Reflecting on the Reasons Pros and Cons Coercive Measures for Patients in Psychiatric and Somatic Care: The Role of Clinical Ethics Consultation. A Pilot Study

Intersectionality as a tool for clinical ethics consultation in mental healthcare

Bioethics increasingly recognizes the impact of discriminatory practices based on social categories such as race, gender, sexual orientation or ability on clinical practice. Accordingly, major bioethics associations have stressed that identifying and countering structural discrimination in clinical ethics consultations is a professional obligation of clinical ethics consultants. Yet, it is still unclear how clinical ethics consultants can fulfill this obligation. More specifically, clinical ethics needs both theoretical tools to analyze and practical strategies to address structural discrimination within clinical ethics consultations. Intersectionality, a concept developed in Black feminist scholarship, is increasingly considered in bioethical theory. It stresses how social structures and practices determine social positions of privilege and disadvantage in multiple, mutually co-constitutive systems of oppression. This article aims to investigate how intersectionality can contribute to addressing structural discrimination in clinical ethics consultations with a particular focus on mental healthcare. To this end, we critically review existing approaches for clinical ethics consultants to address structural racism in clinical ethics consultations and extend them by intersectional considerations. We argue that intersectionality is a suitable tool to address structural discrimination within clinical ethics consultations and show that it can be practically implemented in two complementary ways: 1) as an analytic approach and 2) as a critical practice.

Ethical Issues in Clinical Decision-Making about Involuntary Psychiatric Treatment: A Scoping Review

In mental health and psychiatric care, the use of involuntary psychiatric treatment for people with mental disorders is still a central and contentious issue. The main objective of this scoping review was to map and systematize the literature on ethical issues in clinical decision-making about involuntary psychiatric treatment. Five databases (Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Medline, and Scopus) were searched for articles on this topic. Out of a total of 342 articles found, 35 studies from 14 countries were included based on the selection criteria. The articles were analyzed using the inductive content analysis approach. The following main categories were identified: (1) ethical foundations that guide clinical decision-making; (2) criteria for involuntary psychiatric treatment; (3) gaps, barriers, and risks associated with involuntary psychiatric treatment; (4) strategies used to reduce, replace, and improve the negative impact of involuntary treatment; and (5) evidence-based recommendations. Most of the selected articles discuss the logic underlying involuntary treatment of the mentally ill, exploring ethical principles such as autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, or justice, as well as how these should be properly balanced. During the process of involuntary psychiatric admission, there was a notable absence of effective communication and a significant power imbalance that disenfranchised those seeking services. This disparity was further intensified by professionals who often use coercive measures without a clear decision-making rationale and by family members who strongly depend on hospital admission. Due to the pluralistic and polarized nature of opinions regarding legal capacity and the complexity and nuance of involuntary admission, further studies should be context-specific and based on co-production and participatory research.

Post‐incident debriefing for people with schizophrenia after coercive measures

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows:

To investigate the effects of post‐incident debriefing after coercive measures for people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia‐type psychosis.

Five autopsy reports of rib fractures in the mental hospital of Reggio Emilia (1874-5): pathogenesis proposal in defence of the 'non-restraint' system

At the end of the nineteenth century, recurrent cases of rib fractures were recorded in psychiatric asylums, opening a long chapter of discussions about the application of the 'non-restraint' system. Here we present a brief discussion of an article written by Enrico Morselli about five cases of rib fractures in the mental asylum of Reggio Emilia, in 1874-5. Morselli, a supporter of the ideas of 'non-restraint', suggested a common pathological cause. His analysis proposed the osteomalacic condition as the possible cause of fractured ribs, rejecting the accusations of violence by asylum attendants. The discussion also examines similar cases of the same period, making rib fractures the means through which the issue of management of the insane was addressed.

