Relationship between perceived coercion and perceived justification of coercive measures - secondary analysis of a randomized-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Subjective perception of coercion has gained attention as an important outcome. However, little is known about its relation to patients' appraisal of the justification of coercive measures. The present study aims to analyze the relationship between patients' appraisal of the justification of coercive measures and their level of perceived coercion. METHODS: This study presents a secondary analysis of the results of a multi-center RCT conducted to evaluate the effects of post-coercion review. Patients who experienced at least one coercive measure during their hospital stay were included in the trial. Participants' appraisal of the justification of coercive measures was categorized into patient-related and staff-related justifications. Subjective coercion was assessed using the Coercion Experience Scale (CES) and used as dependent variable in a multivariate regression model. RESULTS: 97 participants who completed the CES were included in the analysis. CES scores were significantly associated with the perception of the coercive measure as justified by staff-related factors (B = 0,540, p < 0,001), as well as with higher level of negative symptoms (B = 0,265, p = 0,011), and with mechanical restraint compared to seclusion (B=-0,343, p = 0,017). CONCLUSIONS: Patients' perceptions of coercive measures as justified by staff-related factors such as arbitrariness or incompetence of staff are related to higher levels of perceived coercion. Multiprofessional efforts must be made to restrict the use of coercive measures and to ensure a transparent and sustainable decision-making process, particularly with patients showing high levels of negative symptoms. Such key elements should be part of all coercion reduction programs.

[DGPPN pilot study on the implementation of the S3 guideline "Prevention of coercion: prevention and therapy of aggressive behavior in adults"]. / DGPPN-Pilotstudie zur Implementierung der S3-Leitlinie "Verhinderung von Zwang: Prävention und Therapie aggressiven Verhaltens bei Erwachsenen".

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether implementation recommendations derived from the German guidelines "Prevention of coercion" can be implemented on acute psychiatric wards by means of implementation consultants into ward work and if this contributes to an increased level of adherence to guideline intervention recommendations approved by the DGPPN (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie, Psychosomatik und Nervenheilkunde)? MATERIAL AND METHODS: Two medical or nursing experts advised ward teams on the implementation of three individually selected recommendations from the guidelines in a structured consulting process over 6 months. The degree of implementation of the recommendations was assessed before and after the intervention by the ward teams together with the implementation consultants using a tool developed for this purpose (PreVCo rating tool). RESULTS: A total of five wards responsible for compulsorily admitted patients took part in the pilot study; three of them completed the intervention. On all three wards, implementation of the guideline recommendations improved for both selected and unselected recommendations. The strategy of using implementation consultants as well as the application of the PreVCo rating tool were well accepted and considered feasible by both the treatment teams and the implementation consultants. CONCLUSION: This pilot study showed that an implementation of recommendations on psychiatric wards derived from the German guidelines "Prevention of coercion" supported by implementation consultants is feasible, well acceptable among treatment teams and can lead to positive changes. The sample of five wards with diverse patient profiles was convincing. The efficacy in terms of reduction of coercive measures is currently being investigated in a randomized controlled trial on 55 psychiatric wards in different parts of Germany, with an intervention based on this pilot study.

Effect of standardized post-coercion review session on symptoms of PTSD: results from a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Post-coercion review is increasingly regarded as a mean to reduce the negative consequences of coercive interventions, including the development of posttraumatic symptoms. However, the efficacy of this intervention in preventing posttraumatic symptoms or PTSD has not been sufficiently studied. The objective of this study is to examine the influence of a single, standardized post-coercion review session on the development or exacerbation of PTSD symptoms in patients with psychotic disorders. METHODS: In a multi-center, two-armed, randomized controlled trial, patients who experienced coercive interventions during current hospitalization were either randomized to standard treatment or an intervention group receiving a guideline-based, standardized reflecting review session. Factorial MANCOVA and subsequent ANCOVAs investigated the effects of the post-coercion reflecting review session on post-traumatic symptoms as measured by the subscales of the Impact of Events Scale-Revised (IES-R). Similarly, the effect of the intervention on the intensity of the peritraumatic reactions measured by the Peritraumatic Distress Inventory (PDI) was analyzed by conducting a factorial ANCOVA. RESULTS: N = 82 patients were included in an intention-to-treat analysis. MANCOVA and post hoc ANCOVAs revealed a significant main effect of the intervention for the IES-R subscales intrusion and hyperarousal, when controlling for levels of peritraumatic distress, whereby intervention group participants presented lower respective mean scores. There was no significant difference regarding the intensity of the peritraumatic reaction. CONCLUSION: Standardized post-coercion review contributes to a reduction of the burden of PTSD symptoms in patients with psychotic disorders experiencing coercive interventions in acute settings and shall be recommended as a measure of trauma-informed care. The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (ID NCT03512925) on 01/30/2018 (retrospectively registered).

