[Frequency of coercive measures as a quality indicator for psychiatric hospitals?] / Häufigkeit von Zwangsmaßnahmen als Qualitätsindikator für psychiatrische Kliniken?

BACKGROUND: The percentage of patients subjected to coercive measures has been proposed as 1 of 10 quality indicators for psychiatric inpatient treatment by the German Association of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics (DGPPN). Internationally, there are similar recommendations and corresponding reporting systems. METHODS: The registry of coercive measures of psychiatric hospitals in Baden-Württemberg that was established in 2015, yields the possibility to examine the appropriateness of this indicator, based on raw data of 108,863 cases in 2016. This study investigated how the indicator is influenced by patient variables and characteristics of hospital structure. RESULTS: The percentage of cases exposed to coercive measures was strongly (r = 0.6) correlated with the percentage of involuntarily treated cases. With respect to the latter, hospitals varied widely with a range from 0.7% up to 24.1%. Specialized wards serving patients outside the catchment area with a high number of coercive measures also had a strong influence on the results of a benchmarking comparison. CONCLUSION: The indicator is a good instrument for longitudinal evaluation of an institution; however, due to a high number of known and unknown confounding factors, it is inappropriate for the purpose of comparing psychiatric hospitals.

[Recommendations for psychotherapy in psychiatric inpatient treatment : Results of the PAKT Study Part I]. / Psychotherapieempfehlungen in der stationären psychiatrisch-psychotherapeutischen Behandlung : Ergebnisse der PAKT-Studie Teil I.

BACKROUND: In the S3 treatment guidelines psychotherapy is recommended in all psychological disorders. Therefore, outpatient or inpatient psychotherapy should be recommended by therapists in most cases. On the other hand, it is well known that waiting periods for psychotherapeutic treatment are considerable, which raises the question how the recommendation for psychotherapy is presented in psychiatric hospitals in Germany. OBJECTIVES: The article deals with the question of how frequent the recommendation of psychotherapeutic treatment is made after psychiatric inpatient stay or day care, and if there are differences between hospitals and patient groups. METHOD: In four psychiatric hospitals in southern Germany the frequency of recommendation for psychotherapy in psychiatric patients was registered and compared to the number of all patients treated in the equivalent time. For this purpose, we analyzed data of the basic documentation in the four participating hospitals. RESULTS: Overall, 9.6 % of the patients received a recommendation of psychotherapeutic treatment. In the psychiatric university hospital a subsequent psychotherapeutic treatment was recommended somewhat more often. Differences between hospitals were present but marginal. Over all participating hospitals, psychotherapy was recommended markedly less frequently in patients with an F2 diagnosis in comparison with patients with F3 or F4 diagnoses. CONCLUSION: Psychotherapeutic treatment after psychiatric inpatient stay is recommended cautiously. Probably therapists anticipate the fact that the growing demand for psychotherapeutic treatment in general reduces the chances for persons after psychiatric inpatient treatment.

[Implementation of the recommendations for psychotherapy after psychiatric inpatient treatment : Results of the PAKT study Part II]. / Realisierung von Psychotherapieempfehlungen nach psychiatrischem Aufenthalt : Ergebnisse der PAKT-Studie Teil II.

BACKGROUND: Waiting periods for inpatient or outpatient psychotherapeutic treatment are generally considerable. For patients treated in a psychiatric day-clinic or hospital, implementation of a recommended subsequent psychotherapeutic treatment might be difficult. OBJECTIVES: In part II of the psychotherapy after hospital or day clinic (PAKT) study, we examined how the recommendation for psychotherapy can be implemented after psychiatric treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three months after discharge from one of four psychiatric hospitals in southern Germany, we interviewed 306 patients who received a recommendation for psychotherapeutic treatment after their hospital stays if the recommendation was implemented successfully. RESULTS: Only about 12 % of the patients in the follow-up group were unable to implement the general recommendation for psychotherapy after psychiatric stay despite motivation for psychotherapeutic treatment. In the case of recommendation for outpatient psychotherapy, 20 % were unsuccessful. Predictors for successful implementation were education and employment, whereas variables like age, gender, diagnosis, or severity of disorder did not play a significant role. CONCLUSIONS: The relatively small percentage of unimplemented psychotherapeutic treatment is surprising at a first glance. However, the proportion recommended for psychotherapy after psychiatric stay was less than 10 %, as shown in the first part of the study (see PAKT Study Part I, doi:s00115-016-0107-z).

