How do decision making and fairness mediate the relationship between involuntary hospitalisation and perceived coercion among psychiatric inpatients?

BACKGROUND: Coercion perceived by psychiatric inpatients is not exclusively determined by formal measures such as involuntary admissions, seclusion or restraint, but is also associated with patients' characteristics and professionals' attitude. AIMS: This study examined how inpatients' involvement in the decision making process, the respect of their decision making preference, and their feeling of having been treated fairly mediate the relationship between involuntary hospitalisation and perceived coercion both at admission and during hospital stay. METHODS: Mediation analysis were performed in order to study the relationship between involuntary hospitalisation and perceived coercion among 230 patients, voluntarily and involuntarily admitted in six psychiatric hospitals. RESULTS: 32.2% of the participants were involuntarily hospitalised. Taken individually, stronger participants' involvement in decision making process, better respect for their decision making preference and higher level of perceived fairness partially mediated the relationship between involuntary hospitalisation and perceived coercion by reducing the level of the latter both at admission and during the hospitalisation. In multiple mediator models, only involvement and respect played an important role at admission. During the hospitalisation, perceived fairness was the most relevant mediator, followed by involvement in decision making. CONCLUSIONS: During psychiatric hospitalisation patients' involvement in decision making, respect of their decision making preference and perceived fairness determined the relationship between involuntary hospitalisation and perceived coercion, but not in the same way at admission and during the stay. Involving patients in decision making and treating them fairly may be more relevant than taking account of their decision making preference in order to reduce perceived coercion.

Patterns of Service Use in Intensive Case Management: A Six Year Longitudinal Study.

An Intensive Case Management (ICM) intervention has been developed in Lausanne, Switzerland. It aims to promote access to care for people with severe mental disorders who have difficulties to engage with mental health services because of the severity of their disorders and/or their marginality. ICM embrace components of assertive community treatment and critical time intervention. It is time limited and focused on critical phases of recovery. The goal of this study was to examine the heterogeneity of service use patterns of people who required ICM interventions and identify differences in patterns of duration and timing of the intervention. Records of 471 patients from the Department of Psychiatry of Lausanne University Hospital for whom the ICM team intervention was requested were analysed over a 6 year period with discrete sequential-state analysis. Trajectories could be split between six meaningful clusters including service light use and critical time intervention (58.0%), transition to long-term regular ambulatory-care (11.3%), partial transition to ambulatory care (14.4%), alternative to hospitalization (10.4%), continued ICM (4.9%) and long hospital stays (1.1%). Diagnoses of substance abuse were overrepresented among heavy users and diagnoses of schizophrenia were the most frequent diagnostic overall. Profiles of service use for ICM patients were very diverse. Long term interventions were frequently not necessary. A time-limited intervention was likely sufficient to stabilize the situation and/or engage the patient in care. A small number of situations required a sustained and long-term investment and did not always allowed for a reduction in the need for hospitalization. A general reflection on alternatives to hospitalization must be pursued, in particular for these patients.

Perceived fairness as main determinant of patients' satisfaction with care during psychiatric hospitalisation: An observational study.

INTRODUCTION: Patient satisfaction with care is widely recognized as one of the most important indicator of quality in mental health care. It can impact several treatment outcomes, such as treatment adherence and engagement with services. At the same time, as an outcome in itself, satisfaction with care is also affected by several factors, first and foremost by being coerced. The main aim of this study was to test if perceiving treatment pressures as fair and effective could positively impact patient satisfaction, even more than formal coercive measures. METHODS: Globally, 133 voluntary and involuntary inpatients were interviewed. Socio-demographic and clinical characteristics, including history of previous experiences of formal coercion and legal status of the hospitalisation, were collected through a structured questionnaire and medical charts. The participants were also asked to complete the Index of Fairness and Index of Effectiveness tools as well as a structured questionnaire on satisfaction with care. Simple and multiple linear regressions were performed. RESULTS: Although several factors were found to affect satisfaction with care when taken independently, perceived fairness was the stronger predictor of both satisfaction with treatment (ß =.234; p = .022) and satisfaction with decision-making involvement (ß =.360; p < .001) when controlling for confounders. CONCLUSIONS: Our results point to the paramount importance of developing and implementing interventions that promote procedural fairness in psychiatric treatment and thereby improve patient satisfaction while reducing the risk of disengagement with care.