How to increase quality of care during coercive admission? A review of literature

Hooff, Susanne van den; Goossensen, Anne

doi:10.1111/scs.12070

Cited by 29 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…If patients feel that the staff’s attitude is characterised by beneficence, that the staff is honest and open [ 34 ], and they feel that their mental health is improving [ 30 ], it is more likely that they will accept the use of coercion. Based on a literature review, van den Hooff [ 35 ] finds that being listened to or not being listened to stand out as core experiences determining whether patients feel respected as a human being, or not during coercive admission. Thus, the everyday questions of how to relate in a good way, may sometimes be just as important as determining when deprivation of liberty is legitimate.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ethical challenges in connection with the use of coercion: a focus group study of health care personnel in mental health care

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundIn recent years, the attention on the use of coercion in mental health care has increased. The use of coercion is common and controversial, and involves many complex ethical challenges. The research question in this study was: What kind of ethical challenges related to the use of coercion do health care practitioners face in their daily clinical work?MethodsWe conducted seven focus group interviews in three mental health care institutions involving 65 multidisciplinary participants from different clinical fields. The interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. We analysed the material applying a ‘bricolage’ approach. Basic ethical principles for research ethics were followed. We received permission from the hospitals’ administrations and all health care professionals who participated in the focus group interviews.ResultsHealth care practitioners describe ethical dilemmas they face concerning formal, informal and perceived coercion. They provide a complex picture. They have to handle various ethical challenges, not seldom concerning questions of life and death. In every situation, the dignity of the patient is at stake when coercion is considered as morally right, as well as when coercion is not the preferred intervention. The work of the mental health professional is a complicated “moral enterprise”.The ethical challenges deserve to be identified and handled in a systematic way. This is important for developing the quality of health care, and it is relevant to the current focus on reducing the use of coercion and increasing patient participation. Precise knowledge about ethical challenges is necessary for those who want to develop ethics support in mental health care. Better communication skills among health care professionals and improved therapeutic relationships seem to be vital.ConclusionsA systematic focus on ethical challenges when dealing with coercion is an important step forward in order to improve health care in the mental health field.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ethical challenges in connection with the use of coercion: a focus group study of health care personnel in mental health care

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Over the past decade, several systematic reviews have documented the perspective of psychiatric and mental health nurses in terms of the decision-making process they engage [25], the ethical dilemmas they face [9], and the quality of care they provide in a coercive context [26]. However, few studies focusing on the provision of nursing care in a coercive context have adopted a human rights perspective [40].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Little is known about how human rights are understood, integrated into practice, and participate in the experience of the health professionals responsible for implementing these measures. In nursing, several literature reviews focus on decision-making [25], ethical challenges [9], or the quality of care provided under coercion [26]. However, to date, no systematic literature review has qualitatively synthesized the clinical relevance of human rights in psychiatric and mental health nursing practice.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nurses’ perspectives on human rights when coercion is used in psychiatry: a systematic review protocol of qualitative evidence

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The World Health Organization describes the perpetuation of human rights violations against people with mental health problems as a global emergency. Despite this observation, recent studies suggest that coercive measures, such as seclusion, restraints, involuntary hospitalization, or involuntary treatment, are steadily or increasingly being used without proof of their effectiveness. In nursing, several literature reviews have focused on understanding nurses' perspectives on the use of seclusion and restraints. Although many studies describe the ethical dilemmas faced by nurses in this context, to this date, their perspectives on patient's rights when a broad variety of coercive measures are used are not well understood. The aim of this review is to produce a qualitative synthesis of how human rights are actually integrated into psychiatric and mental health nursing practice in the context of coercive work. Methods: Noblit and Hare's meta-ethnographic approach will be used to conduct this systematic review. The search will be conducted in CINAHL, Medline, PsycINFO, ERIC, and Scopus databases, using the PICo model (Population, phenomenon of Interest, Context) and a combination of keywords and descriptors. It will be complemented by a manual search of non-indexed articles, gray literature, and other applicable data sources, such as human rights related documents. Qualitative and mixed-method study designs will be included in this review. Empirical and peer-reviewed articles published between 2008 and 2019 will be selected. Articles will be evaluated independently by two reviewers to determine their inclusion against eligibility criteria. The quality of the selected papers will then be independently evaluated by two reviewers, using the Joanna Briggs Institute's Checklist for Qualitative Research. Data extraction and content analysis will focus on first-and second-order constructs, that is, the extraction of research participants' narratives and their interpretation. Discussion: This review will provide a synthesis of how psychiatric and mental health nurses integrate human rights principles into their practice, as well as it will identify research gaps in this area. The results of this review will then provide qualitative evidence to better understand how nurses can contribute to the recognition, protection, and advocate for human rights in a psychiatric context. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO, CRD42019116862

show abstract

“…One reason that coercive measures are not necessarily perceived as negative is that they need not be associated with disrespect and not being listened to. Previous research indicates that when involuntary patients feel that they are given a chance to participate in decisions regarding their care and health professionals are genuinely interested in their well-being, they find it easier to accept compulsory treatment (19,20).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“Voluntarily Admitted Against My Will”: Patient Perspectives on Effects of, and Alternatives to, Coercion in Psychiatric Care for Self-Injury

Gerle

Fischer

Lundh

2018

Journal of Patient Experience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction:Various forms of coercion are used in the psychiatric care of patients with self-injurious behaviors, but there is little research on how these are perceived by the patients. The aim of this study was to investigate how 6 patients, who had received care for self-injurious behavior, perceived coercion and how they think coercion could be avoided.Methods:This study employed a qualitative design with 6 semistructured interviews and interpretative phenomenological analysis.Results:Three main themes were identified: keep voluntary care voluntary, apportioning control and responsibility, and dialogue and participation. Constant supervision was described as the most destructive form of coercion. To enable self-responsibility, a reduction of control and supervision was advocated. Calls were made for a treatment based on the assumption that there is a desire, on behalf of the patients, to get better.Conclusions:The use of coercion in the psychiatric care of patients with self-injurious behavior can be reduced by increasing predictability, by listening to the patient with genuine interest, and by involving the patient in decisions regarding their treatment.

show abstract

How to increase quality of care during coercive admission? A review of literature

Cited by 29 publications

References 37 publications

Ethical challenges in connection with the use of coercion: a focus group study of health care personnel in mental health care

Ethical challenges in connection with the use of coercion: a focus group study of health care personnel in mental health care

Nurses’ perspectives on human rights when coercion is used in psychiatry: a systematic review protocol of qualitative evidence

“Voluntarily Admitted Against My Will”: Patient Perspectives on Effects of, and Alternatives to, Coercion in Psychiatric Care for Self-Injury

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About