CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 53Healthcare Decision-Making and RestraintsPsychiatric care and mental health servicesElectroconvulsive Therapy Studies

Who is Subjected to Coercive Measures as a Psychiatric Inpatient? A Multi-Level Analysis

Open access
Flammer, E, Steinert, T, Eisele, F, Bergk, J, Uhlmann, C·2013·Clinical Practice & Epidemiology in Mental Health
DOI 10.2174/1745017901309010110PMC PMC3744855
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Background: For a reduction in the use of coercive interventions it will be necessary to identify patients at risk. The aim of this study was to explore the impact of basic patient characteristics at admission, history within 24 hours before admission, and living conditions on the risk of experiencing coercive measures, controlling for ward characteristics in a multi-level approach. Methods: Patient characteristics of 3389 patients (1920 women) who had received inpatient treatment in 2007, data relating to coercive measures, and ward characteristics were extracted from the clinical basic documentation. Results: Patients with aggressive behaviour in the 24 hours prior to admission had a three times higher risk of coercive measures compared to non-aggressive patients. Severity of illness increased the risk of coercion markedly. With each level of severity, the risk of coercion was doubled. Voluntariness of stay appeared to be the best protective factor against coercive measures. If a patient stayed voluntarily, this reduced the risk of coercion by more than two thirds. No impact was found for living conditions. Conclusions: To identify patients at risk, it is most important to intensively monitor patients with aggressive behaviour prior to admission and patients with a greater severity of psychopathological symptoms.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2174/1745017901309010110

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 25

  1. [1]Fisher WA Restraint and seclusion: A review of the literature Am J Psychiatry 1994 151 1585 91 7943445
  2. [2]Sailas E Wahlbeck K Restraint and seclusion in psychiatric inpatient wards Curr Opin Psychiatry 2005 18 555 9 16639118
  3. [3]Way BB Banks SM Use of seclusion and restraint in public psychiatric hospitals: patient characteristics and facility effects Hosp Community Psychiatry 1990 41 75 81 2295482
  4. [4]Crenshaw WB Cane KA An updated national survey on seclusion and restraint Psychiatry Serv 1997 48 395 7 9057246
  5. [5]Needham I Abderhalden C Dassen T Coercive procedures and facilities in Swiss Psychiatry Swiss Med Wkly 2002 132 253 8 12148079
  6. [6]Kallert TW Glöckner M Onchev G The EUNOMIA project on coercion in psychiatry: Study design and preliminary data World Psychiatry 2005 4 168 72 16633543 PMC1414770
  7. [7]Martin V Bernhardsgrütter R Goebel R Steinert T The use of mechanical restraint and seclusion in patients with schizophrenia: A comparison of the practice in Germany and Switzerland Clin Pract Epidemiol Ment Health 2007 3 1 17274830 PMC1797172
  8. [8]Steinert T Martin V Baur M Diagnosis-related frequency of compulsory measures in 10 German psychiatric hospitals and correlates with hospital characteristics Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 2007 42 140 5 17180296
  9. [9]Husum TL Bjorngaard JH Finset A Ruud T A cross-sectional prospective study of seclusion, restraint and involuntary medication in acute psychiatric wards: Patient, staff and ward characteristics BMC Health Serv Res 2010 10 89 20370928 PMC2858144
  10. [11]Niveau G Preventing human rights abuses in psychiatric establishments: The work of the CPT Eur Psychiatry 2004 19 146 54 15158921
  11. [12]Curie CG SAMHSA’s commitment to eliminating the use of seclusion and restraint Psychiatry Serv 2005 56 1139 40 16148330
  12. [15]Huckshorn KA Re-designing state mental health policy to prevent the use of seclusion and restraint Adm Policy Ment Health 2006 33 482 91 16244812
  13. [18]Richter D Richter D Whittington D Non-physical conflict management and de-escalation Violence in mental health settings: Causes, consequences, management 2006 New York Springer 125 44
  14. [19]Richter D Needham I Kunz S Richter D Whittington D The effects of aggression management trainings for mental health care and disability care staff: A systematic review Violence in mental health settings: Causes, consequences, management 2006 New York Springer 211 27
  15. [20]Krumm S Becker T User involvement in mental health services research Psychiatr Prax 2006 33 59 66 16502383
  16. [21]Trivedi P Wykes T From passive subjects to equal partners: Qualitative review of user involvement in research Br J Psychiatry 2002 181 468 72 12456515
  17. [22]Kumar S Ranclaud M Robinson E Ward crowding and incidents of violence on an acute psychiatric inpatient unit Psychiatry Serv 2001 52 521 5 11274500
  18. [23]Abderhalden C Hahn S Bonner YDB Galeazzi GM Richter D Whittington D Users' perceptions and views on violence and coercion in mental health Violence in mental health settings: Causes, consequences, management 2006 New York Springer 69 92
  19. [24]Bergk J Flammer E Steinert T “Coercion Experience Scale” (CES) - validation of a questionnaire on coercive measures BMC Psychiatry 2010 10 5 20074355 PMC2837616
  20. [25]Steinert T Lepping P Legal provisions and practice in the management of violent patients. A case vignette study in 16 European countries Eur Psychiatry 2009 24 135 41 18455912
  21. [26]Steinert T Richter D Whittington D Prediction of violence in in-patient settings Violence in mental health settings: Causes, consequences, management 2006 New York Springer 111 23
  22. [27]Wynn R Staff’s attitudes to the use of restraint and seclusion in a Norwegian university hospital Nord J Psychiatry 2003 57 453 9 14630551
  23. [28]Whittington R Richter D Richter D Whittington D From the individual to the interpersonal: Environment and interaction in the escalation of violence in mental health settings Violence in mental health settings: Causes, consequences, management 2006 New York Springer 47 65
  24. [30]Jaeger S Flammer E Steinert T Psychiatric basic documentation in practice: How reliable is the data? Psychiatr Prax 2011 38 244 9 21598208
  25. [31]Virtanen M Vahtera J Batty GD Overcrowding in psychiatric wards and physical assaults on staff: Data-linked longitudinal study Br J Psychiatry 2011 198 149 55 21282786

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Flammer, E., Steinert, T., Eisele, F., Bergk, J., & Uhlmann, C.
Affiliations
Zentrum für Psychiatrie Südwürttemberg (DE)
Corresponding author
Eisele, F
ORCID
Venue
Clinical Practice & Epidemiology in Mental Health
Publisher
Bentham Science Publishers Ltd.
Published
2013-07-12
Volume
9
Issue
1
Pages
110-119
ISSN
1745-0179 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.2174/1745017901309010110
PMC
PMC3744855
OpenAlex
W2076170526
Cited by
53
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 6 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1
FWCI
4.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Clinical Practice and Epidemiology in Mental Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Healthcare Decision-Making and Restraints
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychiatric care and mental health services
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Electroconvulsive Therapy Studies
Keywords
coercive measures, psychiatric inpatients, risk factors, aggression, disease severity, voluntary admission, living conditions, patient characteristics, risk identification

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review