Article

The use of seclusion in the Netherlands compared to countries in and outside Europe.

Kenniscentrum GGNet, Warnsveld, The Netherlands.
International Journal of Law and Psychiatry (Impact Factor: 1.19). 01/2009; 31(6):463-70. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijlp.2008.09.002
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The use of seclusion in psychiatric practice is a contentious issue in the Netherlands as well as other countries in and outside Europe. The aim of this study is to describe Dutch seclusion data and compare these with data on other countries, derived from the literature. An extensive search revealed only 11 articles containing seclusion rates of regions or whole countries either in Europe, Australia or the United States. Dutch seclusion rates were calculated from a governmental database and from a database covering twelve General Psychiatric Hospitals in the Netherlands. According to the hospitals database, on average one in four hospitalized patients experienced a seclusion episode. The mean duration according to the governmental database is a staggering 16 days. Both numbers seem much higher than comparable numbers in other countries. However, different definitions, inconsistent methods of registration, different methods of data collection and an inconsistent expression of the seclusion use in rates limit comparisons of the rates found in the reviewed studies with the data gathered in the current study. Suggestions are made to improve data collection, to enable better comparisons.

0 Followers
 · 
122 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In this review, we compare the use of coercion in mental health care in Germany and in the Netherlands. Legal frameworks and published data on involuntary commitment, involuntary medication, seclusion, and restraint are highlighted as well as the role of guidelines, training, and attitudes held by psychiatrists and the public. Legal procedures regulating involuntary admission and commitment are rather similar, and so is the percentage of involuntary admissions and the rate per 100,000 inhabitants. However, opposing trends can be observed in the use of coercive interventions during treatment, which in both countries are considered as a last resort after all other alternative approaches have failed. In the Netherlands, for a long time seclusion has been considered as preferred intervention while the use of medication by force was widely disapproved as being unnecessarily invasive. However, after increasing evidence showed that number and duration of seclusions as well as the number of aggressive incidents per admission were considerably higher than in other European countries, attitudes changed within recent years. A national program with spending of 15 million € was launched to reduce the use of seclusion, while the use of medication was facilitated. A legislation is scheduled, which will allow also outpatient coercive treatment. In Germany, the latter was never legalized. While coercive treatment in Germany was rather common for involuntarily committed patients and mechanical restraint was preferred to seclusion in most hospital as a containment measure, the decisions of the Constitutional Court in 2011 had a high impact on legislation, attitudes, and clinical practice. Though since 2013 coercive medication is approvable again under strict conditions, it is now widely perceived as very invasive and last resort. There is evidence that this change of attitudes lead to a considerable increase of the use of seclusion and restraint for some patients.
    Frontiers in Public Health 09/2014; 2:141. DOI:10.3389/fpubh.2014.00141
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Variation in seclusion rates between psychiatric facilities cannot be adequately explained by patient characteristics alone and there is a growing awareness of the influence of 'cultural' and staff factors on the use of seclusion. In this study, staff variables as well as seclusion parameters were investigated during the implementation of an innovation project, against the background of an institutional program to reduce the use of coercive measures. The results demonstrate the impact of confidence within the team, staffing level and communication with the patient on nurses' decisions on seclusion. The importance of the organizational context is further illustrated by the negative effects of organizational instability on nurses' attitudes and decision making with respect to seclusion, and on seclusion rates. A reduction in the use of seclusion was achieved after the implementation of the innovation project; however, during a period of organizational turmoil, the work engagement scores of staff decreased and the use of seclusion increased. The results of this study show the vulnerability of innovations within the continuously changing organizational context of mental health care. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
    International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 04/2015; DOI:10.1016/j.ijlp.2015.03.001 · 1.19 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Due to the decisions of the German Constitutional Court on involuntary medication and the law on the prohibition of video surveillance in psychiatry in Nordrhine-Westfalia there has been an increasing discussion on coercive measures and how to conduct, supervise and prevent them. We conducted an online survey on the current practice of coercive measures in German psychiatric hospitals (2012). An online questionnaire was developed together with the working group for the prevention of violence and coercion in psychiatry and the regional association of psychiatry-experienced people in Baden-Wuerttemberg. The survey was conducted anonymously using the e-mail distribution lists of the psychiatric associations in Germany. A total of 88 questionnaires from hospitals with obligatory responsibility for a catchment area (19.7 % of those addressed) could be analyzed. Of these 99 % used internal or external guidelines, 97.5 % conducted de-escalation training, 23 % participated in external benchmarking on the use of coercive measures. All hospitals used mechanical restraint, approximately 50 % seclusion and physical restraint was practiced in 7 %. Most, but not all hospital directors reported that mechanical restraint and seclusion were continuously (24/7) monitored. Changes in practice in the years to come were expected by the majority. The survey revealed a high critical awareness concerning the use of coercive measures and the willingness to further change the practice.
    Der Nervenarzt 08/2013; DOI:10.1007/s00115-013-3867-8 · 0.86 Impact Factor