Caregivers' perceptions of coercion in psychiatric hospital admission

Behind the screen of voluntary psychiatric hospital admissions: A qualitative exploration of treatment pressures and informal coercion in experiences of patients in Italy, Poland and the United Kingdom

BACKGROUND

Despite the extensive research and intense debate on coercion in psychiatry we have seen in recent years, little is still known about formally voluntarily admitted patients, who experience high levels of perceived coercion during their admission to a psychiatric hospital.

AIMS

The purpose of the present research was to explore forms of treatment pressure put on patients, not only by clinicians, but also by patients' relatives, during admission to psychiatric hospitals in Italy, Poland and the United Kingdom.

METHODS

Data were obtained via in-depth, semi-structured interviews with patients (N = 108) diagnosed with various mental disorders (ICD-10: F20-F49) hospitalised in psychiatric inpatient wards. Maximum variation sampling was applied to ensure the inclusion of patients with different socio-demographic and clinical characteristics. The study applied a common methodology to secure comparability and consistency across participating countries. The qualitative data from each country were transcribed verbatim, coded and subjected to theoretical thematic analysis.

RESULTS

The results of the analysis confirm that the legal classifications of involuntary and voluntary hospitalisation do not capture the fundamental distinctions between patients who are and are not coerced into treatment. Our findings show that the level of perceived coercion in voluntary patients ranges from 'persuasion' and 'interpersonal leverage' (categorised as treatment pressures) to 'threat', 'someone else's decisions' and 'violence' (categorised as informal coercion).

CONCLUSION

We suggest that the term 'treatment pressures' be applied to techniques for convincing patients to follow a suggested course of treatment by offering advice and support in getting professional help, as well as using emotional arguments based on the personal relationship with the patient. In turn, we propose to reserve the term 'informal coercion' to describe practices for pressuring patients into treatment by threatening them, by making them believe that they have no choice, and by taking away their power to make autonomous decisions.

Reweighing the Ethical Tradeoffs in the Involuntary Hospitalization of Suicidal Patients

Suicide is the 10th leading cause of death in the United States and the second cause of death among those ages 15-24 years. The current standard of care for suicidality management often involves an involuntary hospitalization deemed necessary by the attending psychiatrist. The purpose of this article is to reexamine the ethical tradeoffs inherent in the current practice of involuntary psychiatric hospitalization for suicidal patients, calling attention to the often-neglected harms inherent in this practice and proposing a path for future research. With accumulating evidence of the harms inherent in civil commitment, we propose that the relative value of this intervention needs to be reevaluated and more efficacious alternatives researched. Three arguments are presented: (1) that inadequate attention has been given to the harms resulting from the use of coercion and the loss of autonomy, (2) that inadequate evidence exists that involuntary hospitalization is an effective method to reduce deaths by suicide, and (3) that some suicidal patients may benefit more from therapeutic interventions that maximize and support autonomy and personal responsibility. Considering this evidence, we argue for a policy that limits the coercive hospitalization of suicidal individuals to those who lack decision-making capacity.

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.

Service users' perspective of their admission: a report of study findings

OBJECTIVES

The 'Service Users' Perspective of their Admission' study examined voluntarily and involuntarily admitted services users' perception of coercion during the admission process and whether this was associated with factors such as the therapeutic alliance, satisfaction with services, functioning and quality of life. This report aims to collate the findings of the study.

METHODS

The study was undertaken across three community mental health services in Ireland. Participants were interviewed before discharge and at 1 year using the MacArthur Admission Experience. Caregivers of participants were interviewed about their perception of coercion during the admission.

RESULTS

A total of 161 service users were interviewed and of those admitted involuntarily, 42% experienced at least one form of physical coercion. Service users admitted involuntarily reported higher levels of perceived coercion and less procedural justice than those admitted voluntarily. A total of 22% of voluntarily admitted service users reported levels of perceived coercion comparable with involuntarily admitted service users and this was associated with treatment in a secure ward or being brought to hospital initially under mental health legislation. In comparison with the service user, caregivers tended to underestimate the level of perceived coercion. The level of procedural justice was moderately associated with the therapeutic relationship and satisfaction with services. After 1 year, 70% experienced an improvement in functioning and this was not associated with the accumulated level of coercive events, when controlled for confounders.

CONCLUSIONS

This study has provided valuable insights into the perceptions of coercion and can help inform future interventional studies aimed at reducing coercion in mental health services.

Family Members' Existential and Moral Dilemmas With Coercion in Mental Healthcare

Coercion in mental healthcare does not only affect the patient, but also the patient's families. Using data from interviews with 36 family members of adult and adolescent people with mental health problems and coercion experiences, the present narrative study explores family members' existential and moral dilemmas regarding coercion and the factors influencing these dilemmas. Four major themes are identified: the ambiguity of coercion; struggling to stay connected and establishing collaboration; worries and distress regarding compulsory care; and dilemmas regarding initiating coercion. Subsequently, coercion can reduce, but also add burden for the family by creating strains on family relations, dilemmas, (moral) distress, and retrospective regrets; this is reinforced by the lack of information or involvement and low-quality care. Subsequently, it is a moral obligation to develop more responsive health services and professionals who provide more guidance and balanced information to increase the possibilities for voluntary alternatives and informed decision making.

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.

Voluntary and involuntary psychiatric admissions in a suburban area: comparison with national rates, diagnosis and other correlates of involuntary admission status

Objectives

To establish if the relatively low rate of involuntary psychiatric admission in a suburban area between 2007 and 2011 was maintained in 2014/2015, and explore key correlates of involuntary status.

Methods

We used existing hospital records and data sources to extract rates and selected potential correlates of voluntary and involuntary admission in south west Dublin (catchment area: 273 419 people) over 18 months in 2014/2015 and compared these with published national data from the census and Health Research Board.

Results

The rate of involuntary admission in the suburban area studied between 2007 and 2011 was 33.8 involuntary admissions per 100 000 population annually, which was lower than the national rate (48.6). By 2014/2015, the rate of involuntary admission in this area had risen to 46.8 involuntary admissions per 100 000 population annually, similar to the national rate (44.9). Nevertheless, the overall (voluntary and involuntary) admission rate in the suburban area (346.7 admissions per 100 000 population annually) was still lower the national rate (387.9), owing to a lower rate of voluntary admission in the suburban area (299.9) compared to Ireland as a whole (342.9). Multi-variable testing demonstrated that diagnosis was the strongest driver of involuntary admission in the suburban area: this area had 28.5 involuntary admissions per 100 000 population annually with schizophrenia or related disorders, compared to 18.9 nationally. Schizophrenia and related disorders accounted for 60.9% of involuntary admissions in the suburban area compared to 42.1% nationally.

Conclusions

Schizophrenia is the strongest driver of involuntary admission in the suburban area in this study.