Article

Coercion is not mental health care.

Psychiatric services (Washington, D.C.) (Impact Factor: 1.99). 05/2011; 62(5):453. DOI: 10.1176/appi.ps.62.5.453
Source: PubMed
0 Followers
 · 
55 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE: Service users may express positive, ambivalent, or negative views of their hospital admission. The objective of this study was to determine whether the background of the interviewer-service user-researcher or clinician-influences the information elicited. The primary outcome was the level of perceived coercion on admission, and secondary outcomes were perceived pressures on admission, procedural justice, perceived necessity for admission, satisfaction with services, and willingness to consent to participate in the study. METHODS: Participants voluntarily and involuntarily admitted to three hospitals in Ireland were randomly allocated to be interviewed at hospital discharge by either a service user-researcher or a clinician. Interviewers used the MacArthur Admission Experience Survey and the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire. RESULTS: A total of 161 participants were interviewed. No differences by interviewer status or by admission status (involuntary or voluntary) were found in levels of perceived coercion, perceived pressures, procedural justice, perceived necessity, or satisfaction with services. Service users were more likely to decline to participate if their consent was sought by a service user-researcher (24% versus 8%, p=.003). CONCLUSIONS: Most interviewees gave positive accounts of their admission regardless of interviewer status. The findings indicate that clinicians and researchers can be more confident that service users' positive accounts of admissions are not attributable to a response bias. Researchers can also feel more confident in directly comparing the results of studies undertaken by clinicians and by service user-researchers.
    Psychiatric services (Washington, D.C.) 01/2013; 64(5). DOI:10.1176/appi.ps.001912012 · 1.99 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE This federally funded study examined implementation and outcomes of the Six Core Strategies for Reduction of Seclusion and Restraint (6CS) in 43 inpatient psychiatric facilities. METHODS A prototype Inventory of Seclusion and Restraint Reduction Interventions (ISRRI) tracked fidelity over time. Outcome measures-seclusion and restraint events as percentages of total inpatient population and seclusion and restraint hours as percentages of total inpatient hours-conformed to licensed Behavioral Health Performance Measurement System specifications. Independent variables were facility and patient characteristics. Facilities were classified into five implementation types based on ISRRI scores: stabilized (N=28), continued (N=7), decreased (N=5), discontinued (N=1), or never implemented (N=2). For the stabilized group, linear modeling and random-effects meta-analysis compared the contribution of individual facilities to an overall effect. Subgroup analyses explored relationships between facility characteristics and outcomes. Dose-effect analysis tested the hypothesis that the stabilized group would have more positive outcomes. RESULTS Overall, the stabilized group reduced the percentage secluded by 17% (p=.002), seclusion hours by 19% (p=.001), and proportion restrained by 30% (p=.03). The reduction in restraint hours was 55% but nonsignificant (p=.08). Individual facility effect sizes varied; some rates increased for some facilities. The dose-effect hypothesis was supported for two outcomes, seclusion hours and percentage restrained. The order of implementation group effects in relation to each outcome varied unpredictably. CONCLUSIONS The 6CS was feasible to implement and effective in diverse facility types. Fidelity over time was nonlinear and varied among facilities. Further research on relationships between facility characteristics, fidelity patterns, and outcomes is needed.
    Psychiatric services (Washington, D.C.) 12/2013; 65(3). DOI:10.1176/appi.ps.201300210 · 1.99 Impact Factor