[Contributions to reduce coercion in psychiatric care]. / Beiträge zur Vermeidung von Zwang in der Akutpsychiatrie.

Reduction in coercion in psychiatric treatment requires successful interaction between changes in structural preconditions and therapeutic processes, as well as in individual therapeutic skills and attitudes. The article gives an overview of current approaches and possibilities to minimize the use of coercive interventions and to create non-violent and participative therapeutic settings. These opportunities are discussed against the background of structural and staff resources, social and legal aspects, as well as subjective experience of patients and their right to protection and treatment in phases when freedom of will and self- determination are compromised.

Coercive measures in psychiatry - When do they occur and who is at risk?

Coercive measures (CM) in psychiatry adversely affect patients and efforts to minimize CM are steadily increasing. One area that has not been a strong focus of preventative efforts to date is the time of use of CM during hospitalization although previous research indicates that the admission situation and early hospitalization are times of increased risk for CM. This study therefore aims to contribute to the body of research in this field by analyzing in detail the times of use of CM and identifying patient characteristics serving as predictors for CM during early hospitalization. Using a large sample (N = 1556) of all cases admitted in 2019 via the emergency room at the Charité Department of Psychiatry at St. Hedwig Hospital in Berlin, this study supports previous research showing that the risk of CM is highest within the first 24 h h of hospitalization. Of 261 cases who experienced CM, 71.6% (n = 187) experienced a CM within the first 24 h of hospitalization and 54.4% (n = 142) of cases only experienced CM within the first 24 h of hospitalization and did not receive any CM after. Furthermore, this study identified significant predictors for the early use of CM during hospitalization including acute intoxication (p < .01), aggression (p < .01), male gender (p < .001) and limited communication ability (p < .001). The results highlight the importance of directing preventative efforts to minimize the use of CM not only to psychiatric units but also to mental health crisis response and to develop interventions specifically tailored to this time and patient groups at highest risk.

Implementation of guidelines on prevention of coercion and violence: baseline data of the randomized controlled PreVCo study.

Introduction: The PreVCo study examines whether a structured, operationalized implementation of guidelines to prevent coercion actually leads to fewer coercive measures on psychiatric wards. It is known from the literature that rates of coercive measures differ greatly between hospitals within a country. Studies on that topic also showed large Hawthorne effects. Therefore, it is important to collect valid baseline data for the comparison of similar wards and controlling for observer effects. Methods: Fifty five psychiatric wards in Germany treating voluntary and involuntary patients were randomly allocated to an intervention or a waiting list condition in matched pairs. As part of the randomized controlled trial, they completed a baseline survey. We collected data on admissions, occupied beds, involuntarily admitted cases, main diagnoses, the number and duration of coercive measures, assaults and staffing levels. We applied the PreVCo Rating Tool for each ward. The PreVCo Rating Tool is a fidelity rating, measuring the degree of implementation of 12 guideline-linked recommendations on Likert scales with a range of 0-135 points covering the main elements of the guidelines. Aggregated data on the ward level is provided, with no patient data provided. We performed a Wilcoxon signed-rank-test to compare intervention group and waiting list control group at baseline and to assess the success of randomization. Results: The participating wards had an average of 19.9% involuntarily admitted cases and a median 19 coercive measures per month (1 coercive measure per occupied bed, 0.5 per admission). The intervention group and waiting list group were not significantly different in these measurements. There were 6.0 assaults per month on average (0.3 assaults per occupied bed and 0.1 per admission). The PreVCo Rating Tool for guideline fidelity varied between 28 and 106 points. The percentage of involuntarily admitted cases showed a correlation with coercive measures per month and bed (Spearman's Rho = 0.56, p < 0.01). Discussion: Our findings that coercion varies widely within a country and mainly is associated with involuntarily admitted and aggressive patients are in line with the international literature. We believe that we included a sample that covers the scope of mental health care practice in Germany well.Clinical trial registration: www.isrctn.com, identifier ISRCTN71467851.