[Coercive measures in German hospitals for psychiatry and psychotherapy : A pilot study by the DGPPN to evaluate a uniform assessment instrument]. / Zwangsmaßnahmen in deutschen Kliniken für Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie : Eine Pilotstudie der DGPPN zur Erprobung eines einheitlichen Erfassungsinstrumentes.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: A simple instrument to record case-related coercive measures was tested as part of a pilot project of the German Association for Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics (DGPPN). METHODS: To assess coercive measures data were collected for 3 months in 8 German hospitals for psychiatry and psychotherapy. The type of measures used, the main diagnosis and the legal basis for the coercive measures were documented. RESULTS: In the sample studied, coercive measures were applied in 8% of cases. Coercive measures were most commonly used in patients with a schizophrenic disorder. The principle of justifiable necessity according to § 34 of the German Penal Code was used particularly often as the legal basis for justifying the coercive measures. CONCLUSION: Suitable measurement instruments and reliable data that enable the learning of best practices represent the basis for a reduction of coercive measures.

Who is Subjected to Coercive Measures as a Psychiatric Inpatient? A Multi-Level Analysis.

BACKGROUND: For a reduction in the use of coercive interventions it will be necessary to identify patients at risk. The aim of this study was to explore the impact of basic patient characteristics at admission, history within 24 hours before admission, and living conditions on the risk of experiencing coercive measures, controlling for ward characteristics in a multi-level approach. METHODS: Patient characteristics of 3389 patients (1920 women) who had received inpatient treatment in 2007, data relating to coercive measures, and ward characteristics were extracted from the clinical basic documentation. RESULTS: Patients with aggressive behaviour in the 24 hours prior to admission had a three times higher risk of coercive measures compared to non-aggressive patients. Severity of illness increased the risk of coercion markedly. With each level of severity, the risk of coercion was doubled. Voluntariness of stay appeared to be the best protective factor against coercive measures. If a patient stayed voluntarily, this reduced the risk of coercion by more than two thirds. No impact was found for living conditions. CONCLUSIONS: To identify patients at risk, it is most important to intensively monitor patients with aggressive behaviour prior to admission and patients with a greater severity of psychopathological symptoms.

Ward safety perceived by ward managers in Britain, Germany and Switzerland: identifying factors that improve ability to deal with violence.

Little is known about how safe nurses feel on psychiatric wards across different European countries. This paper is aim to evaluate how ward safety is perceived by ward managers in Great Britain, Germany and Switzerland. We replicated a Swiss questionnaire study in Germany and Britain, which asked ward managers on adult psychiatric wards to give details about their ward including data on the management of aggression, staffing levels, staff training, standards and type of restraint used, alarm devices, treatment and management of aggression and the existence and perceived efficacy of standards (protocols, guidelines). The British sample had by far the highest staffing levels per psychiatric bed, followed by Switzerland and Germany. The British ward managers by far perceived violence and aggression least as a problem on their wards, followed by Germany and then Switzerland. British ward managers are most satisfied with risk management and current practice dealing with violence. German managers were most likely to use fixation and most likely to have specific documentation for coercive measures. Swiss wards were most likely to use non-specific bedrooms for seclusion and carry alarm devices. British wards were far more likely to have protocols and training for the treatment and management of violence, followed by Switzerland and Germany. British ward managers by far perceived violence and aggression to be a small problem on their wards compared with Swiss and German ward managers. This was associated with the availability of control and restraint teams, regular training, clear protocols and a lesser degree risk assessments, but not staffing levels.