Use of Coercive Measures in a Psychiatric Intensive Care Unit in Slovenia

This is the accepted version of the paper.This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. Methods: A cross-sectional design was adopted. The Attitudes to Containment Measures Questionnaire (ACMQ) was completed by 1,361 service users and 1,226 staff in acute care mental health services from three regions of England. This provided evaluation of eleven coercive measures (e.g. seclusion) on six dimensions of approval (e.g. indignity, safety) in a large national sample. Comparisons between groups were tested using independent samples t-tests, χ 2 or Spearman correlations. Permanent repository linkResults: Both service users and staff disapproved strongly of mechanical restraint and expressed a relative preference for compulsory intramuscular medication and seclusion. Male staff, older service users and staff who had been involved in implementing coercion expressed greater approval of coercive measures.Conclusion: Mechanical restraint remains highly objectionable to staff and service users in English mental health services despite its widespread acceptance elsewhere in the world.

show abstract

Developing a perspective on restraint and the least intrusive intervention

Paterson

2006

Br J Nurs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article explores contemporary practice in the use of restraint in the light of recent European Council Guidance endorsing the principles of least restrictive environment/least intrusive intervention. Violence is a source of concern in many European mental health services but approaches to its immediate management continue to display remarkable diversity reflecting the adoption of differing perspectives on what constitutes 'least intrusiveness'. This article examines the basis for practice in terms of the range of procedures available, reviews the literature on restraint safety and presents a model based on the concept of reasonableness which can be used to evaluate whether a given intervention meets the European guidance. Current practice across Europe is largely a function of tradition and local values rather then evidence based. Collaborative large-scale studies are required to determine the relative risks of the range of interventions in use such that practice is informed by evidence rather than opinion.

show abstract

Use of Coercive Measures in a Psychiatric Intensive Care Unit in Slovenia

Cited by 3 publications

References 5 publications

Freiheitsbeschränkende und freiheitsentziehende Maßnahmen

Freiheitsbeschränkende und freiheitsentziehende Maßnahmen

Approval Ratings of Inpatient Coercive Interventions in a National Sample of Mental Health Service Users and Staff in England

Developing a perspective on restraint and the least intrusive intervention

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About