Implementation of guidelines on prevention of coercion and violence (PreVCo) in psychiatry: a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

Background: Interventions to prevent the use of coercion in psychiatric hospitals have been summarized in the 2018 German Association for Psychiatry, Psychotherapy, and Psychosomatic's comprehensive guidelines. Twelve recommendations for implementation of these guideline on psychiatric wards have been deducted and their feasibility has been tested in a pilot study, using external implementation consultants as facilitators. The objective of the PreVCo study was to test their effect in a randomised clinical trial. Methods: Fifty-four psychiatric wards in Germany treating voluntary and involuntary patients were randomly allocated to either an intervention or to a waiting list condition. The intervention consisted of the implementation of three out of 12 suggested recommendations as selected by the ward teams, supported by external study workers. As the primary outcome measure, the number of coercive measures used per bed and month in the final 3 months of the intervention period was determined. Secondary outcomes were the cumulative duration of coercive measures used per bed and months and assaults per bed and month. Achieved guideline adherence was measured by a fidelity scale developed for this purpose during a pilot study for the PreVCo Rating Tool. After a 3-month baseline collection period under routine conditions, randomisation was done after matching wards pairwise according to frequency of coercive measures used and scores on the PreVCo Rating Tool at baseline. The duration of the intervention period was 12 months; control wards received only an initial workshop presentation of the study and completed their PreVCo ratings. We used the Wilcoxon signed rank test and the paired t-test and conducted sensitivity analyses for different periods of observation. Findings: Neither the number of coercive measures used per month and bed nor their cumulative duration nor the number of assaults per bed and months differed significantly between the 27 intervention wards and the 27 control wards in the final 3 months of the intervention period. The median number of coercive measures used decreased by 45% (median 0.96 (IQR 1.34)-0.53 (IQR 0.59) from baseline until the end of the intervention period on the intervention wards and by 28% (median 0.98 (IQR 1.71)-0.71 (IQR 1.08) on waiting list wards. The PreVCo Rating Tool showed a significant improvement in intervention wards compared to control wards, indicating a successful implementation. Interpretation: The study demonstrated that guideline adherence could be significantly improved by the intervention. However, there was no evidence for an effect on the frequency or duration of coercive measures used. Spill-over effects and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on in-patient care might have limited the effect of the intervention. Further research from robust randomised controlled trials are necessary to identify effective interventions to reduce the use of coercion in psychiatric hospitals. Funding: The study was funded by the German Innovationsfonds beim Gemeinsamen Bundesausschuss (project no. 01VSF19037). The funder had no role in study design or data collection.

Patient communication ability as predictor of involuntary admission and coercive measures in psychiatric inpatient treatment.

Coercive measures (CM) and involuntary admission to psychiatric treatment can have detrimental consequences for patients. Past research shows that certain clinical, treatment and admission-related characteristics put patients at a higher risk of experiencing CM and involuntary admission. Although of high societal importance, the association between patients' communication ability and CM and involuntary admission has not been subject of past research. To explicitly examine this association the authors conducted a retrospective study using data from patients admitted to psychiatric inpatient treatment via the emergency room at Charité St. Hedwig Hospital, Berlin in 2019. As independent variable, communication ability at admission was recorded (perfect; limited due to language or other reasons; impossible due to language or other reasons) along with possibly confounding variables including demographic, clinical and admission-related details. As dependent variables, involuntary admission and CM were recorded. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted examining the association between communication ability and involuntary admission and CM. In a sample of N = 1556, controlling for potential confounders, limited (OR = 3.08; p = .004) or no communication ability (OR = 4.02; p = .003) due to language barrier or limited (OR = 3.10; p < .001) or no communication ability (OR = 13.71; p < .001) due to other factors were significant predictors for involuntary admission. Limited communication ability due to language barrier (OR = 4.53; p < .001) and limited (OR = 1.58; p = .034) and no communication ability (OR = 3.55; p < .001) due to other factors were significant predictors for CM. These findings show that patients impaired in their communication ability are at higher risk of involuntary admission and CM and highlight the urgency of implementing appropriate interventions facilitating communication during admission and treatment.

The Role of Implicit and Explicit Staff Attitudes in the Use of Coercive Measures in Psychiatry.

Many determinants leading to the use of different coercive measures in psychiatry have been widely studied and it seems that staff attitudes play a crucial role when it comes to the decision-making process about using coercion. However, research results about staff attitudes and their role in the use of coercive measures are inconsistent. This might be due to a focus on self-report studies asking for explicit answers, which involves the risk of bias. This study aimed to expand research on this topic by examining the impact of explicit and implicit staff attitudes on the use of coercive measures in clinical practice. In addition, the influence of gender, profession (nurses, psychiatrists), and years of professional experience as well as their influence on staff attitudes were examined. An adaption of the implicit association measure, the Go/No-Go Association Task (GNAT), with the target category coercion and distracter stimuli describing work load, as well as the explicit questionnaire Staff Attitudes to Coercion Scale (SACS) was completed by staff (N = 149) on 13 acute psychiatric units in 6 hospitals. Data on coercive measures as well as the total number of treated cases for each unit was collected. Results showed that there was no association between staff's implicit and explicit attitudes toward coercion, and neither measure was correlated with the local frequency of coercive measures. ANOVAs showed a significant difference of the GNAT result for the factor gender (F = 9.32, p = 0.003), demonstrating a higher tendency to justify coercion among female staff members (M = -0.23, SD = ±0.35) compared to their male colleagues (M = -0.41, SD = ±0.31). For the SACS, a significant difference was found for the factor profession (F = 7.58, p = 0.007), with nurses (M = 2.79, SD = ±1.40) showing a more positive attitude to the use of coercion than psychiatrists (M = 2.15, SD = ±1.11). No significant associations were found regarding the extent of professional experience. Results indicate a complex interaction between implicit and explicit decision-making processes dependent on specific contexts. We propose future research to include primers for more context-related outcomes. Furthermore, differences in gender suggest a need to direct attention toward occupational safety and possible feelings of anxiety in the workplace, especially for female staff members.

