The psychiatric mental health nurse's ethical considerations regarding the use of coercive measures - a qualitative interview study

Is physical restraint unethical and illegal?: a qualitative analysis of Korean written judgments

BACKGROUND

Physical restraint (PR) is used to ensure the safety of care recipients. However, this causes an ethical dilemma between the autonomy and dignity of the recipients and the provision of effective treatment by health workers. This study aimed to analyze legal and ethical situations related to the use of PR using written judgments.

METHODS

This study uses a qualitative retrospective design. Qualitative content analysis was performed on South Korean written judgments. A total of 38 cases from 2015 to 2021 were categorized. The types of court decisions and ethical dilemma situations were examined according to the four principles of bioethics, and the courts' judgments were compared.

RESULTS

Written judgments related to PR were classified into three types according to the appropriateness of PR use, the presence or absence of duty of care, and legal negligence. Ethical dilemmas were categorized into three situations depending on whether the four principles of bioethics were followed. The courts' decisions regarding the ethical dilemmas differed depending on the situational factors before and after the use of PR and the conflicting conditions of the ethical principles.

CONCLUSIONS

Health workers should consider legal and ethical requirements when determining whether to use PR to provide the care recipient with the necessary treatment.

Unraveling complexity in changing mental health care towards person-centered care

Background

Mental health care (MHC) needs to shift towards person-centered care to better meet people's individual needs. Open Dialogue (OD) is well-aligned with this perspective and brings it into practice. This study focuses on exploring the change process within a pilot project involving three MHC teams as they transition to a person-centered OD practice. Our aim is to identify and reflect on the challenges faced by MHC professionals in adopting person-centered care, and shedding light on the underlying complexity of these challenges. By gaining a better understanding of these obstacles, we hope to contribute to the adoption of the person-centered approach in MHC practice.

Methods

Our research employed a qualitative design, involving a total of 14 semi-structured interviews with MHC professionals who were either trained in OD, OD trainees, or MHC professionals without OD training. To analyze the data, we utilized a hybrid approach that combined deductive - and inductive thematic analysis.

Results

We identified four distinctive challenges: (1) understanding and knowledge transfer, (2) (inter)personal process, (3) emotional discomfort, and (4) the need for multi-stakeholder participation and support. In practice, these challenges intersect and the appearance of and relationships between these challenges are not linear or disentangleable.

Conclusion

Upon careful consideration of these interdependent challenges, it became evident that embedding a person-centered approach like OD brings about systemic change, leading to an unfamiliar situation X. The research findings indicated that understanding and conveying the concept of person-centered care in practical settings poses significant challenges. The field of knowledge management helps to capture the complexity of understanding and transferring this knowledge. The change process necessitates an (inter)personal process and elicits emotional discomfort, as person-centered OD practice confronts a deeply entrenched paradigm in MHC. Achieving a shared understanding of person-centered care requires dedicated time and attention, while introducing this approach prompts broader discussions on underlying values and human rights in MHC. Current implementation efforts may underestimate or overlook these underlying values, but initiating an open dialogue can serve as an initial step in addressing the complexities.