[Coercion in psychiatry: practical consequences of ethical aspects]

Im Rahmen der rechtlichen und ethischen Voraussetzungen und Verfahren der Anwendung von Zwang in der Psychiatrie wird die Perspektive der Abwendung, also die Prävention zur Vermeidung von Zwang beleuchtet. Zwang ist ausschließlich bei Selbstbestimmungsunfähigkeit und unmittelbarer konkreter Lebensgefährdung zulässig. Praktische Schwierigkeiten bei der Feststellung dieser Kriterien werden kasuistisch illustriert. Verfahren zur Vermeidung von Zwang (Vorausverfügungen, vertrauensbildende Maßnahmen, Erkennung von Kontexteinflüssen, Sensibilisierung gegenüber Zwang) zielen ebenso wie die Präzisierung von Indikation und Kontrolle der Anwendung von Zwang und ein Einstellungswandel hin zur Entscheidungsassistenz darauf, die Respektierung des Selbstbestimmungsrechtes des psychisch Kranken zu stärken – und damit den Konflikt des Psychiaters zwischen Fürsorgepflicht und Respektierung des Selbstbestimmungsrechtes des Patienten in ein faires Gleichgewicht zu bringen.

Coercive Measures in Psychiatry: A Review of Ethical Arguments

Introduction: Coercion is frequent in clinical practice, particularly in psychiatry. Since it overrides some fundamental rights of patients (notably their liberty of movement and decision-making), adequate use of coercion requires legal and ethical justifications. In this article, we map out the ethical elements used in the literature to justify or reject the use of coercive measures limiting freedom of movement (seclusion, restraint, involuntary hospitalization) and highlight some important issues. Methods: We conducted a narrative review of the literature by searching the PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Google Scholar and Cairn.info databases with the keywords "coercive/compulsory measures/care/treatment, coercion, seclusion, restraint, mental health, psychiatry, involuntary/compulsory hospitalization/admission, ethics, legitimacy." We collected all ethically relevant elements used in the author's justifications for or against coercive measures limiting freedom of movement (e.g., values, rights, practical considerations, relevant feelings, expected attitudes, risks of side effects), and coded, and ordered them into categories. Results: Some reasons provided in the literature are presented as justifying an absolute prohibition on coercion; they rely on the view that some fundamental rights, such as autonomy, are non-negotiable. Most ethically relevant elements, however, can be used in a balanced weighting of reasons to favor or reject coercive measures in certain circumstances. Professionals mostly agree that coercion is only legitimate in exceptional circumstances, when the infringement of some values (e.g., freedom of movement, short-term autonomy) is the only means to fulfill other, more important values and goals (e.g., patient's safety, the long-term rebuilding of patient's identity and autonomy). The results of evaluations vary according to which moral elements are prioritized over others. Moreover, we found numerous considerations (e.g., conditions, procedural values) for how to ensure that clinicians apply fair decision-making procedures related to coercion. Based on this analysis, we highlight vital topics that need further development. Conclusion: Before using coercive measures limiting freedom of movement, clinicians should consider and weigh all ethically pertinent elements in the situation and actively search for alternatives that are more respectful of patient's well-being and rights. Coercive measures decided upon after a transparent, carefully balanced evaluation process are more likely to be adequate, understood, and accepted by patients and caregivers.

Prevention and management of aggressive behaviour in patients at psychiatric hospitals: a document analysis of clinical practice guidelines in Hong Kong

Patient aggressive behaviour remains a significant public health concern worldwide. The use of restraint and seclusion remains a last resort but not an uncommon practice in clinical psychiatry in the management of aggressive events. There seems to be a paucity of evidenced-based research examining the policy framework guiding the use of restraint and seclusion in Asia contexts. The purpose of this study was to conduct an analysis on the guidelines in psychiatric hospitals in Hong Kong, and to explore the extent to which these guidelines were aligned with the international clinical guidelines for the prevention and management of patient aggression in psychiatry. A descriptive document analysis was used to analyse the guidelines from four psychiatric hospitals in Hong Kong in comparison with the NICE (National Institute of Health and Care Excellence UK) guidelines. Data were collected from December 2017 to June 2018. A total of 91 written documents were retrieved. Preventing violence and aggression has the highest level of agreement (31%,) while the use of restrictive interventions has the lowest level of agreement (12%). The sub-recommendation with most in line with the NICE guidelines were restrictive interventions, de-escalation, and improving service users' experiences. However, for example, staff training, working with police, and reduced use of restrictive interventions seemed to have no agreement with the NICE guidelines. Variation exists between the Asian (Hong Kong) local policy framework/guidelines and the European (UK) national policy framework. There are also large discrepancies in the written guidelines on patient aggressive behaviour when comparing local policy frameworks, cluster-based documents, and departmental practices.

