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

Exploring Patients' Feeling of Being Coerced During Psychiatric Hospital Admission: A Qualitative Study

Various coercive measures can be used to legally compel a person suffering from psychiatric disorder to undergo treatment. However, evidence suggests that patients' feeling of being coerced is not determined solely by their being submitted to formal coercion. This study aimed to explore voluntary and involuntary patients' experience of coercion during psychiatric hospitalisation and to identify which factors, from their perspective, most affected it. We chose a qualitative design inspired by a hermeneutic-phenomenological approach. Participants were purposively selected from six psychiatric hospitals in Switzerland. Maximum variation sampling was used to ensure the inclusion of patients with different levels of perceived coercion and different admission statuses. In-depth, semi-structured interviews were co-conducted by a research psychologist and a service-user researcher. The transcribed data underwent thematic analysis. All twelve interviewed patients described the hospitalisation as an experience of loss of control over their life due to either external or internal pressures. During the process, perceptions of these pressures varied and sometimes overlapped, leading some patients to describe their admission as a form of simultaneous protection and violation. The balance between these two contradictory feelings was affected by a variety of contextual and relational factors, as well as by the meaningfulness of the experience and the patient's subsequent satisfaction with it. Increasing policy-makers' and clinicians' awareness about the main factors influencing patients' experience of loss of control is of paramount importance in order to develop skills and strategies able to address them, reinforcing patients' empowerment, reducing their feeling of coercion and improving their well-being.

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.

Feeling coerced during psychiatric hospitalization: Impact of perceived status of admission and perceived usefulness of hospitalization

INTRODUCTION

Perceived coercion is not exclusively related to the patient's legal status at admission. Patients are not always aware of their correct status and voluntary patients often report having felt coerced. Moreover, involuntary patients commonly report that their hospitalization was justified. The first goal was to disentangle the contribution of the legal and of the perceived status of admission in predicting perceived coercion. The second goal of this study was to investigate to which extent perception of the usefulness of the hospitalization affected perceived coercion.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

152 inpatients were interviewed about their knowledge of their legal status of admission, perceived need for hospitalization and subjective improvement. They completed the MacArthur's Admission Experience Survey and the Coercion Experience Scale.

RESULTS

6.6% of voluntarily admitted patients and 30.4% of involuntarily admitted patients reported an erroneous status of admission. 88.2% of voluntarily admitted patients and 44.7% of involuntarily admitted patients felt that they needed hospitalization during their stay. Levels of perceived coercion at admission and during hospitalization were mostly predicted by their perceived legal status. While involuntary patients frequently perceived the need for hospitalization and reported subjective improvement after admission, their perception of coercion markedly differed from voluntary patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Perceived coercion was marginally related to the legal admission status, which leaves room for interventions that reduce the patients' feeling of being coerced and avoid its negative effects. If many patients revised their belief on the need for and benefits of hospitalization during their stay, their perception of coercion was left partially unchanged.

Perceived Coercion Among Patients Admitted in Psychiatric Wards: Italian Results of the EUNOMIA Study

The decision to use coercive measures (restraint, seclusion and forced medication) in psychiatric practice is controversial in mental health care. The EUNOMIA study was funded by the European Commission and carried out in 11 countries in order to develop European recommendations for good clinical practice on the use of coercive measures. The aim of the study is to identify sociodemographic and clinical predictors of the levels of perceived coercion in a sample of Italian patients with severe mental disorders at hospital admission. A total of 294 patients were recruited in five Italian psychiatric hospitals and screened with the MacArthur Perceived Coercion Scale to explore the levels of perceived coercion. Patients were assessed three times: within the first seven days after admission as well as after 1 and 3 months. At each time point, data on changes of perceived coercion, assessed by the Cantril Ladder of Perceived Coercion Scale, information on coercive measures received during hospitalization and the levels of satisfaction with the received treatments were collected. According to the multivariable regression model, being compulsorily admitted (OR: 2.5; 95% CI: 1.3-3.3, p < .000), being male (OR: 0.7; 95% CI: 0.9-1.4; p < .01), being older (OR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01-0.06) and less satisfied with received treatments (OR: -0.2; 95% CI: -0.3 to -0.1; p < .05) are all associated with higher levels of perceived coercion, even after controlling for the use of any coercive measure during hospitalization. Satisfaction with received treatment predicts the levels of perceived coercion and this should represent an important challenge for mental health professionals.

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.