validity. The Spanish language CES-18 demonstrated adequate psychometric proprieties in order to assess perceived coercion during psychiatric hospitalization.

Coercion and power in psychiatry: A qualitative study with ex-patients

OBJECTIVE

Coercion is a controversial issue in mental health care. Recent research highlights that coercion is a relational phenomenon, although, it remains unclear how this intersubjective context should be understood. The aim of this study is to propose an interactional model of the relational aspects of coercion that enhances theoretical understanding, based on the assumptions of patients.

METHOD

The research question was studied by means of interpretative phenomenological analysis. Twelve people who had psychiatric hospitalisations were interviewed in-depth, using broad open questions relating to the experience of coercion and power in psychiatry. Data were collected in 2016 and 2017 in Belgium.

RESULTS

Across participants' accounts we observed a specific structure. The relational quality of coercion seemed to be embedded within a process where individuals were one-sidedly approached as a 'sick patient', which led to profound segregation between staff and patients. This segregation caused a form of de-subjectivation: participants felt that important aspects of their subjectivity were neglected and they experienced professionals as de-subjectivated. They felt as if power resides within the (non-) interactions between patients and mental health workers. De-subjectivation arose and was enlarged within relations by broken contact, by silence in coercive acts, and by the necessity of patients to conform to the professionals' treatment regime. Helpful encounters that were not deemed coercive were those where patients and staff were individuated, which altered their relation.

CONCLUSIONS

To understand the relational quality of coercion, interventions like seclusion and house rules should also be understood within this structure of de-subjectivation. We need to tackle this dynamic if we want to reduce coercion in psychiatric care.

The attributes of successful de-escalation and restraint teams

Inpatient violence is a widespread problem on psychiatric wards often with serious consequences, and psychiatric hospitals have set up teams to de-escalate and restrain patients with aggression (D-E&R teams) which are specially trained to respond to it in a safe manner. Successful de-escalation and restraining of patients with aggression depend not only on the methods learned in training but also on the confidence of the team. Therefore, it is of great importance to understand the factors that enhance D-E&R teams' competence in managing patients with aggression in a successful and safe manner. The aim of this hermeneutic study was to identify and understand those factors. Purposive-expert sampling was used and twelve D-E&R team members with significant experience participated in the study. The central theme found was a safe team. Ensuring the safety of the team and its members was found to be a prerequisite for successful teamwork in managing patients with aggression in a safe manner. This central theme falls into two interacting domains: the internal dynamics of the team and the team's interaction with patients. Several themes, such as mutual trust, flexibility, and knowing one's role, influence these domains and hence strengthen or weaken the confidence and safety of the team. The findings of the study will contribute to a better understanding of these factors; understanding which could be used to improve the training, supervision, and quality assessment of D-E&R teams and hence lead to more safety in psychiatric wards.

Comparing Attitudes to Containment Measures of Patients, Health Care Professionals and Next of Kin

Background: In clinical psychiatric practice, health care professionals (HCP) must decide in exceptional circumstances after the weighing of interests, which, if any, containment measures including coercion are to be used. Here, the risk for patients, staff, and third parties, in addition to therapeutic considerations, factor into the decision. Patients' preference and the inclusion of relatives in these decisions are important; therefore, an understanding of how patients and next of kin (NOK) experience different coercive measures is crucial for clinical decision making. The aim of this study is to compare how patients, HCP, and NOK assess commonly used coercive measures. Methods: A sample of 435 patients, 372 HCP, and 230 NOK completed the Attitudes to Containment Measures Questionnaire (ACMQ). This standardized self-rating questionnaire assessed the degree of acceptance or rejection of 11 coercive measures. Results: In general, HCPs rated the coercive measures as more acceptable than did NOK and patients. The largest discrepancy in the ratings was found in regard to the application of coercive intramuscular injection of medication (effect size: 1.0 HCP vs. patients). However, the ratings by NOK were significantly closer to the patients' ratings compared to patients and HCP. The only exception was the acceptance of treatment in a closed acute psychiatric ward, which was deemed significantly more acceptable by NOK than by patients. Also, patients who had experienced coercive measures themselves more strongly refused other measures. Conclusion: Patients most firmly rejected intramuscular injections, and the authors agree that these should only be used with reservation considering a high threshold. This knowledge about the discrepancy of the ratings should therefore be incorporated into professional training of HCP.