Reduction of coercive measures under routine conditions in psychiatric hospitals 2004-2019: Strong effects in old age psychiatry, much less in general psychiatry

Implementation of guidelines on prevention of coercion and violence (PreVCo) in psychiatry: a multicentre randomised controlled trial

Background

Interventions to prevent the use of coercion in psychiatric hospitals have been summarized in the 2018 German Association for Psychiatry, Psychotherapy, and Psychosomatic's comprehensive guidelines. Twelve recommendations for implementation of these guideline on psychiatric wards have been deducted and their feasibility has been tested in a pilot study, using external implementation consultants as facilitators. The objective of the PreVCo study was to test their effect in a randomised clinical trial.

Methods

Fifty-four psychiatric wards in Germany treating voluntary and involuntary patients were randomly allocated to either an intervention or to a waiting list condition. The intervention consisted of the implementation of three out of 12 suggested recommendations as selected by the ward teams, supported by external study workers. As the primary outcome measure, the number of coercive measures used per bed and month in the final 3 months of the intervention period was determined. Secondary outcomes were the cumulative duration of coercive measures used per bed and months and assaults per bed and month. Achieved guideline adherence was measured by a fidelity scale developed for this purpose during a pilot study for the PreVCo Rating Tool. After a 3-month baseline collection period under routine conditions, randomisation was done after matching wards pairwise according to frequency of coercive measures used and scores on the PreVCo Rating Tool at baseline. The duration of the intervention period was 12 months; control wards received only an initial workshop presentation of the study and completed their PreVCo ratings. We used the Wilcoxon signed rank test and the paired t-test and conducted sensitivity analyses for different periods of observation.

Findings

Neither the number of coercive measures used per month and bed nor their cumulative duration nor the number of assaults per bed and months differed significantly between the 27 intervention wards and the 27 control wards in the final 3 months of the intervention period. The median number of coercive measures used decreased by 45% (median 0.96 (IQR 1.34)-0.53 (IQR 0.59) from baseline until the end of the intervention period on the intervention wards and by 28% (median 0.98 (IQR 1.71)-0.71 (IQR 1.08) on waiting list wards. The PreVCo Rating Tool showed a significant improvement in intervention wards compared to control wards, indicating a successful implementation.

Interpretation

The study demonstrated that guideline adherence could be significantly improved by the intervention. However, there was no evidence for an effect on the frequency or duration of coercive measures used. Spill-over effects and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on in-patient care might have limited the effect of the intervention. Further research from robust randomised controlled trials are necessary to identify effective interventions to reduce the use of coercion in psychiatric hospitals.

Funding

The study was funded by the German Innovationsfonds beim Gemeinsamen Bundesausschuss (project no. 01VSF19037). The funder had no role in study design or data collection.

Factors associated with prolonged episodes of mechanical restraint in mental health hospitalization units in Andalusia

WHAT IS KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT?: Risk factors associated with prolonged episodes of mechanical restraint and other coercive measures are understudied. There have been no studies of this phenomenon in the context of the Andalusian public health system. Knowledge about factors associated with prolonged episodes is essential to increase the understanding of this phenomenon and develop strategies to reduce its occurrence. WHAT DOES THIS PAPER ADD TO EXISTING KNOWLEDGE?: In Andalusia, prolonged restraint is still frequent and varies depending on the unit. It is associated with less time since admission, male gender, diagnosis, reason for restraint and the shift on which it was initiated. WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE?: Interventions at the level of the units could be necessary to prevent prolonged episodes of mechanical restraint. The results suggest the need for stricter control during the shifts on which restraint starts, especially in the first days after the patient's admission. Preventive risk assessment considering clinical and sociodemographic risk factors could help to reduce prolonged restraint. ABSTRACT: Introduction Factors associated with prolonged episodes of mechanical restraint and other coercive interventions are not clearly established and have been not studied in Andalusia (Spain). Aim To study factors associated with prolonged episodes of mechanical restraint. Method We analysed retrospectively episodes of mechanical restraint (N = 6267, prolonged episode >9.5 hours) in all public mental health hospitalization units (N = 20, 535 beds) that offer health coverage for the autonomous community of Andalusia. The data came from clinical records. A multivariable mixed logistic regression was used. Results In Andalusia, prolonged restraint is still frequent and varies depending on the unit. It is associated with less time since admission, male gender, diagnosis, reason for restraint and the shift on which it was initiated. Discussion The results provide evidence that prolonged episodes largely depend on the unit where they occur and that stricter control and regulation are necessary to prevent prolonged episodes. Implications for practice Interventions at the level of the unit are necessary. Stricter control in the shifts during which there is more risk of prolonged restraint may be necessary, especially in the first days following admission.

