Contextual factors influencing the use of coercive measures in Portuguese mental health care

A Scoping Review on Staff Attitudes towards the Use of Coercion in Mental Healthcare

Attitudes of mental health professionals towards the use of coercion are highly relevant concerning its use coercion in mental healthcare, as mental health professionals have to weigh ethical arguments and decide within a legal frame in which situations to use coercion or not. Therefore, assessment of those attitudes is relevant for research in this field. A vital instrument to measure those attitudes towards the use of coercion is the Staff Attitude to Coercion Scale. This scoping review aims to provide a structured overview of the advantages and limitations in the assessment of attitudes toward coercion. We conducted a scoping review in Medline, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Web of Science, based on the PRISMA-ScR. Inclusion criteria were empirical studies on the attitudes of mental health professionals. We included 80 studies and systematically mapped data about the main results and limitations in assessing attitudes toward coercion. The main results highlighted the relevance and increased interest in staff attitudes towards coercion in mental healthcare. Still, the majority of the included studies relied on a variety of different concepts and definitions concerning attitudes. The data further indicated difficulties in developing new and adapting existing assessment instruments because of the equivocal definitions of underlying concepts. To improve the research and knowledge in this area, future studies should be based on solid theoretical foundations. We identified the need for methodological changes and standardized procedures that take into account existing evidence from attitude research in social psychology, nursing science, and other relevant research fields. This would include an update of the Staff Attitude to Coercion Scale based on the limitations identified in this review.

Coercion in Psychiatry: Exploring the Subjective Experience of Coercion Among Patients in Five Portuguese Psychiatric Departments

The subjective experience of coercion may have a more significant impact on clinical outcomes than formal coercive measures. This study aimed to investigate the subjective experience of coercion among patients on admission in Portuguese psychiatric departments by assessing their perceived coercion, procedural justice, and negative pressures during admission. The study also investigated whether this subjective experience of coercion changed with time during admission, and the predictors of this change. Validated instruments, including the McArthur Admission Experience Survey (AES) and the Client Assessment of Treatment Scale, were used to collect information from 208 adults admitted to five public psychiatric inpatient departments in rural and urban regions of Portugal. About a third (32.24%, n = 49) of the sample had a legal involuntary admission status, while more than a third of them perceived their admission to be involuntary (40.13%, n = 61). The subjective experience of coercion was significantly higher among people who perceived their admission to be involuntary compared to people who perceived their admission to be voluntary (Median = 10, IQR = 5.5 vs. Median = 3, IQR = 6; p < 0.001). Satisfaction with their care was significantly inversely correlated with the subjective experience of coercion (p < 0.01). The changes in the subjective experience of coercion at the second assessment were predicted by the perceived admission status rather than the legal admission status, and the initial procedural justice (p < 0.05). The study findings highlight the importance of improving procedural justice in psychiatric admissions, regardless of the legal status of admission.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the use of restraint and seclusion interventions in Ontario emergency departments: A population-based study

While COVID-19 impacted all aspects of health care and patient treatment, particularly for patients with mental health/substance use (MH/SU) concerns, research has suggested a concerning increase in the use of restraint and seclusion (R/S) interventions, although results vary depending on facility type and patient population. Thus, the present study sought to explore COVID-related changes in the use of R/S interventions among patients presenting to Ontario emergency departments (EDs) with MH/SU complaints. To determine whether temporal and clinical factors were associated with changes in R/S use during COVID, binary logistic regression models were computed using data from the National Ambulatory Care Reporting System database. We then compared both prevalence rates and probability of an R/S event occurring during an ED visit in Ontario before and after the onset of COVID. The number of ED visits during which an R/S event occurred for patients presenting with MH/SU concerns increased by 9.5%, while their odds of an R/S event occurring during an ED visit increased by 23% in Ontario after COVID onset. Similarly, R/S event probability increased for patients presenting with MH/SU concerns after COVID onset (0.7% - 21.3% increase), particularly during the first wave, with the greatest increases observed for concerns associated with increased restraint risk pre-COVID. R/S intervention use increased substantially for patients presenting to Ontario EDs with MH/SU concerns during the first wave of COVID when the strain on healthcare system and uncertainty about the virus was arguably greatest. Patients with concerns already associated with increased R/S risk also showed the largest increases in R/S probability, suggesting increased behavioural issues during treatment among this population after COVID onset. These results have the potential to inform existing policies to mitigate risks associated with R/S intervention use during future public health emergencies and in general practice.