Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-sxzjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T03:21:37.038Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Physical coercion, perceived pressures and procedural justice in the involuntary admission and future engagement with mental health services

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 April 2020

B. O’Donoghue ,
J. Lyne ,
M. Hill ,
C. Larkin ,
L. Feeney  and
E. O’Callaghan
B. O’Donoghue*
Affiliation:
DETECT, Early Intervention in Psychosis Service, Avila House, Block 5, Blackrock Business Park, Blackrock, Co Dublin, Ireland
J. Lyne
Affiliation:
DETECT, Early Intervention in Psychosis Service, Avila House, Block 5, Blackrock Business Park, Blackrock, Co Dublin, Ireland
M. Hill
Affiliation:
Cluain Mhuire Family Centre, Blackrock, Co Dublin, Ireland
C. Larkin
Affiliation:
Hospitaller Order of St John of God, Stillorgan, Co Dublin, Ireland
L. Feeney
Affiliation:
Cluain Mhuire Family Centre, Blackrock, Co Dublin, Ireland
E. O’Callaghan
Affiliation:
DETECT, Early Intervention in Psychosis Service, Avila House, Block 5, Blackrock Business Park, Blackrock, Co Dublin, Ireland
*
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +35312791700; fax: +35312791799. E-mail address: briannoelodonoghue@gmail.com (B. O'Donoghue).
Get access

Abstract

Objectives

We sought to determine the level of procedural justice experienced by individuals at the time of involuntary admission and whether this influenced future engagement with the mental health services.

Methods

Over a 15-month period, individuals admitted involuntarily were interviewed prior to discharge and at one-year follow-up.

Results

Eighty-one people participated in the study and 81% were interviewed at one-year follow-up. At the time of involuntary admission, over half of individuals experienced at least one form of physical coercion and it was found that the level of procedural justice experienced was unrelated to the use of physical coercive measures. A total of 20% of participants intended not to voluntarily engage with the mental health services upon discharge and they were more likely to have experienced lower levels of procedural justice at the time of admission. At one year following discharge, 65% of participants were adherent with outpatient appointments and 18% had been readmitted involuntarily. Insight was associated with future engagement with the mental health services; however, the level of procedural justice experienced at admission did not influence engagement.

Conclusions

This study demonstrates that the use of physical coercive measures is a separate entity from procedural justice and perceived pressures.