Increase in coercive measures in psychiatric hospitals in Germany during the COVID-19 pandemic

Objective

To examine whether the pandemic in 2020 caused changes in psychiatric hospital cases, the percentage of patients exposed to coercive interventions, and aggressive incidents.

Methods

We used the case registry for coercive measures of the State of Baden-Wuerttemberg, comprising case-related data on mechanical restraint, seclusion, physical restraint, and forced medication in each of the State’s 31 licensed hospitals treating adults, to compare data from 2019 and 2020.

Results

The number of cases in adult psychiatry decreased by 7.6% from 105,782 to 97,761. The percentage of involuntary cases increased from 12.3 to 14.1%, and the absolute number of coercive measures increased by 4.7% from 26,269 to 27,514. The percentage of cases exposed to any kind of coercive measure increased by 24.6% from 6.5 to 8.1%, and the median cumulative duration per affected case increased by 13.1% from 12.2 to 13.8 hrs, where seclusion increased more than mechanical restraint. The percentage of patients with aggressive incidents, collected in 10 hospitals, remained unchanged.

Conclusions

While voluntary cases decreased considerably during the pandemic, involuntary cases increased slightly. However, the increased percentage of patients exposed to coercion is not only due to a decreased percentage of voluntary patients, as the duration of coercive measures per case also increased. The changes that indicate deterioration in treatment quality were probably caused by the multitude of measures to manage the pandemic. The focus of attention and internal rules as well have shifted from prevention of coercion to prevention of infection.

[Monitoring of coercive measures and compulsory treatment in Germany]

Epidemiological registers on the burden of disease and adverse events (deaths, serious side effects, etc.) play an important role in the management, evaluation, and improvement of healthcare treatment for the population. This also applies to coercive measures in the psychiatric healthcare system. Such registers only became feasible on a broad basis due to the availability of electronic medical records and steadily increasing computing capacities; however, in most German states, registers have not been implemented. Data protection problems must be taken into account in the collation of person-related data but can be solved by appropriate pseudonymization procedures taking the prerequisites of data parsimony into account. Extensive data are now available from the Baden-Wuerttemberg register for coercive measures, which has been in existence since 2015 and which enabled, for instance, evaluating the consequences of the changes to the law following the 2018 ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court on mechanical restraint and the consequences of the coronavirus pandemic. In the meantime, there are also state-wide data collections in some other German states; however, unlike in Baden-Wuerttemberg, these registers do not include measures under guardianship law. A nationwide register for coercive measures, compulsory treatment and involuntary detention has justifiably repeatedly been demanded for a long time. A major obstacle is the historically developed separation between the responsibility of the German states for the detention regulated by public law and the Federal State for the scope of application of the guardianship law.

Current trends in restrictive interventions in psychiatry: a European perspective

This article reviews current evidence on the use of coercive measures, including seclusion and restraint, in psychiatric in-patient settings in Europe. There is a particular focus on evidence regarding the use of mechanical restraint. The review seeks to describe when the use of restrictive interventions such as restraint may be necessary, to explore the use of restraint in certain specialist settings and to investigate current laws and European policies on seclusion and restraint. The current rates of restraint in European psychiatric settings are explored, with a discussion of the limitations of the evidence currently available. The article discusses various consequences of seclusion and restraint, potential alternatives to their use and strategies to minimise their use and harm to patients. The use of coercive measures from an international context is considered, to provide context.

Non-coercive techniques for the management of crises in mental health settings in Germany—a narrative review

Coercion is common in mental health care settings in Germany. At the same time, considerable efforts are undertaken to reduce and ultimately abolish coercive interventions. Need adapted treatment, open door policies, and moving away from the biomedical model of mental illness can contribute to non-coercive care. WHO's QualityRights Training can be used to advance knowledge about and adherence to human rights standards in institutions, and to transform institutions to a non-coercive approach. Advance care decisions can make sure that will and preferences prevail in situations when capacity is questioned. However, a radical overhaul of legislation would be required to abolish coercive mental health care in Germany.

Restraint practice in the somatic acute care hospital: A participant observation study

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

We aimed to describe daily restraint practices and the factors which influence their use, from an outsider's perspective.

BACKGROUND

A reduction in restraint use is recommended in health care. However, somatic acute care hospital settings currently lack effective reduction strategies. Thus far, hospital restraint practice is described in terms of quantitative assessments and the 'insider' view of healthcare professionals. However, as factors such as routine or personal beliefs seem to play a relevant role in restraint use, these approaches might be incomplete and biased.

