Nursing Perspectives: Reflecting History and Informal Coercion in De-escalation Strategies

Persuasion or coercion? An empirical ethics analysis about the use of influence strategies in mental health community care

Background

Influence strategies such as persuasion and interpersonal leverage are used in mental health care to influence patient behaviour and improve treatment adherence. One ethical concern about using such strategies is that they may constitute coercive behaviour ("informal coercion") and negatively impact patient satisfaction and the quality of care. However, some influence strategies may affect patients' perceptions, so an umbrella definition of “informal coercion” may be unsatisfactory. Furthermore, previous research indicates that professionals also perceive dissonance between theoretical explanations of informal coercion and their behaviours in clinical practice. This study analysed mental health professionals’ (MHPs) views and the perceived ethical implications of influence strategies in community care.

Methods

Qualitative secondary data analysis of a focus group study was used to explore the conflict between theoretical definitions and MHPs’ experiences concerning the coerciveness of influence strategies. Thirty-six focus groups were conducted in the main study, with 227 MHPs from nine countries participating.

Results

The findings indicate that not all the influence strategies discussed with participants can be defined as “informal coercion”, but they become coercive when they imply the use of a lever, have the format of a conditional offer and when the therapeutic proposal is not a patient’s free choice but is driven by professionals. MHPs are rarely aware of these tensions within their everyday practice; consequently, it is possible that coercive practices are inadvertently being used, with no standard regarding their application. Our findings suggest that levers and the type of leverage used in communications with the patient are also relevant to differentiating leveraged and non-leveraged influence.

Conclusion

Our findings may help mental health professionals working in community care to identify and discuss influence strategies that may lead to unintended coercive practices.

An Educational Intervention to Decrease the Number of Emergency Incidents of Restraint and Seclusion on a Behavioral Health Unit

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to implement an educational intervention on an inpatient, behavioral health care unit with the goal of reducing the number of crisis interventions of seclusion or restraint.

METHOD

A quasi-experimental pretest and posttest design using De-escalate Anyone, Anywhere, Anytime training was employed with a focus of an increased understanding of a range of de-escalation techniques to use instead of restraint and seclusion.

RESULTS

A convenience sample of 21 mental health employees participated in the training. The rates of restraint declined from a mean of 6 preintervention to 2 postintervention. The number of seclusions on the designated unit declined from a mean of 4.33 preintervention to a mean of 1.667 postintervention.

CONCLUSION

These data suggest that an educational intervention to increase the knowledge of direct care staff in a broad range of de-escalation techniques resulted in a reduction in the use of restraint and seclusion. Ongoing training for nursing staff may reassure them of the efficacy of alternative methods for dealing with aggressive patients. [J Contin Educ Nurs. 2022;53(2):70-76.].