Article

[After 200 years of psychiatry: are mechanical restraints in Germany still inevitable?].

Zentrum für Psychiatrie Südwürttemberg, Abteilung Psychiatrie I der Universität Ulm, Ravensburg.
Psychiatrische Praxis (Impact Factor: 1.64). 08/2011; 38(7):348-51. DOI: 10.1055/s-0031-1276871
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Mechanical restraint and seclusion are not therapeutic interventions but procedures to safeguard patients or staff representing a failure of therapeutic approaches. Quality management including benchmarkings yields considerable variations between different hospitals. However, an enduring and significant decrease in the frequency and duration of such coercive measures so far has not been achieved by means of quality management. A new set of approaches is therefore required.
Amending the British practice of "physical restraint" for German conditions, a technique of holding the patient was developed accompanied by manualised interventions of verbal de-escalation. In contrast to mechanical restraint, the technique represents a therapeutic intervention and is usually of short duration. An implementation is planned in a group of hospitals collaborating in the prevention of violence and coercion in psychiatry.
This new technique appears a promising approach to fundamentally change the practice of mechanical restraint in Germany. Evidence of the effect of this technique on frequency and duration of mechanical restraints needs to be gathered.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
78 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Grundlagen Das Image der Psychiatrie ist in der Öffentlichkeit immer noch von Bildern der Repression geprägt, und die Häufigkeit der gegen den Willen der Patienten erfolgten Einweisungen, Fixierungen, Isolierungen oder der unfreiwilligen Verabreichung einer Medikation wird als Qualitätsindikator für die stationäre psychiatrische Behandlung angesehen. Da es sich um gravierende Eingriffe in individuelle Persönlichkeitsrechte handelt, ist der Umgang mit Zwang und Freiheitsentziehung für die Psychiatrie eine ethische Herausforderung. Ziel dieser Untersuchung war es, die „Fixierungspraxis“ einer Universitätsklinik in Österreich zu beschreiben. Methodik In der vorliegenden Studie wurden mittels retrospektiver Datenanalyse alle Aufnahmen im geschlossenen Bereich des Departments für Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie der Universitätsklinik Innsbruck erfasst. Der Untersuchungszeitraum erstreckte sich von Juli bis Dezember 2009. Ergebnisse Im Erhebungszeitraum erfolgten 529 Aufnahmen nach dem UbG. Bei 148 aufgenommenen Patienten wurde zumindest einmal eine Fixierung angeordnet. Die Wahrscheinlichkeit einer Fixierung stieg mit zunehmendem Alter der Patienten an und auch die Anzahl der Fixierungen hing vom Alter und der Diagnose ab. Patienten aus der ICD-Diagnosegruppe F0 wurden am häufigsten und durchschnittlich am längsten fixiert. Als Grund für eine Fixierung wurde überwiegend „Selbstgefährdung“ genannt. „Fremdgefährdung“ wurde in etwa 14 % angegeben. Patienten mit Fremdgefährdung wurden signifikant häufiger 5-Punkt- fixiert, während bei Patienten ohne Fremdgefährdung eine Bewegungsbeschränkung mittels Bettgitter und/oder Bauchgurt überwog. Schlussfolgerungen Ein Vergleich dieser Daten mit jenen aus anderen Zentren, in europäischer aber auch bereits auf österreichischer Ebene ist aufgrund der unterschiedlichen Dokumentationsarten eingeschränkt. Ein einheitliches Vorgehen im Sinne eines effektiveren Qualitätsmanagement wäre hier wünschenswert.
    Neuropsychiatrie: Klinik, Diagnostik, Therapie und Rehabilitation: Organ der Gesellschaft Österreichischer Nervenärzte und Psychiater 06/2013; 27(2). DOI:10.1007/s40211-013-0055-9 · 1.38 Impact Factor
  • 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
  • [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