DESIGN

A qualitative observation study design was employed.

METHODS

Fieldwork with unstructured participant observation was conducted at a department of geriatrics and a department of intensive care in Switzerland between November 2019 and January 2020. Data were recorded as field notes. The analysis was conducted iteratively in two coding cycles using descriptive coding followed by pattern coding. We adhered to the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR).

RESULTS

A total of 67 hours of observation were conducted. We found that daily restraint practice can be described in three categories: the context in which restraints are used, the decision-making process on the use and continued use of restraints, and the avoidance of restraint use. Most processes and decisions seem to take place unconsciously, and their standardisation is weak.

CONCLUSIONS

The lack of standardisation favours intuitive and unreflective action, which is prompted by what is also known as heuristic decision-making. To transform daily restraint practice, a technical solution that leads restraint management in line with ethical and legal requirements might be useful.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

The outsider perspective has allowed daily restraint practice to be described independently of existing routines, departmental cultures and personal attitudes. This is important to comprehensively describe restrictive practices, which is a prerequisite for the development of effective restraint reduction strategies.

[Effects of the Decision of the German Constitutional Court on mechanical restraint in 2018 : Coercive measures in the psychiatric hospitals in Baden-Wuerttemberg in 2019 compared to the years 2015-2017]

On 23 July 2018 the German Constitutional Court decided that mechanical restraint in psychiatric patients with 5 or 7‑point mechanical restraint lasting longer than 30 min requires a judicial authorization. On the same day, the German Association for Psychiatry and Psychotherapy (DGPPN) published guidelines on the prevention of coercion and violence. Together, this can be considered as the strongest intervention to reduce coercion on a national level worldwide. The registry for coercive measures in the Federal State of Baden-Wuerttemberg, available since 2015 and comprising all 32 hospitals licensed to admit involuntary patients, has made it possible to evaluate the effect of the legal change. We analyzed the mean percentage of patients subjected to coercive measures and the mean cumulative duration of these interventions in ICD-10 diagnostic groups in psychiatric hospitals from 2015 to 2017 compared to 2019 among a total of 438,003 admissions. The percentage of patients subjected to any kind of freedom-restricting coercion (restraint or seclusion) decreased from 6.7% (average 2015-2017) to 5.8% in 2019 (p < 0.001). Effects were strongest in patients with organic (F0) and schizophrenic disorders (F2). The percentage of patients subjected to mechanical restraint decreased from 4.8% to 3.6% in 2019, and the percentage of mechanical restraints less than 30 min increased from 1.8% to 10.5%. Vice versa, the percentage of patients subjected to seclusion increased from 2.9% to 3.3%. The median cumulated duration of restraint and seclusion per affected case decreased from 12.7h to 10.9 h (median). The intervention was probably responsible for a reduction of the percentage of cases subjected to coercive measures by about 13% and a reduction of the duration of these measures per affected case by about 14%.

Effect of the introduction of immediate judge's decisions in 2018 on the use of coercive measures in psychiatric hospitals in Germany: a population-based study

Background

On 23 July 2018, the German Constitutional Court decided that mechanical restraint in psychiatric patients lasting longer than 30 minutes requires a judge's immediate decision. On the same day, the German Association for Psychiatry and Psychotherapy published its guideline on the prevention of coercion and violence. The registry for coercive measures in the federal state of Baden-Wuerttemberg, available since 2015 and comprising all 32 hospitals licensed to admit involuntary patients, has made it possible to evaluate the effect of the legal change, considered the strongest intervention ever in Germany to reduce coercion.

Methods

We analysed the mean percentage of patients subjected to coercive measures and the mean cumulative duration of these interventions in ICD-10 diagnostic groups in psychiatric hospitals from 2017 compared to 2019 among a total of 233,0273 admissions.

Findings

The percentage of patients subjected to any kind of freedom-restricting coercion decreased from 6·6% in 2017 to 5·8% in 2019 (p = 0·000). Accordingly, the percentage of patients subjected to mechanical restraint decreased from 4·8% to 3·6% in 2019 (p = 0·000). At the same time, the percentage of patients subjected to seclusion increased from 2·9% to 3·3% (p = 0·000). The median cumulated duration of restraint and seclusion per affected case decreased from 12·5 to 11·9 hrs (p = 0·001).

Interpretation

There is clear evidence that a strong legal intervention was effective in reducing the use of coercive measures under routine conditions.

Funding

The registry is funded by the Ministry of Social Welfare and Integration.