Dignity: The elephant in the room in psychiatric inpatient care? A systematic review and thematic synthesis

Barriers to maintaining dignity for patients with schizophrenia: A qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Since dignity is one of the fundamental rights of each patient, maintaining patients' dignity is essential. Unfortunately, in many cases, particularly among patients with schizophrenia (SCZ), dignity is not fully respected. Nonetheless, there is limited knowledge regarding this matter in Middle Eastern Nations.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to identify the barriers to maintaining dignity for patients with schizophrenia from the perspective of patients with schizophrenia, their family caregivers, and healthcare personnel.

RESEARCH DESIGN

This qualitative study was conducted with patients (n = 16), family caregivers (n = 4), and healthcare personnel (n = 6) who were selected using a purposeful sampling method. The data were collected through semi-structured, in-depth face-to-face interviews until the data reached saturation. Data were analyzed using the Graneheim and Lundman method.

ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

The Research Ethics Committee of Urmia University of Medical Sciences (IR.UMSU.REC.1401.099).

FINDINGS

Analysis of the interviews revealed two main themes and five subthemes as the barriers to maintaining dignity for patients with schizophrenia. The main themes included "Black shadow of stigma" (three subthemes: "Facing the fear and discrimination of others," "Misconceptions in society," and "Social rejection") and "Facing violations" (two subthemes: "Basic human rights violation" and "Negative emotional responses").

CONCLUSION

Patients' dignity with schizophrenia was at a low level due to the negative attitude of society toward these patients. In this respect, the basic human rights violations, social rejection, and misconceptions were abundant in society and care centers. An in-depth comprehension of the threatening factors affecting dignity can assist policymakers in safeguarding their dignity through effective programs.

Evidence synthesis on coercion in mental health: An umbrella review

Coercion in mental healthcare is ubiquitous and affects the physical health, recovery and psychological and emotional well-being of those who experience it. Numerous studies have explored different issues related to coercion, and the present umbrella review aims to gather, evaluate and synthesise the evidence found across systematic reviews. The protocol, registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020196713), included 46 systematic reviews and meta-analyses of primary studies whose main theme was coercion and which were obtained from databases (Medline/PubMed, PsycINFO, EMBASE and CINAHL) and repositories of systematic reviews following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. All the reviews were subjected to independent assessment of quality and risk of bias and were grouped in two categories: (1) evidence on specific coercive measures (including Community Treatment Orders, forced treatment, involuntary admissions, seclusion and restriction and informal coercion), taking into account their prevalence, related factors, effectiveness, harmful effects and alternatives to reduce their use; and (2) experiences, perceptions and attitudes concerning coercion of professionals, mental health service users and their caregivers or relatives. This umbrella review can be useful to professionals and users in addressing the wide variety of aspects encompassed by coercion and the implications for professionals' daily clinical practice in mental health units. This research received funding from two competitive calls.

Feeling coerced during voluntary and involuntary psychiatric hospitalisation: A review and meta-aggregation of qualitative studies

Objective

This review aimed to provide an aggregative synthesis of the qualitative evidence on patients' experienced coercion during voluntary and involuntary psychiatric hospitalisation.

Design

A qualitative review.

Data sources

The search was conducted, in five bibliographic databases: Embase.com, Ovid MEDLINE(R) ALL, APA PsycINFO Ovid, Web of Science Core Collection and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.

Review methods

Following the Joanna Briggs Institute approach, a systematized procedure was applied throughout the review process, from data search to synthesis of results. The reporting of this review was guided by the standards of the PRISMA 2020 statement. The quality of the included studies was critically appraised by two independent reviewers using the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist. Included findings were synthesized using meta-aggregation. Confidence in the review findings was assessed following the Confidence in the Output of Qualitative research synthesis (ConQual) approach.

Results

A total of 423 studies were identified through the literature search and 26 were included in the meta-aggregation. Totally, 151 findings were extracted and aggregated into 27 categories and 7 synthesized findings. The synthesized findings focused on: the patients' experience of the hospitalisation and the associated feeling of coercion; the factors affecting this feeling, such as the involvement in the decision-making process, the relationships with the staff and the perception of the hospital treatment as effective and safe; the coping strategies adopted to deal with it and the patients' suggestions for alternatives. All synthesized findings reached an overall confidence score of "moderate". The seven findings were downgraded one level due to dependability limitations of the included studies.

Conclusion

Based on these findings, seven recommendations for clinical practice where developed, such as fostering care ethics, promoting patients' voice and shared decision-making, and enhancing patients' perceived closeness, respect and fairness. Five recommendations for future research were also prompted, for instance improving the methodological quality and cultural variation of future qualitative studies, and exploring the psychosocial impact of experienced coercion on patients. For these recommendations to be effectively implemented, a profound change in the structure and culture of the mental health system should be promoted. The involvement of patients in the design, development and scientific evaluation of this change is strongly recommended.

Dignity, coercion and involuntary psychiatric care: a study of involuntary and voluntary psychiatry inpatients in Dublin

OBJECTIVES

There is a paucity of research about psychiatric inpatients' experience of dignity. Most of the limited literature on this topic is qualitative. Our study provides quantitative data about self-rated dignity among involuntary and voluntary psychiatry inpatients. We explore relationships between perceived dignity and legal status, coercion, level of insight, diagnosis, and therapeutic alliance, among other parameters.

METHODS

We recruited 107 participants aged 18 years or over from two inpatient psychiatric units in Dublin, Ireland over a 30-month period. Interviews consisted of structured, validated assessment tools. Demographic and clinical data were obtained from patient charts.

