Accumulated coercion and short-term outcome of inpatient psychiatric care

School of Health and Medical Sciences, Psychiatric Research Centre, Orebro University, Orebro, Sweden.
BMC Psychiatry (Impact Factor: 2.24). 06/2010; 10:53. DOI: 10.1186/1471-244X-10-53
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The knowledge of the impact of coercion on psychiatric treatment outcome is limited. Multiple measures of coercion have been recommended. The aim of the study was to examine the impact of accumulated coercive incidents on short-term outcome of inpatient psychiatric care
233 involuntarily and voluntarily admitted patients were interviewed within five days of admission and at discharge or after maximum three weeks of care. Coercion was measured as number of coercive incidents, i.e. subjectively reported and in the medical files recorded coercive incidents, including legal status and perceived coercion at admission, and recorded and reported coercive measures during treatment. Outcome was measured both as subjective improvement of mental health and as improvement in professionally assessed functioning according to GAF. Logistic regression analyses were performed with patient characteristics and coercive incidents as independent and the two outcome measures as dependent variables
Number of coercive incidents did not predict subjective or assessed improvement. Patients having other diagnoses than psychoses or mood disorders were less likely to be subjectively improved, while a low GAF at admission predicted an improvement in GAF scores
The results indicate that subjectively and professionally assessed mental health short-term outcome of acute psychiatric hospitalisation are not predicted by the amount of subjectively and recorded coercive incidents. Further studies are needed to examine the short- and long-term effects of coercive interventions in psychiatric care.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Despite improvements in psychiatric inpatient care, patient restrictions in psychiatric hospitals are still in use. Studying perceptions among patients who have been secluded or physically restrained during their hospital stay is challenging. We sought to review the methodological and ethical challenges in qualitative and quantitative studies aiming to describe patients' perceptions of coercive measures, especially seclusion and physical restraints during their hospital stay.
    BMC Psychiatry 06/2014; 14(1):162. · 2.24 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Reports have described how psychiatric patients respond to disasters. However, previous reports on the response depending on diagnostic categories have provided no clear consensus. Here we analyzed response to the Great East Japan Earthquake of March 11, 2011, among psychiatric patients in light of severity of pre-existing psychiatric illness. We studied psychiatric change among a population of psychiatric outpatients in Tochigi prefecture, located ∼160km (∼100 miles) southeast of the Fukushima nuclear power plant, in an area that suffered moderate damage from the earthquake and radiation. A total of 294 psychiatric outpatients was assessed using the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF-F). A change of ≥10 points in the GAF-F score was counted as a change in symptoms. The data were stratified by disease category, gender, and GAF-F score and analyzed using the Fisher's exact test. In the 2 months after the earthquake, 5.4% of patients showed evidence of a change in symptoms, with 4.1% worsening and 1.4% improving. Compared with patients having a GAF-F score ≤50, significantly more patients with a score >50 showed evidence of worsening symptoms. No significant difference was found with respect to gender or diagnostic category for patients with worsened or improved symptoms. Our findings reveal that a relatively small percent of patients with pre-existing psychiatric diseases showed evidence of a change in symptoms and that patients with mild-to-moderate psychiatric illness are potentially vulnerable to the impacts of a natural disaster.
    Journal of Psychiatric Research 06/2013; · 4.09 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study aims to identify whether selected patient and ward-related factors are associated with the use of coercive measures. Data were collected as part of the EUNOMIA international collaborative study on the use of coercive measures in ten European countries. Involuntarily admitted patients (N = 2,027) were divided into two groups. The first group (N = 770) included patients that had been subject to at least one of these coercive measures during hospitalization: restraint, and/or seclusion, and/or forced medication; the other group (N = 1,257) included patients who had not received any coercive measure during hospitalization. To identify predictors of use of coercive measures, both patients' sociodemographic and clinical characteristics and centre-related characteristics were tested in a multivariate logistic regression model, controlled for countries' effect. The frequency of the use of coercive measures varied significantly across countries, being higher in Poland, Italy and Greece. Patients who received coercive measures were more frequently male and with a diagnosis of psychotic disorder (F20-F29). According to the regression model, patients with higher levels of psychotic and hostility symptoms, and of perceived coercion had a higher risk to be coerced at admission. Controlling for countries' effect, the risk of being coerced was higher in Poland. Patients' sociodemographic characteristics and ward-related factors were not identifying as possible predictors because they did not enter the model. The use of coercive measures varied significantly in the participating countries. Clinical factors, such as high levels of psychotic symptoms and high levels of perceived coercion at admission were associated with the use of coercive measures, when controlling for countries' effect. These factors should be taken into consideration by programs aimed at reducing the use of coercive measures in psychiatric wards.
    Social Psychiatry 04/2014; · 2.05 Impact Factor


Available from