Literature DB >> 10077310

The views and outcomes of consenting and non-consenting patients receiving ECT.

T J Wheeldon1, C Robertson, J M Eagles, I C Reid.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Current mental health legislation in the UK makes provision for the use of certain treatments in severely ill patients who are unable, or unwilling, to give informed consent. Under the terms of this legislation, electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) may be used, usually to treat severely depressed patients. A number of organizations have challenged this practice, stating that ECT should only be given with fully informed consent: it has been implied that patients receiving compulsory ECT (given without the patient's consent, under the terms of mental health legislation) find the treatment damaging and unhelpful.
METHODS: A series of 150 patients receiving ECT in Aberdeen was studied. A proportion of the series (approximately 7%) received compulsory ECT. The views and treatment outcomes of compulsory patients were compared with those of patients giving informed consent for treatment.
RESULTS: More than 80% of patients in both consenting and compulsory groups considered ECT to have helped them. Clinical outcome did not differ between the groups. Patients' views showed marked concordance with independent medical evaluation of outcome.
CONCLUSIONS: Outcome following ECT in non-consenting patients is equivalent to that seen in consenting patients whether rated by the patients themselves or by clinicians. Overall outcome is good, with more than 80% of patients benefiting from treatment. A ban on compulsory ECT would deny the access of seriously ill patients to an effective and acceptable treatment.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Empirical Approach; Mental Health Therapies; Professional Patient Relationship

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10077310     DOI: 10.1017/s0033291798007193

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychol Med        ISSN: 0033-2917            Impact factor:   7.723


  7 in total

1.  [Ethics, evidence and electroconvulsive therapy].

Authors:  D Zilles; M Koller; I Methfessel; S Trost; A Simon
Journal:  Nervenarzt       Date:  2018-07       Impact factor: 1.214

Review 2.  [Electroconvulsive therapy in nonconsenting patients].

Authors:  M Besse; I Methfessel; J Wiltfang; D Zilles
Journal:  Nervenarzt       Date:  2017-01       Impact factor: 1.214

Review 3.  Patients' perspectives on electroconvulsive therapy: systematic review.

Authors:  Diana Rose; Pete Fleischmann; Til Wykes; Morven Leese; Jonathan Bindman
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2003-06-21

Review 4.  [Treatment against the patient's will exemplified by electroconvulsive therapy : Clinical, legal and ethical aspects].

Authors:  D Zilles; M Koller; I Methfessel; S Trost; A Simon
Journal:  Nervenarzt       Date:  2018-03       Impact factor: 1.214

5.  Treatment Capacity and Clinical Outcomes for Patients With Schizophrenia Who Were Treated With Electroconvulsive Therapy: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Authors:  Joanne E Plahouras; Gerasimos Konstantinou; Tyler S Kaster; Daniel Z Buchman; George Foussias; Zafiris J Daskalakis; Daniel M Blumberger
Journal:  Schizophr Bull       Date:  2021-03-16       Impact factor: 9.306

6.  An international perspective on the acceptability and sustainability of electroconvulsive therapy.

Authors:  Daniel Maughan; Andrew Molodynski
Journal:  BJPsych Int       Date:  2016-02-01

7.  Evidence-based guidelines for treating bipolar disorder: Revised third edition recommendations from the British Association for Psychopharmacology.

Authors:  G M Goodwin; P M Haddad; I N Ferrier; J K Aronson; Trh Barnes; A Cipriani; D R Coghill; S Fazel; J R Geddes; H Grunze; E A Holmes; O Howes; S Hudson; N Hunt; I Jones; I C Macmillan; H McAllister-Williams; D R Miklowitz; R Morriss; M Munafò; C Paton; B J Saharkian; Kea Saunders; Jma Sinclair; D Taylor; E Vieta; A H Young
Journal:  J Psychopharmacol       Date:  2016-03-15       Impact factor: 4.153

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.