RESULTS

Patient Dignity Inventory (PDI) score was non-normally distributed (skewed to the right), with a median score of 63.0 out of 125 (inter-quartile range: 40.0-80.0). On multi-variable testing, lower self-rated dignity was associated with higher perceived coercion, better insight and more negative symptoms. There was no association between dignity and gender, employment status, marital status, ethnicity, age, admission status, diagnosis, working alliance, positive symptoms or cognition.

CONCLUSIONS

Lack of dignity is linked with perceived coercion and negative symptoms, and is seen in patients with better insight. These links merit further study if we are to understand patient dignity in a more nuanced and useful way.KEYPOINTSWe interviewed psychiatric inpatients using the Patient Dignity Inventory and other structured assessment tools.There was no significant difference between voluntary and involuntary patient groups' self-rated dignity.Less self-rated dignity was seen in patients with higher levels of perceived coercion.Patients with better insight reported lower dignity.Dignity scores were not significantly associated with age, gender, ethnicity, diagnosis or length of stay in hospital.

Capacity to consent to treatment in psychiatry inpatients - a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Mental capacity for treatment decisions in psychiatry inpatients is an important ethical and legal concern, especially in light of changes in mental capacity legislation in many jurisdictions.

AIMS

To conduct a systematic review of literature examining the prevalence of mental capacity for treatment decisions among voluntary and involuntary psychiatry inpatients, and to assess any correlations between research tools used to measure mental capacity and binary judgements using criteria such as those in capacity legislation.

METHOD

We searched PsycINFO, Ovid MEDLINE and EMBASE for studies assessing mental capacity for treatment decisions in people admitted voluntarily and involuntarily to psychiatric hospitals.

RESULTS

Forty-five papers emanating from 33 studies were identified. There was huge variability in study methods and often selective populations, but the prevalence of decision-making capacity varied between 5% and 83.7%. These figures resulted from studies using cut-off scores or categorical criteria only. The prevalence of decision-making capacity among involuntary patients ranged from 7.7% to 42%, and among voluntary patients ranged from 29% to 97.9%. Two papers showed positive correlations between clinicians' judgement of decision-making capacity and scores on the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool for Treatment; two papers showed no such correlation.

CONCLUSIONS

Not all voluntary psychiatry inpatients possess mental capacity and many involuntary patients do. This paradox needs to be clarified and resolved in mental health legislation; supported decision-making can help with this task.Key PointsLegislative changes for mental capacity are taking place in many jurisdictions.This is an important human rights issue for many people, including psychiatry inpatients.In our review, we found the prevalence of decision-making capacity varies between 5% and 83.7% in psychiatry inpatients.Not all voluntary inpatients have decision-making capacity.Many involuntary inpatients have mental capacity to make decisions.Supported decision-making can help those with impairments in their mental capacity.

Ageism, human rights and ethical aspects of end-of-life care for older people with serious mental illness

There are many complex concepts to consider during end-of-life discussions and advance care planning, especially when vulnerable populations such as older individuals with serious mental illness are involved. This article aims to summarize some of these important concepts, such as the effects of ageism, preservation of human rights and dignity, supported or shared decision making and palliative approaches. It emerged from a study that found two thirds of 100 participants 60 years of age and older with serious mental illness had end-of-life decision-making capacity. This finding highlighted the individual and contextual nature of decision-making capacity, the importance of consideration of individual values and protection of human dignity during end-of-life care. Healthcare providers have a duty to initiate end-of-life and advance care discussions, to optimize decision-making capacity, and to protect autonomous decision-making. Chronological age or diagnostic categories should never be used as reasons for discrimination and all patients should receive end-of-life care in keeping with their preferences and values.

Coercive Measures in Psychiatry: A Review of Ethical Arguments

Introduction: Coercion is frequent in clinical practice, particularly in psychiatry. Since it overrides some fundamental rights of patients (notably their liberty of movement and decision-making), adequate use of coercion requires legal and ethical justifications. In this article, we map out the ethical elements used in the literature to justify or reject the use of coercive measures limiting freedom of movement (seclusion, restraint, involuntary hospitalization) and highlight some important issues. Methods: We conducted a narrative review of the literature by searching the PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Google Scholar and Cairn.info databases with the keywords "coercive/compulsory measures/care/treatment, coercion, seclusion, restraint, mental health, psychiatry, involuntary/compulsory hospitalization/admission, ethics, legitimacy." We collected all ethically relevant elements used in the author's justifications for or against coercive measures limiting freedom of movement (e.g., values, rights, practical considerations, relevant feelings, expected attitudes, risks of side effects), and coded, and ordered them into categories. Results: Some reasons provided in the literature are presented as justifying an absolute prohibition on coercion; they rely on the view that some fundamental rights, such as autonomy, are non-negotiable. Most ethically relevant elements, however, can be used in a balanced weighting of reasons to favor or reject coercive measures in certain circumstances. Professionals mostly agree that coercion is only legitimate in exceptional circumstances, when the infringement of some values (e.g., freedom of movement, short-term autonomy) is the only means to fulfill other, more important values and goals (e.g., patient's safety, the long-term rebuilding of patient's identity and autonomy). The results of evaluations vary according to which moral elements are prioritized over others. Moreover, we found numerous considerations (e.g., conditions, procedural values) for how to ensure that clinicians apply fair decision-making procedures related to coercion. Based on this analysis, we highlight vital topics that need further development. Conclusion: Before using coercive measures limiting freedom of movement, clinicians should consider and weigh all ethically pertinent elements in the situation and actively search for alternatives that are more respectful of patient's well-being and rights. Coercive measures decided upon after a transparent, carefully balanced evaluation process are more likely to be adequate, understood, and accepted by patients and caregivers.