Literature DB >> 20166013

[Coercive measures: a comparison between six psychiatric departments].

R Ketelsen1, M Schulz, M Driessen.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Although coercive measures are one of the indicators for the quality of psychiatric in-patient care, reliable and valid data comparing the practices are hardly available. The purpose of this study was to analyse the incidence and duration of mechanical restraint and seclusion in psychiatric hospitals in Germany. We hypothesised that the duration of these coercive measures is associated not only with gender and diagnosis of the patients, but also with the clinics themselves.
METHODS: Incidence and duration of coercive measures (mechanical restraint and seclusion) among patients in the year 2004 were analysed in six German psychiatric hospitals. Furthermore, the association of the length of these coercive measures with diagnosis, gender, and hospital was analysed using non-parametric statistical tests.
RESULTS: 3.0% of 10,352 cases treated in 2004 were exposed to mechanical restraint and seclusion with a range from 1.9-7.4% on comparing the hospitals. On average, these measures were applied 3.7 times per patient (case) with each single intervention lasting 5.0 h (mean, range <0.1-290.8). The incidence and duration of coercive measures varied highly between different diagnostic groups and different hospitals. The length of these measures differed significantly between hospitals (p<0.001) and diagnoses (p<0.001). In patients with organic psychiatric disorders (ICD-10: F0) we observed the longest duration. Furthermore the duration of coercive measures in female patients was shorter than that for male patients (p<0.05).
CONCLUSION: Data interpretation should consider numerous confounding factors such as case mix and hospital characteristics. The handling of coercive measures is an important quality feature. Therefore standardised survey methods should be developed and nationwide implemented. © Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20166013     DOI: 10.1055/s-0029-1246181

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gesundheitswesen        ISSN: 0941-3790


  7 in total

1.  [Architectural modernization of psychiatric hospitals influences the use of coercive measures].

Authors:  T Rohe; T Dresler; M Stuhlinger; M Weber; T Strittmatter; A J Fallgatter
Journal:  Nervenarzt       Date:  2017-01       Impact factor: 1.214

2.  [Coercive measures in psychiatric clinics in Germany: current practice (2012)].

Authors:  T Steinert; P Schmid
Journal:  Nervenarzt       Date:  2014-05       Impact factor: 1.214

Review 3.  [Coercive interventions: historical summary and review of subjective experience].

Authors:  Monika Edlinger; Tobias Bader; Alex Hofer
Journal:  Neuropsychiatr       Date:  2018-09-07

Review 4.  The Use of Rapid Tranquilization in Aggressive Behavior.

Authors:  Sophie Hirsch; Tilman Steinert
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2019-06-28       Impact factor: 5.594

5.  Machine Learning: An Approach in Identifying Risk Factors for Coercion Compared to Binary Logistic Regression.

Authors:  Florian Hotzy; Anastasia Theodoridou; Paul Hoff; Andres R Schneeberger; Erich Seifritz; Sebastian Olbrich; Matthias Jäger
Journal:  Front Psychiatry       Date:  2018-06-12       Impact factor: 4.157

6.  Effect of the introduction of immediate judge's decisions in 2018 on the use of coercive measures in psychiatric hospitals in Germany: a population-based study.

Authors:  Erich Flammer; Sophie Hirsch; Tilman Steinert
Journal:  Lancet Reg Health Eur       Date:  2021-11-04

Review 7.  The use of coercive interventions in mental health care in Germany and the Netherlands. A comparison of the developments in two neighboring countries.

Authors:  Tilman Steinert; Eric O Noorthoorn; Cornelis L Mulder
Journal:  Front Public Health       Date:  2014-09-24
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.