Correlates of seclusion and restraint of patients admitted to psychiatric inpatient treatment via a German emergency room.

Coercive measures in psychiatry are associated with negative consequences for both patients and staff. When it comes to preventing coercive measures, innovative models of care like the Weddinger Modell focusing on recovery, participation and supported decision-making have proven successful. However, observations from clinical practice show that emergency admissions to psychiatric facilities pose a great challenge in this regard and that most coercive measures take place during or shortly after emergency admission. This study retrospectively examined all cases (N = 1477) admitted to inpatient treatment at the Department of Psychiatry of the Charité at St. Hedwig Hospital in Berlin via the emergency room in 2018 aiming to identify patient characteristics that serve as predictors for coercive measures. Physical aggression, involuntary admission, police referral and younger age were found to be significant predictors (p < .001). Of 218 cases who experienced coercive measures, 81.2% (n = 177) were subjected to seclusion or restraint within the first 24 h of their hospital stay and 56.9% (n = 124) of cases only experienced coercive measures within these first 24 h and were not subjected to any coercive measures after. These results show that certain patient characteristics put individuals at higher risk of being secluded or restrained and that the risk of experiencing coercive measures is highest at the time during and shortly after emergency admission. To prevent coercive measures, it is crucial to target more resources and put in place measures specifically tailored to these emergency situations and the most vulnerable patient groups.

Implementation of Guidelines on Prevention of Coercion and Violence (PreVCo) in Psychiatry: Study Protocol of a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT).

BACKGROUND: Coercive measures are among the most controversial interventions in psychiatry. There is a large discrepancy between the sheer number of high-quality guidelines and the small number of scientifically accompanied initiatives to promote and evaluate their implementation into clinical routine. In Germany, an expert group developed guidelines to provide evidence- and consensus-based recommendations on how to deal with violence and coercion in psychiatry. METHODS: The study presented examines whether coercive measures on psychiatric wards can be reduced by means of an operationalized implementation of the guidelines "Prevention of coercion: prevention and therapy of aggressive behavior in adults". Out of a set of 12 interventions offered, wards are free to choose three interventions they want to implement. The primary outcome is the number of coercive measures per bed and month/year. Secondary outcomes are cumulative duration of coercive measures per bed and month/year. The most important control variable is the number of aggressive incidents. We plan to recruit 52 wards in Germany. Wards treating both voluntary and compulsorily admitted patients will be included. A 1:1 stratified randomized controlled trial will be conducted stratified by the amount of coercive measures and implemented aspects of the guidelines. In addition to the control group analysis, a waiting list design allows a pre-post analysis for all participating wards of the waiting list group. A parallel qualitative study will examine factors related to successful implementation and to successful reduction of coercion as well as relevant barriers. DISCUSSION: We are planning a nationwide study on the implementation of evidence- and consensus-based guidelines in psychiatric hospitals. This study intends to promote the transfer of expert knowledge as well as results from clinical trials into clinical routine with the potential to change supply structures in mental health sector. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: www.isrctn.com, identifier ISRCTN71467851.

[Standardized Debriefing of Coercive Measures on Psychiatric Acute Wards: A Pilot Study]. / Standardisierte Nachbesprechung von Zwangsmaßnahmen auf psychiatrischen Akutstationen: Ergebnisse einer Pilotstudie.

OBJECTIVE: The present pilot study investigates the feasibility of a standardized debriefing measure of coercive interventions, for which a guideline has been developed. METHODS: 12 debriefing sessions were conducted and participating patients and staff members were asked about their perception of the intervention and its benefits. A quantitative and qualitative questionnaire was used and 8 expert-interviews conducted. RESULTS: Patients and staff members found the intervention helpful, especially to support a trustful therapeutic relationship. The possibility to express feelings perceived during the coercive measure was also underlined as a core effect of the intervention. On the contrary, patients and staff members didn't regard the debriefing session as helpful when looking for alternatives to the coercive measure that took place. The debriefing session should be regularly offered to patients and the moment it takes place needs to be determined individually. CONCLUSION: The developed guideline can be implemented to conduct debriefing sessions of coercive measures.