[Incidence of coercive measures as an indicator of quality in psychiatric hospitals. Problems of data recording and processing, preliminary results of a benchmarking study]. / Die Inzidenz von Zwangsmassnahmen als Qualitätsindikator in psychiatrischen Kliniken. Probleme der Datenerfassung und -verarbeitung und erste Ergebnisse.

OBJECTIVE: The clinical practice concerning the use of coercive measures in psychiatry should be compared. METHOD: A common documentation of physical restraint, seclusion, and medication by coercion was introduced among 10 hospitals. RESULTS: 8.4 % of cases treated within the first 6 months of 2004 were exposed to coercive measures with the highest percentage among patients with psychoorganic disorders (32.1 %). The incidence of coercive measures varied highly between different diagnostic groups and hospitals. DISCUSSION: The processing of the large multi-site data sets yields considerable technical problems. Data interpretation should consider confounding factors such as case mix and hospital structure characteristics.

Diagnosis-related frequency of compulsory measures in 10 German psychiatric hospitals and correlates with hospital characteristics.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the incidence of coercive measures in standard psychiatric care in different psychiatric hospitals. METHODS: We developed a common documentation of mechanical restraint, seclusion, and medication by coercion, and introduced it in 10 participating hospitals. We developed software able to process the data and to calculate four key indicators for routine clinical use. RESULTS: 9.5% of 36,690 cases treated in 2004 were exposed to coercive measures with the highest percentage among patients with organic psychiatric disorders (ICD-10 F0) (28.0%). Coercive measures were applied a mean 5.4 times per case and lasted a mean 9.7 h each. The incidence and duration of coercive measures varied highly between different diagnostic groups and different hospitals. Use of detailed guidelines for seclusion and restraint was associated with a lower incidence of coercive measures. DISCUSSION: Data interpretation should consider numerous confounding factors such as case mix and hospital characteristics. Suggestions on how to cope with ethical and technical problems in the processing of large multi-site data sets in routine clinical use are made.

[Recording and reducing coercive measures in psychiatric hospitals]. / Erfassung und Reduktion von Zwangsmassnahmen im psychiatrischen Krankenhaus.

OBJECTIVE: A project of quality management funded by the German Ministry of Health is presented which aims at recording and reducing of coercive measures (seclusion, restraint, forced medication). METHOD: Since 1997, a study group for prevention of violence and coercion consisting of physicians, nurses and other psychiatric professionals from 18 psychiatric hospitals is working in Baden-Wuerttemberg and Bayern. A common documentation of coercive measures has been introduced, variables of interest such as percentage of patients exposed to coercive measures in each principal diagnostic group of the ICD-10 have been defined for purposes of benchmarking. Aims of the project are 1) a complete documentation of all coercive measures in 12 psychiatric hospitals in a 12-month period and a benchmarking, taking into account structural characteristics of the hospitals and the respective catchment area, 2) providing a manual for a one-day de-escalation training for all professional groups working with psychiatric patients. PRELIMINARY RESULTS: A pilot study demonstrated that about 9 % of all admitted patients have been exposed to coercive measures in a subset of the participating hospitals. The variance between the hospitals was rather high.