Addressing harm in moral case deliberation: the views and experiences of facilitators

BACKGROUND

In healthcare practice, care providers are confronted with decisions they have to make, directly affecting patients and inevitably harmful. These decisions are tragic by nature. This study investigates the role of Moral Case Deliberation (MCD) in dealing with tragic situations. In MCD, caregivers reflect on real-life dilemmas, involving a choice between two ethical claims, both resulting in moral damage and harm. One element of the reflection process is making explicit the harm involved in the choice. How harmful are our decisions? We investigated how facilitators of MCD experience the importance of addressing harm in MCD and what participants learn from reflecting on harm.

METHODS

The study was qualitative, focusing on the views and experiences of the facilitators of MCD. Semi-structured interviews (N = 12) were conducted with facilitators of MCD. The research focuses on the subjective experiences of facilitators. Grounded Theory was used for analysis.

RESULTS

The results show two main categories. The first concerns the awareness of tragedy. Within this category, five themes were discerned: making explicit that there is no solution, visualizing consequences, uncovering pain, focusing on emotion, and exploring perspectives on harm. The second category concerns the support for healthcare professionals in dealing with the tragedy of the choices they face. In this category, five themes came forward: acknowledging, offering comfort, managing harm, consideration through dialogue and repairing harm.

CONCLUSION

Our study shows that addressing harm in MCD in tragic situations provides an important moral learning opportunity for participants. By formulating and becoming aware of harm, MCD aids healthcare professionals in the task they are faced with, namely making difficult and painful choices. MCD helps healthcare professionals to repair moral damage, making clear at the same time that harm cannot be undone.

Clinical Ethics Support Services Are Not as Well-Established in Forensic Psychiatry as in General Psychiatry

Background: Mental health care professionals deal with complex ethical dilemmas that involve the principles of autonomy, justice, beneficence, and non-maleficence. Such dilemmas are even more prominent in forensic mental health care, where the restriction of personal rights is legitimated not only by patient well-being but also by public safety interests. Little is known about either the use of formal ethics support services or specific ethical needs in forensic mental health care. Knowledge about the current structures and how they compare with those in general psychiatry would help to identify the most important ethical issues and to analyze whether there are unmet needs that might require specific ethics support. Methods: We performed a survey study in all general psychiatric and forensic psychiatric inpatient departments in Germany. The aims were to compare the availability and functioning of clinical ethics structures and to identify specific ethical needs in inpatient forensic and general mental health care. Results: Clinical ethics support was available in 74% of general psychiatric hospitals but in only 43% of all forensic psychiatric hospitals and 25% of those offering treatment for offenders with substance use disorders. Most ethics support services were interdisciplinary. The most frequently requested retrospective and prospective ethics consultations were on issues of omission and termination of treatment, coercive measures, and advance directives. Among the hospitals without access to ethics support, 71% indicated a need for training in ethics. Discussion: Our results show that ethics consultation is well established in general psychiatry, but less so in forensic psychiatry. Mental health care professionals in forensic psychiatry seem to have a need for ethics support and training in clinical ethics. We also found a difference in access to ethics structures between hospitals that treat mentally disordered offenders and those that treat offenders with substance use disorders. Further research should focus on how ethics support can be comprehensively implemented in forensic mental health care and how this might improve treatment quality and patient and staff well-being.