Eric Noorthoorn1,2, Peter Lepping3,4,5, Wim Janssen6,7, Adriaan Hoogendoorn8, Henk Nijman9,10, Guy Widdershoven11, Tilman Steinert12. 1. GGnet Community Mental Health Centre, Warnsveld, The Netherlands. E.Noorthoorn@ggnet.nl. 2. Dutch Case Register Coercive Measures, Altrecht Aventurijn, Den Dolder, The Netherlands. E.Noorthoorn@ggnet.nl. 3. Bangor University, Bangor, Wales, United Kingdom. 4. Mysore Medical College and Research Institute, Mysore, India. 5. Wrexham Community Mental Health Team, University Health Board, Wrexham Maelor Hospital, Wrexham, Wales. 6. Hogeschool Windesheim, Zwolle, The Netherlands. 7. Dutch Case Register Coercive Measures, Altrecht Aventurijn, Den Dolder, The Netherlands. 8. Department of Psychiatry, EMGO+ Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 9. Radboud University of Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 10. Altrecht Aventurijn, Den Dolder, The Netherlands. 11. Department of Medical Humanities, EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 12. Centres for Psychiatry Suedwuerttemberg, Ulm University, Ulm, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Netherlands started a nationwide coercion reduction program in 2007. In 2011, accurate registration of coercive measures became obligatory by law. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare number and duration of coercive measures in the Netherlands with international data. METHODS: 2011 data on coercive measures were collected, using a system developed in Germany. To understand determinants of coercion, multilevel logistic regression was performed. RESULTS: 12.0 % (n = 5169) of patients (n = 42.960) in 2011 experienced at least one coercive measure. Exposure to coercion was comparable to other countries, and duration was higher. Medication use seemed to half average times in seclusion. In the Netherlands, coercion mainly constituted of seclusion and occurred in bipolar and psychotic disorders. In Germany, coercion was mostly mechanical restraint and occurred in organic disorders and schizophrenia. CONCLUSIONS: Gathering comprehensive data allows comparisons between countries, increasing our understanding of the impact of different cultures, legislation and health care systems on coercion. In the Netherlands, seclusion is still the main type of coercion, despite significant improvements in the last few years. It is shorter when applied in combination with enforced medication.
BACKGROUND: The Netherlands started a nationwide coercion reduction program in 2007. In 2011, accurate registration of coercive measures became obligatory by law. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare number and duration of coercive measures in the Netherlands with international data. METHODS: 2011 data on coercive measures were collected, using a system developed in Germany. To understand determinants of coercion, multilevel logistic regression was performed. RESULTS: 12.0 % (n = 5169) of patients (n = 42.960) in 2011 experienced at least one coercive measure. Exposure to coercion was comparable to other countries, and duration was higher. Medication use seemed to half average times in seclusion. In the Netherlands, coercion mainly constituted of seclusion and occurred in bipolar and psychotic disorders. In Germany, coercion was mostly mechanical restraint and occurred in organic disorders and schizophrenia. CONCLUSIONS: Gathering comprehensive data allows comparisons between countries, increasing our understanding of the impact of different cultures, legislation and health care systems on coercion. In the Netherlands, seclusion is still the main type of coercion, despite significant improvements in the last few years. It is shorter when applied in combination with enforced medication.
Entities:
Keywords:
Coercion; Determinants; International comparison; Restraint; Seclusion
Authors: Jeffrey W Swanson; Marvin S Swartz; Eric B Elbogen; Richard A Van Dorn; Joelle Ferron; H Ryan Wagner; Barbara J McCauley; Mimi Kim Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: Lucie Kalisova; Jiri Raboch; Alexander Nawka; Gaia Sampogna; Libor Cihal; Thomas W Kallert; Georgi Onchev; Anastasia Karastergiou; Valeria Del Vecchio; Andrzej Kiejna; Tomasz Adamowski; Francisco Torres-Gonzales; Jorge A Cervilla; Stephan Priebe; Domenico Giacco; Lars Kjellin; Algirdas Dembinskas; Andrea Fiorillo Journal: Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol Date: 2014-04-16 Impact factor: 4.328
Authors: Patricia S Mann-Poll; Annet Smit; Eric O Noorthoorn; Wim A Janssen; Bauke Koekkoek; Giel J M Hutschemaekers Journal: Psychiatr Q Date: 2018-09
Authors: Peter Lepping; Barkat Masood; Erich Flammer; Eric O Noorthoorn Journal: Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol Date: 2016-05-04 Impact factor: 4.328
Authors: B N Raveesh; S Pathare; P Lepping; E O Noorthoorn; G S Gowda; J G F Bunders-Aelen Journal: Indian J Psychiatry Date: 2016-12 Impact factor: 1.759
Authors: B N Raveesh; S Pathare; E O Noorthoorn; G S Gowda; P Lepping; J G F Bunders-Aelen Journal: Indian J Psychiatry Date: 2016-12 Impact factor: 1.759
Authors: Thomas Reisch; Simone Beeri; Georges Klein; Philipp Meier; Philippe Pfeifer; Etienne Buehler; Florian Hotzy; Matthias Jaeger Journal: Front Psychiatry Date: 2018-10-26 Impact factor: 4.157
Authors: Lisa K Schreiber; Florian G Metzger; Tobias A Duncker; Andreas J Fallgatter; Tilman Steinert Journal: BMC Psychiatry Date: 2019-05-14 Impact factor: 3.630
Authors: Guru S Gowda; Peter Lepping; Sujoy Ray; Eric Noorthoorn; Raveesh Bevinahalli Nanjegowda; Channaveerachari Naveen Kumar; Suresh Bada Math Journal: Indian J Psychiatry Date: 2019 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 1.759