Keywords

Mania and bipolar disorderSchizophrenia and psychosisEthics and human rightsQuality of care
Type
Original article
Information
European Psychiatry , Volume 26 , Issue 4 , May 2011 , pp. 208 - 214
Copyright
Copyright © Elsevier Masson SAS 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Amador, XF, Flaum, M, Andreasen, NC, Strauss, DH, Yale, SA, Clark, SC, et al.Awareness of illness in schizophrenia and schizoaffective and mood disorders. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1994;51(10):826–836.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bennewith, O, Amos, T, Lewis, G, Katsakou, C, Wykes, T, Morriss, R, et al.Ethnicity and coercion among involuntarily detained psychiatric in-patients. Br J Psychiatry 2010;196(1):75–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bergk, J, Einsiedler, B, Steinert, TFeasibility of randomized controlled trials on seclusion and mechanical restraint. Clin Trials 2008;5(4):356–363.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bindman, J, Reid, Y, Szmukler, G, Tiller, J, Thornicroft, G, Leese, MPerceived coercion at admission to psychiatric hospital and engagement with follow-up--a cohort study. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 2005 40 2160–166.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cascardi, M, Poythress, NG, Hall, AProcedural justice in the context of civil commitment: an analogue study. Behav Sci Law 2000;18(6):731–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D’Orio, BM, Purselle, D, Stevens, D, Garlow, SJReduction of episodes of seclusion and restraint in a psychiatric emergency service. Psychiatr Serv 2004;55(5):581–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Department of Health [Ireland], Mental Health Act 2001. http://www.mhcirl.ie. Published 2006.Google Scholar
Dressing, H, Salize, HJCompulsory admission of mentally ill patients in European Union Member States. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 2004;39(10):797–803.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gaskin, CJ, Elsom, SJ, Happell, BInterventions for reducing the use of seclusion in psychiatric facilities: review of the literature. Br J Psychiatry 2007; 191: 298–303.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoyer, GOn the justification for civil commitment. Acta Psychiatr Scand Suppl 2000; 399: 65–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ivar, IK, Hoyer, G, Sexton, H, Gronli, OKPerceived coercion among patients admitted to acute wards in Norway. Nord J Psychiatry 2002;56(6):433–439.Google Scholar
Iversen, KI, Hoyer, G, Sexton, HCCoercion and patient satisfaction on psychiatric acute wards. Int J Law Psychiatry 2007;30(6):504–511.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jonikas, JA, Cook, JA, Rosen, C, Laris, A, Kim, JBA program to reduce use of physical restraint in psychiatric inpatient facilities. Psychiatr Serv 2004;55(7):818–820.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kallert, TW, Glockner, M, Onchev, G, Raboch, J, Karastergiou, A, Solomon, Z, et al.The EUNOMIA project on coercion in psychiatry: study design and preliminary data. World Psychiatry 2005;4(3):168–172.Google ScholarPubMed
Keski-Valkama, A, Sailas, E, Eronen, M, Koivisto, AM, Lonnqvist, J, Kaltiala-Heino, RA 15-year national follow-up: legislation is not enough to reduce the use of seclusion and restraint. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 2007;42(9):747–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keski-Valkama, A, Sailas, E, Eronen, M, Koivisto, AM, Lonnqvist, J, Kaltiala-Heino, RWho are the restrained and secluded patients: a 15-year nationwide study. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 2009 2110.1007/s00127-009-0150-1Google ScholarPubMed
Kjellin, L, Andersson, K, Bartholdson, E, Candefjord, IL, Holmstrom, H, Jacobsson, L, et al.Coercion in psychiatric care - patients’ and relatives’ experiences from four Swedish psychiatric services. Nord J Psychiatry 2004;58(2):153–159.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
La Fond, JQ, Srebnik, DThe impact of mental health advance directives on patient perceptions of coercion in civil commitment and treatment decisions. Int J Law Psychiatry 2002;25(6):537–555.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lidz, CW, Hoge, SK, Gardner, W, Bennett, NS, Monahan, J, Mulvey, EP, et al.Perceived coercion in mental hospital admission. Pressures and process. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1995;52(12):1034–1039.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCue, RE, Urcuyo, L, Lilu, Y, Tobias, T, Chambers, MJReducing restraint use in a public psychiatric inpatient service. J Behav Health Serv Res 2004;31(2):217–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKenna, BG, Simpson, AI, Coverdale, JHWhat is the role of procedural justice in civil commitment? Aust N Z J Psychiatry 2000;34(4):671–676.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mental Health Commission. Rules governing the use of seclusion and mechanical means of bodily restraint. http://www.mhcirl.ie. Published 2006.Google Scholar
Monahan, J, Hoge, SK, Lidz, C, Roth, LH, Bennett, N, Gardner, W, et al.Coercion and commitment: understanding involuntary mental hospital admission. Int J Law Psychiatry 1995;18(3):249–263.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nilstun, T, Syse, AThe right to accept and the right to refuse. Acta Psychiatr Scand Suppl 2000; 399: 31–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Norredam, M, Garcia-Lopez, A, Keiding, N, Krasnik, AExcess use of coercive measures in psychiatry among migrants compared with native Danes. Acta Psychiatr Scand 2010;121(2):143–151.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ohlenschlaeger, J, Nordentoft, MCoercion in patients who at their first contact with the psychiatric services system were diagnosed within the schizophrenia-spectrum in Denmark. A register study. Nord J Psychiatry 2008;62(1):77–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Priebe, S, Katsakou, C, Amos, T, Leese, M, Morriss, R, Rose, D, et al.Patients’ views and readmissions 1 year after involuntary hospitalisation. Br J Psychiatry 2009;194(1):49–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rain, SD, Williams, VF, Robbins, PC, Monahan, J, Steadman, HJ, Vesselinov, RPerceived coercion at hospital admission and adherence to mental health treatment after discharge. Psychiatr Serv 2003;54(1):103–105.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sailas, E, Fenton, MSeclusion and restraint for people with serious mental illnesses. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2000;(2)CD001163Google ScholarPubMed
Srebnik, DS, La Fond, JQAdvance directives for mental health treatment. Psychiatr Serv 1999;50(7):919–925.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Steinert, T, Lepping, P, Bernhardsgrutter, R, Conca, A, Hatling, T, Janssen, W, et al.Incidence of seclusion and restraint in psychiatric hospitals: a literature review and survey of international trends. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 200910.1007/s00127-009-0132-3Google ScholarPubMed
Steinert, T, Martin, V, Baur, M, Bohnet, U, Goebel, R, Hermelink, G, et al.Diagnosis-related frequency of compulsory measures in 10 German psychiatric hospitals and correlates with hospital characteristics. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 2007;42(2):140–145.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
World Health Organisation. International Classification of Diseases 10th Edition (ICD-10). 1992.Google Scholar
Zinkler, M, Priebe, SDetention of the mentally ill in Europe--a review. Acta Psychiatr Scand 2002;106(1):3–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.